The standard in a civil court case is "more likely than not."
A jury does don't need direct "smoking gun" evidence to find that something happened more likely than not. Circumstantial evidence is enough.
Applying that standard here, the question is: was it more likely than not that in his telephone conversations with the athlete's father just before and immediately after she entered the portal, Brosnan and her father discussed her entering the portal/transferring to UCLA?
I guess they could have been discussing the Dodgers, but you'd have to check your common sense at the door to think that they didn't talk about what would have been front and center on their minds.
That's not right at all.
The issue would be the NCAA's reasoning: Can they prohibit people from having social contact with longtime friends, simply because those friends have kids who are potential recruits? That's an interesting question, and I wouldn't assume it's an easy win for the NCAA.
On the other hand, if the NCAA had determined, as a factual matter, that tampering happened, then Brosnan would have a very hard case. They still wouldn't be relitigating whether it happened; a court would review the NCAA's determination with extreme deference.
Umm, the NCAA actually DID conclude as a factual matter that Brosnan committed tampered violations.
In fact, that's why the report emphasizes all the evidence about the very close proximity in time between the athlete entering the portal and Brosnan's and the father's telephone calls. They were talking to each other on the phone in the minutes immediately before and immediately after the athlete entered the portal.
Brosnan lost his appeal because he couldn't show that there was no evidence to support the NCAA's conclusion that he tampered.
He's almost certainly going to lose if he decides to challenge the NCAA's tampering decision in civil court because the timing of the his phone calls with the father is very strong circumstantial evidence that they were discussing the athlete entering the portal/transferring to UCLA. No rational juror look is going to look at the timing of the phone calls and conclude that Brosnan was chit-chatting only about the weather.
In addition, the fact that both prospective student-athletes transferred to other institutions after Mr. Brosnan’s departure further supports the reasonableness of the hearing panel’s determination.
I don't really understand how this adds much to their case although I understand that their case is already rock solid from everything else.
If I transferred to a school and the coach got fired for NCAA violations and the school was waiting on sanctions as a result, why would I be obligated to stay? They were going to have an interim, cheap, inexperienced coach for at least season, recruiting was going to be dry for the same amount of time if not longer (meaning bad practice partners and bad XC team) if they stayed at UCLA. And who's to say they wouldn't have gotten tangled up in administration drama for being tangentially involved in UCLA as a whole getting sanctioned.
It was better for both sides that they immediately transferred out to new schools regardless of Brosnan's absence potentially being a catalyst. Not having a coach at all is a bigger factor of them leaving.
It adds a lot to their case. The recruits both claimed they transferred to UCLA because they were homesick and wanted to be closer to their families who were battling serious illnesses. They said Brosnan had nothing to do with their decision.
If their original story was true about why they chose UCLA, then they would have stayed at UCLA instead of going extremely far from their families to Oregon after Brosnan left.
And then talk again 3 minutes after their kid entered the portal? Imagine that, 2 calls within 16 minutes of each other, with that guy's daughter entering the portal during the 16 minute period they were off the phone. Wow, what a coincidence!
Three minutes after an athlete enters the transfer portal, they are eligible to be contacted. That is exactly how the system is designed to work. Once an athlete is in the portal, communication is permitted. Suggesting otherwise is simply false. What you cannot do legally or otherwise, is claim that a person is prohibited from speaking with someone on the phone because of their job. That notion is absurd and against federal and state law. Under that logic, every coach in the NCAA would be guilty of “tampering” simply for having friends, former athletes, or families they know at other schools. That is not how the law works. Brosnan appealed because he is required to exhaust all administrative remedies before pursuing further legal action. That is standard procedure in any case involving the NCAA. And history shows that when these matters actually reach a courtroom, the NCAA loses the overwhelming majority of the time. Courts operate on evidence and law, not speculation or institutional narratives. The NCAA itself acknowledged several critical facts: Brosnan never contacted the student-athletes prior to their entry into the portal. Every party involved including the athletes and their parents stated that no discussion about transferring took place beforehand. The NCAA found zero text messages, emails, or documented communications suggesting tampering. In other words, there is no evidence. Legally, the burden of proof rests entirely with the NCAA. If they cannot produce evidence of tampering, then the allegation collapses. That is not opinion, that is basic due process. I’m not a California attorney, but I am a lawyer in another state, and I can tell you this much, if Brosnan ultimately takes the NCAA to court and prevails, the financial exposure for the NCAA could be enormous. When an organization makes allegations without evidence and damages someone’s career in the process, the consequences in civil court can be very real. Strip away the noise and the facts remain simple, no tampering, no evidence, no case.
If Brosnan sues, the NCAA can subpoena EVERYTHING. They would be given access to every phone call and text message that Brosnan did not voluntarily turn over. Did he text Nico congrats after a race while Nico was at NAU? That would be another violation.
They can access his wife's full phone records to see if she was talking to recruits. They can access Brosnan's entire call history to see if he actually spoke to those fathers regularly in the years leading up to this to prove they actually were friends, or did the calls just start when he got the UCLA job?
They can even pull up the transcript of Brosnan's entire phone conversations with those parents to see exactly what they discussed. Yes, the phone companies keep that info.
When the parents and recruits are questioned under oath and facing potential perjury charges if they lie, will their answers be the same?
If he has such a good case, and if he has nothing else to hide in the discovery process, then Brosnan should sue.
And then talk again 3 minutes after their kid entered the portal? Imagine that, 2 calls within 16 minutes of each other, with that guy's daughter entering the portal during the 16 minute period they were off the phone. Wow, what a coincidence!
Three minutes after an athlete enters the transfer portal, they are eligible to be contacted. That is exactly how the system is designed to work. Once an athlete is in the portal, communication is permitted. Suggesting otherwise is simply false. What you cannot do legally or otherwise, is claim that a person is prohibited from speaking with someone on the phone because of their job. That notion is absurd and against federal and state law. Under that logic, every coach in the NCAA would be guilty of “tampering” simply for having friends, former athletes, or families they know at other schools. That is not how the law works. Brosnan appealed because he is required to exhaust all administrative remedies before pursuing further legal action. That is standard procedure in any case involving the NCAA. And history shows that when these matters actually reach a courtroom, the NCAA loses the overwhelming majority of the time. Courts operate on evidence and law, not speculation or institutional narratives. The NCAA itself acknowledged several critical facts: Brosnan never contacted the student-athletes prior to their entry into the portal. Every party involved including the athletes and their parents stated that no discussion about transferring took place beforehand. The NCAA found zero text messages, emails, or documented communications suggesting tampering. In other words, there is no evidence. Legally, the burden of proof rests entirely with the NCAA. If they cannot produce evidence of tampering, then the allegation collapses. That is not opinion, that is basic due process. I’m not a California attorney, but I am a lawyer in another state, and I can tell you this much, if Brosnan ultimately takes the NCAA to court and prevails, the financial exposure for the NCAA could be enormous. When an organization makes allegations without evidence and damages someone’s career in the process, the consequences in civil court can be very real. Strip away the noise and the facts remain simple, no tampering, no evidence, no case.
Two of Brosnan’s 11 phone calls with prospect 1’s father occurred at 10:25 p.m. and 11:07 p.m. on December 11, 2022, the night before prospect 1 entered the portal. Prospect 1’s father initiated both calls. Brosnan then initiated a phone call to prospect 1’s father the following day. The call concluded 13 minutes before prospect 1 entered the portal. Prospect 1’s father then called Brosnan three minutes after prospect 1 entered the portal.
Do not pretend they were not discussing transferring.
And then talk again 3 minutes after their kid entered the portal? Imagine that, 2 calls within 16 minutes of each other, with that guy's daughter entering the portal during the 16 minute period they were off the phone. Wow, what a coincidence!
Three minutes after an athlete enters the transfer portal, they are eligible to be contacted. That is exactly how the system is designed to work. Once an athlete is in the portal, communication is permitted.
Pretending that a coach was on the phone with a parent on both sides of a student athlete entering the portal without any prior recruiting talk going on is complete nonsense and you know it.
The October response lays it out pretty clearly: the phone records show conversations with longtime family friends relationships that predated UCLA. Both fathers testified he refused to discuss transfers and said, “I can’t talk about that until she’s in the portal.” There’s no text, no offer, no scholarship discussion, no inducement.
The only alleged “recruiting” statement is secondhand recollection.
What's not "secondhand recollection" is the fact that prior to the date the first woman entered the transfer portal Brosnan was advertising that two college women had agreed to transfer to UCLA. I heard him say that with my own ears.
So stop already with all your stupid BS about Brosnan not recruiting runners until after they were in the transfer portal.
I don't really understand how this adds much to their case although I understand that their case is already rock solid from everything else.
If I transferred to a school and the coach got fired for NCAA violations and the school was waiting on sanctions as a result, why would I be obligated to stay? They were going to have an interim, cheap, inexperienced coach for at least season, recruiting was going to be dry for the same amount of time if not longer (meaning bad practice partners and bad XC team) if they stayed at UCLA. And who's to say they wouldn't have gotten tangled up in administration drama for being tangentially involved in UCLA as a whole getting sanctioned.
It was better for both sides that they immediately transferred out to new schools regardless of Brosnan's absence potentially being a catalyst. Not having a coach at all is a bigger factor of them leaving.
It adds a lot to their case. The recruits both claimed they transferred to UCLA because they were homesick and wanted to be closer to their families who were battling serious illnesses. They said Brosnan had nothing to do with their decision.
If their original story was true about why they chose UCLA, then they would have stayed at UCLA instead of going extremely far from their families to Oregon after Brosnan left.
Three minutes after an athlete enters the transfer portal, they are eligible to be contacted. That is exactly how the system is designed to work. Once an athlete is in the portal, communication is permitted.
Pretending that a coach was on the phone with a parent on both sides of a student athlete entering the portal without any prior recruiting talk going on is complete nonsense and you know it.
Obviously.
One thing I've never understood -- whether it's Shelby or this guy or the D3 kid -- at what point do you actually start to believe that you didn't do anything wrong?
I just can't really wrap my head about the sociopathy. Not saying anything, that's one thing. But to fight it, for years, when you're so obviously guilty -- why?
What you cannot do legally or otherwise, is claim that a person is prohibited from speaking with someone on the phone because of their job. That notion is absurd and against federal and state law. Under that logic, every coach in the NCAA would be guilty of “tampering” simply for having friends, former athletes, or families they know at other schools. That is not how the law works. Brosnan appealed because he is required to exhaust all administrative remedies before pursuing further legal action. That is standard procedure in any case involving the NCAA. And history shows that when these matters actually reach a courtroom, the NCAA loses the overwhelming majority of the time. Courts operate on evidence and law, not speculation or institutional narratives. ....
I’m not a California attorney, but I am a lawyer in another state, and I can tell you this much, if Brosnan ultimately takes the NCAA to court and prevails, the financial exposure for the NCAA could be enormous. When an organization makes allegations without evidence and damages someone’s career in the process, the consequences in civil court can be very real. Strip away the noise and the facts remain simple, no tampering, no evidence, no case.
Sean, if I type on Bloomberg chat "call me on my personal cell" to a counterparty, Compliance is going to be knocking on the door in 15 minutes for a friendly chat. I can't just split the bill when going out to drinks with a friend who's at a relevant regulatory agency, because his might cost more than mine and that's a prohibited gift; heaven help me if we get into Ex Parte communications on an active proceeding.
The NCAA mostly seems to lose in court because of antitrust law. You'd probably be better off arguing that you absolutely tampered but interfering with that is anticompetitive behavior by the NCAA.
The whole "I'm totally a lawyer and he's going to get a big settlement" - comedy gold too!
But can you call just for a social call 13 minutes before their kid enters the portal? I'm sure they were just catching up.
And then talk again 3 minutes after their kid entered the portal? Imagine that, 2 calls within 16 minutes of each other, with that guy's daughter entering the portal during the 16 minute period they were off the phone. Wow, what a coincidence!
Whether the NCAA could have concluded that tampering happened, based on timing, is not at issue. The NCAA did not. It found a violation on the basis of mere contact, concluding that it doesn't matter that there was a prior relationship or that they didn't talk about recruiting. The NCAA is going to have to defend that reasoning.
And then talk again 3 minutes after their kid entered the portal? Imagine that, 2 calls within 16 minutes of each other, with that guy's daughter entering the portal during the 16 minute period they were off the phone. Wow, what a coincidence!
Strip away the noise and the facts remain simple, no tampering, no evidence, no case.
"strip away the noise".......I was just reading Brosnan's LRC interview on his departure from UCLA and he actually used the same expression using the word "noise" to mean distractions or outside voices.
“Nothing was found. I’m 100% confident in that … There were no violations,” said Brosnan. “In my head, I think they are just over it … We’re an Olympic sport and schools don’t want to hear any noise.”
A quick google search shows this is an expression that Brosnan uses very frequently.
"“He was always very focused internally on what he was doing,” Lex said. “When it came to the message boards, he always said a lot of that stuff was noise and a lot of it wasn’t valid, and you shouldn’t take it seriously.”"
Former Newbury Park High star Nico Young is a favorite to win an individual title when he and Northern Arizona cross-country runners try to defend NCAA team title.
Strip away the noise and the facts remain simple, no tampering, no evidence, no case.
"strip away the noise".......I was just reading Brosnan's LRC interview on his departure from UCLA and he actually used the same expression using the word "noise" to mean distractions or outside voices.
“Nothing was found. I’m 100% confident in that … There were no violations,” said Brosnan. “In my head, I think they are just over it … We’re an Olympic sport and schools don’t want to hear any noise.”
A quick google search shows this is an expression that Brosnan uses very frequently.
"“He was always very focused internally on what he was doing,” Lex said. “When it came to the message boards, he always said a lot of that stuff was noise and a lot of it wasn’t valid, and you shouldn’t take it seriously.”"
This is clear as day. What people on here don’t realize is that they’re only seeing the NCAA’s announcement. The NCAA is notorious for presenting a one-sided narrative. They know they don’t have any tampering evidence, so they frame things in a way that supports their story. At the end of the day, Brosnan doubled down for a reason. UCLA compliance told him it was permissible to speak with parents when there was a pre-existing relationship, and his head coach told him the same thing (all on record ) The case even references a parent calling him to discuss his wife’s cancer. Of course we don’t see the full transcripts of those conversations, because if we did, the NCAA’s narrative would probably fall apart. Every coach in the country has relationships with families who have kids at other NCAA schools. I’m at a Division II program and even I have friends whose sons or daughters compete at other NCAA institutions. That’s normal in this sport or any sport. What makes this case even more ridiculous is that the NCAA couldn’t find a single email or text message showing tampering. Not one. On top of that, the athletes were on full scholarships at their previous schools and received zero scholarship money at UCLA. That alone undermines the idea that there was some kind of inducement. Just like the lawyer who posted here said, I hope Brosnan takes the NCAA to court. If he does, the NCAA will likely get buried. It would just be another loss in a long line of losses for them when these cases actually face real legal scrutiny.
And then talk again 3 minutes after their kid entered the portal? Imagine that, 2 calls within 16 minutes of each other, with that guy's daughter entering the portal during the 16 minute period they were off the phone. Wow, what a coincidence!
Whether the NCAA could have concluded that tampering happened, based on timing, is not at issue. The NCAA did not. It found a violation on the basis of mere contact, concluding that it doesn't matter that there was a prior relationship or that they didn't talk about recruiting. The NCAA is going to have to defend that reasoning.
Their bylaw says that ANY contact is against the rules. It has been this way for decades, and many people have received violations for this.
Brosnan admitted contact. Violation. End of story.
The rule doesn't exist solely to protect teams. It is there to protect the athletes. Athletes do not want to be annoyed by other coaches. Athletes do not want their parents trying to make side deals behind the athletes back. The NCAA is trying to keep it honest and clean so that athletes cannot be manipulated, deceived, or bombarded with phone calls from coaches when the athletes are not interested in transferring.
This is clear as day. What people on here don’t realize is that they’re only seeing the NCAA’s announcement. The NCAA is notorious for presenting a one-sided narrative. They know they don’t have any tampering evidence, so they frame things in a way that supports their story. At the end of the day, Brosnan doubled down for a reason. UCLA compliance told him it was permissible to speak with parents when there was a pre-existing relationship, and his head coach told him the same thing (all on record ) The case even references a parent calling him to discuss his wife’s cancer. Of course we don’t see the full transcripts of those conversations, because if we did, the NCAA’s narrative would probably fall apart. Every coach in the country has relationships with families who have kids at other NCAA schools. I’m at a Division II program and even I have friends whose sons or daughters compete at other NCAA institutions. That’s normal in this sport or any sport. What makes this case even more ridiculous is that the NCAA couldn’t find a single email or text message showing tampering. Not one. On top of that, the athletes were on full scholarships at their previous schools and received zero scholarship money at UCLA. That alone undermines the idea that there was some kind of inducement. Just like the lawyer who posted here said, I hope Brosnan takes the NCAA to court. If he does, the NCAA will likely get buried. It would just be another loss in a long line of losses for them when these cases actually face real legal scrutiny.
How do you know that the athletes were on zero scholarships at UCLA?
This is not public information. Only Brosnan and the athletes themselves would know that, and neither the recruits nor Brosnan have ever said the athletes were on zero scholarships.
Whether the NCAA could have concluded that tampering happened, based on timing, is not at issue. The NCAA did not. It found a violation on the basis of mere contact, concluding that it doesn't matter that there was a prior relationship or that they didn't talk about recruiting. The NCAA is going to have to defend that reasoning.
Their bylaw says that ANY contact is against the rules. It has been this way for decades, and many people have received violations for this.
Brosnan admitted contact. Violation. End of story.
The rule doesn't exist solely to protect teams. It is there to protect the athletes. Athletes do not want to be annoyed by other coaches. Athletes do not want their parents trying to make side deals behind the athletes back. The NCAA is trying to keep it honest and clean so that athletes cannot be manipulated, deceived, or bombarded with phone calls from coaches when the athletes are not interested in transferring.
Then “any contact” would be illegal by law and every coach is tamping everyday.
Bylaw 13.1.1.3 – Contact With Student-Athlete at Another NCAA Institution A coach or staff member may NOT have recruiting contact with a student-athlete who is currently enrolled at another NCAA school unless the athlete has entered the transfer portal or the current school gives written permission to contact.
it’s “recruiting”
calling someone you have known for years is not against the rule.
This is clear as day. What people on here don’t realize is that they’re only seeing the NCAA’s announcement. The NCAA is notorious for presenting a one-sided narrative. They know they don’t have any tampering evidence, so they frame things in a way that supports their story. At the end of the day, Brosnan doubled down for a reason. UCLA compliance told him it was permissible to speak with parents when there was a pre-existing relationship, and his head coach told him the same thing (all on record ) The case even references a parent calling him to discuss his wife’s cancer. Of course we don’t see the full transcripts of those conversations, because if we did, the NCAA’s narrative would probably fall apart. Every coach in the country has relationships with families who have kids at other NCAA schools. I’m at a Division II program and even I have friends whose sons or daughters compete at other NCAA institutions. That’s normal in this sport or any sport. What makes this case even more ridiculous is that the NCAA couldn’t find a single email or text message showing tampering. Not one. On top of that, the athletes were on full scholarships at their previous schools and received zero scholarship money at UCLA. That alone undermines the idea that there was some kind of inducement. Just like the lawyer who posted here said, I hope Brosnan takes the NCAA to court. If he does, the NCAA will likely get buried. It would just be another loss in a long line of losses for them when these cases actually face real legal scrutiny.
How do you know that the athletes were on zero scholarships at UCLA?
This is not public information. Only Brosnan and the athletes themselves would know that, and neither the recruits nor Brosnan have ever said the athletes were on zero scholarships.
That was stated in the case and wejo or Rojo even spoke about it and said “what a joke”
This is clear as day. What people on here don’t realize is that they’re only seeing the NCAA’s announcement. The NCAA is notorious for presenting a one-sided narrative. They know they don’t have any tampering evidence, so they frame things in a way that supports their story. At the end of the day, Brosnan doubled down for a reason. UCLA compliance told him it was permissible to speak with parents when there was a pre-existing relationship, and his head coach told him the same thing (all on record ) The case even references a parent calling him to discuss his wife’s cancer. Of course we don’t see the full transcripts of those conversations, because if we did, the NCAA’s narrative would probably fall apart. Every coach in the country has relationships with families who have kids at other NCAA schools. I’m at a Division II program and even I have friends whose sons or daughters compete at other NCAA institutions. That’s normal in this sport or any sport. What makes this case even more ridiculous is that the NCAA couldn’t find a single email or text message showing tampering. Not one. On top of that, the athletes were on full scholarships at their previous schools and received zero scholarship money at UCLA. That alone undermines the idea that there was some kind of inducement. Just like the lawyer who posted here said, I hope Brosnan takes the NCAA to court. If he does, the NCAA will likely get buried. It would just be another loss in a long line of losses for them when these cases actually face real legal scrutiny.
How do you know that the athletes were on zero scholarships at UCLA?
This is not public information. Only Brosnan and the athletes themselves would know that, and neither the recruits nor Brosnan have ever said the athletes were on zero scholarships.
I read the little of the case because none of us really have access to the full record. What we see publicly is mostly the NCAA’s summary. The real details would be in the appeal filed by Brosnan’s attorneys, which likely contains the full context and evidence. One thing I do remember from the LetsRun podcast discussion was that the athletes involved weren’t receiving scholarship money. That alone makes it much harder to argue there was any kind of inducement or tampering. And Brosnan never even had contact with the athletes themselves. The only communication mentioned was with a parent he had known for years. In a sport like track and field, where coaches and families often know each other through club teams, high school programs, and recruiting, that kind of relationship is extremely common and everyone does it because it’s allowed. When you combine that with the fact that the NCAA apparently couldn’t point to any texts, emails, or direct communication with the athletes about transferring, it becomes difficult to see how this meets the standard for tampering. At the end of the day, the full story likely sits in the appeal documents, not in the NCAA’s public announcement.
This is clear as day. What people on here don’t realize is that they’re only seeing the NCAA’s announcement. The NCAA is notorious for presenting a one-sided narrative. They know they don’t have any tampering evidence, so they frame things in a way that supports their story. At the end of the day, Brosnan doubled down for a reason. UCLA compliance told him it was permissible to speak with parents when there was a pre-existing relationship, and his head coach told him the same thing (all on record ) The case even references a parent calling him to discuss his wife’s cancer. Of course we don’t see the full transcripts of those conversations, because if we did, the NCAA’s narrative would probably fall apart. Every coach in the country has relationships with families who have kids at other NCAA schools. I’m at a Division II program and even I have friends whose sons or daughters compete at other NCAA institutions. That’s normal in this sport or any sport. What makes this case even more ridiculous is that the NCAA couldn’t find a single email or text message showing tampering. Not one. On top of that, the athletes were on full scholarships at their previous schools and received zero scholarship money at UCLA. That alone undermines the idea that there was some kind of inducement. Just like the lawyer who posted here said, I hope Brosnan takes the NCAA to court. If he does, the NCAA will likely get buried. It would just be another loss in a long line of losses for them when these cases actually face real legal scrutiny.
Two of Brosnan’s 11 phone calls with prospect 1’s father occurred at 10:25 p.m. and 11:07 p.m. on December 11, 2022, the night before prospect 1 entered the portal. Prospect 1’s father initiated both calls. Brosnan then initiated a phone call to prospect 1’s father the following day. The call concluded 13 minutes before prospect 1 entered the portal. Prospect 1’s father then called Brosnan three minutes after prospect 1 entered the portal.
Do not pretend they were not discussing transferring.
