UCLA accepts sanctions for recruiting violations - Former assistant Sean Brosnan disputes allegations

updated NCAA investigation wrote:

NCAA plays games wrote:

It seems like the NCAA doesn't have any concrete evidence or proof of tampering, or else they wouldn't be holding a hearing. These decisions are typically approved by a chairperson only. It appears that we may not see any progress for another month or two, and if there is an appeal process, it could further delay things. Just giving you a heads up so you're not left waiting around for a quick resolution.

That is completely made up. They are having a hearing because Sean had a right to request a separate hearing once UCLA accepted the punishment. Look through the other cases and the NCAA process and you'll see decisions are not approved by a chairperson, but follow a process outlined in the link below. The decision will be made in the next couple of days if it hasn't already been made and Sean has the right to appeal any decision he doesn't agree with. One way of another, regardless of appeal, we'll know the decision from the COI shortly.

sub 8 in 2001 wrote:

updated NCAA investigation wrote:

That is completely made up. They are having a hearing because Sean had a right to request a separate hearing once UCLA accepted the punishment. Look through the other cases and the NCAA process and you'll see decisions are not approved by a chairperson, but follow a process outlined in the link below. The decision will be made in the next couple of days if it hasn't already been made and Sean has the right to appeal any decision he doesn't agree with. One way of another, regardless of appeal, we'll know the decision from the COI shortly.

This is untrue. You only get a hearing when the NCAA wants to file charges and you only then request an outside committee to look at the evidence or lack of evidence. It’s not that common to get a hearing. Especially in tampering cases. The evidence is usually you did it or don’t do it. With years of experience in the NCAA I would have to agree with the poster stating the NCAA has lack of evidence. By simply having this hearing approved shows lack of evidence. Again, the NCAA can not approve the hearing the outside committee does. The NCAA tries to strong arm lots of coaches and good for the coaches who get hearings to fight back.

updated NCAA investigation wrote:

sub 8 in 2001 wrote:

This is untrue. You only get a hearing when the NCAA wants to file charges and you only then request an outside committee to look at the evidence or lack of evidence. It’s not that common to get a hearing. Especially in tampering cases. The evidence is usually you did it or don’t do it. With years of experience in the NCAA I would have to agree with the poster stating the NCAA has lack of evidence. By simply having this hearing approved shows lack of evidence. Again, the NCAA can not approve the hearing the outside committee does. The NCAA tries to strong arm lots of coaches and good for the coaches who get hearings to fight back.

You're making things up too and don't understand the process.

The NCAA doesn't file charges. The COI (committee on Infractions) is an independent body that decides the cases. Everyone is afforded a hearing and when there is an individual involved, they have a right to separate their case if they disagree with the initial COI decision. Look at the dashboard. Every single case has a COI hearing. It's part of the normal process. Furthermore, of all the cases filed in the past 4 years, there have been ONE that has vacated on appeal. All of the other cases were upheld, so the odds are against him based on history.

28 + years coaching wrote:

updated NCAA investigation wrote:

You're making things up too and don't understand the process.

The NCAA doesn't file charges. The COI (committee on Infractions) is an independent body that decides the cases. Everyone is afforded a hearing and when there is an individual involved, they have a right to separate their case if they disagree with the initial COI decision. Look at the dashboard. Every single case has a COI hearing. It's part of the normal process. Furthermore, of all the cases filed in the past 4 years, there have been ONE that has vacated on appeal. All of the other cases were upheld, so the odds are against him based on history.

It seems that you have misrepresented the process. You are not entitled to a hearing as part of the initial steps. However, you do have the option to request a review from an outside committee (COI). They will assess the case and only grant a hearing if they consider it necessary. In essence, a hearing is only provided if your case is not straightforward. In the case of tampering allegations, the likelihood of the infractions being upheld appears to be minimal.

Oregon Cheats everyday wrote:

TheReason wrote:

What are you all even arguing about?

He got fired, he isn’t going to return. It’s track, ucla and the ncaa do not care!!!

did he cheat? Who cares!!!! Oregon flew in a pro a few weeks ago to crush Jordan H’s school record 10k. Was in the counter what a week?

If SB wants to coach he will find people to coach

Yes Oregon consistently disregards the rules and many former pros have been caught using performance enhancing drugs. Even Parker Valbey, her coac at Florida, had some athletes test positive for EPO. Yet, here we are, debating about some texts supposedly sent by Brosnan that the NCAA can't even verify. It's time to move on, folks. And let's face it, UCLA is not impressive when it comes to cross country and distance running - it's time to focus on more important matters.

updated NCAA investigation wrote:

28 + years coaching wrote:

It seems that you have misrepresented the process. You are not entitled to a hearing as part of the initial steps. However, you do have the option to request a review from an outside committee (COI). They will assess the case and only grant a hearing if they consider it necessary. In essence, a hearing is only provided if your case is not straightforward. In the case of tampering allegations, the likelihood of the infractions being upheld appears to be minimal.

I have not misrepresented the process. You just don't understand it. If Brosnan would not have disputed the original Negotiated Resolution, you're right there would be no hearing. However, because he did dispute it, they have now entered the Written Record Hearing. They have finished the first 2 steps and are now on the 3rd step of that process.

WRITTEN RECORD HEARING
1)Parties have limited disagreement on the facts, violations and/or level of an allegation.
2)Parties submit allegations, including the level of agreement and remaining issues, and written submissions to a COl panel.
3)The COl focuses on the contested portions of the case and decides violations and penalties on the written record.

If he wants to appeal the decision and penalties he has that right as well. You can learn more about the process from the NCAA website, rather than just spew a bunch of nonsense.

Link:www.ncaa.org/sports/2016/4/19/membersh...

Lawless NCAA wrote:

NCAA plays games wrote:

It seems like the NCAA doesn't have any concrete evidence or proof of tampering, or else they wouldn't be holding a hearing. These decisions are typically approved by a chairperson only. It appears that we may not see any progress for another month or two, and if there is an appeal process, it could further delay things. Just giving you a heads up so you're not left waiting around for a quick resolution.

The NCAA is pretty much a freakin' joke at this point, constantly getting their asses handed to them in court. Their power level is pretty much down to the same rights of homeowner's association and the only charge they're clinging onto is this tampering crap. But let's be real, tampering ain't no clear-cut issue. The fact that Brosnan's hearing got the green light is a solid sign. Looks like the NCAA's sh@t show ain't slowing down anytime soon. Cheering for Brosnan on this one.

BL Of Charlotte wrote:

updated NCAA investigation wrote:

I have not misrepresented the process. You just don't understand it. If Brosnan would not have disputed the original Negotiated Resolution, you're right there would be no hearing. However, because he did dispute it, they have now entered the Written Record Hearing. They have finished the first 2 steps and are now on the 3rd step of that process.

WRITTEN RECORD HEARING
1)Parties have limited disagreement on the facts, violations and/or level of an allegation.
2)Parties submit allegations, including the level of agreement and remaining issues, and written submissions to a COl panel.
3)The COl focuses on the contested portions of the case and decides violations and penalties on the written record.

If he wants to appeal the decision and penalties he has that right as well. You can learn more about the process from the NCAA website, rather than just spew a bunch of nonsense.

Link:www.ncaa.org/sports/2016/4/19/membersh...

You’re missing the main point. You get a hearing only when approved by the Chair from an outside committee. You can request a hearing but they are not easy to get approved. Especially for tampering as it’s easy to see if you did it.

28 + years coaching wrote:

updated NCAA investigation wrote:

You're making things up too and don't understand the process.

The NCAA doesn't file charges. The COI (committee on Infractions) is an independent body that decides the cases. Everyone is afforded a hearing and when there is an individual involved, they have a right to separate their case if they disagree with the initial COI decision. Look at the dashboard. Every single case has a COI hearing. It's part of the normal process. Furthermore, of all the cases filed in the past 4 years, there have been ONE that has vacated on appeal. All of the other cases were upheld, so the odds are against him based on history.

It seems that you have misrepresented the process. You are not entitled to a hearing as part of the initial steps. However, you do have the option to request a review from an outside committee (COI). They will assess the case and only grant a hearing if they consider it necessary. In essence, a hearing is only provided if your case is not straightforward. In the case of tampering allegations, the likelihood of the infractions being upheld appears to be minimal.