Apr 25 2011
NCAA formally charges Jim
Tressel with lies, coverup of
OSU violations
Yahoo sports
By Matt Hinton
Initially, before coach Jim
Tressel was outed for
essentially lying to his bosses
and the NCAA, it looked like
Ohio State was getting off kind
of easy. In exchange for OSU's
cooperation, the NCAA was
willing to play good cop. It
could have suspended five
ineligible players who allegedly
sold and/or bartered
memorabilia to a local tattoo
shop for the Sugar Bowl, but it
didn't. It could have declared
all five players retroactively
ineligible and stricken all
eleven Buckeye wins in 2010
from the books, along with
their share of the Big Ten title,
but it didn't. It could have gone
after Ohio State the way it
went after USC, in search of
bowl bans and significant
scholarship losses, but it
didn't. In the wake of the
sledgehammer that fell on the
Trojans last summer, the
punishment for Ohio State —
a straightforward five-game
suspension for four of the
offending players to start the
2011 season, games the
Buckeyes are likely to win,
anyway — seemed minimal,
perfunctory. Which is one of
the reasons it made so many
people so angry, or confused,
or both.
That, of course, was before
Tressel's long-running,
deliberate coverup of the
violations saw the light of day,
and before it became clear
that the NCAA — and possibly
the higher-ups at Ohio State
themselves — had been
misled by one of the most
respected men in the
profession. What cooperation
will buy you in leniency,
deception will buy in
retribution, and the NCAA
began to extract its pound of
flesh Friday with an official
notice of allegations to the
university.
It makes three allegations of
"potential major violations,"
specifically:
• That, between November
2008 and May 2010, multiple
student-athletes received
preferential treatment and
"sold institutionally issued
athletics awards, apparel and
equipment to Edward Rife,
owner of a local tattoo parlor,"
adding up to more than
$13,000 in cash, free tattoos,
a loan and a discount on a
used car one of the players
bought from Rife.
• Under the same heading,
that Tressel "knew or should
have known" that at least two
players had made
inappropriate transactions with
Rife, per a credible email
tipster, but "he failed to report
information to athletics
administration and, as a result,
permitted football student-
athletes to participate in
intercollegiate athletics
competition while ineligible."
• That, as reported by the
university, Tressel "failed to
deport himself in accordance
with the honest and integrity
normally associated with the
conduct and administration of
intercollegiate athletics as
required by NCAA legislation
and violated ethical-conduct
legislation" by failing to report
emails alerting him to
violations, withholding the
information for months,
allowing possibly ineligible
players to play for the entire
season and "falsely attest[ing]
that he reported to the
institution any knowledge of
NCAA violations" when he
signed a compliance form last
September...
NCAA formally charges Jim
Tressel with lies, coverup of
OSU violations
Yahoo sports
By Matt Hinton
Initially, before coach Jim
Tressel was outed for
essentially lying to his bosses
and the NCAA, it looked like
Ohio State was getting off kind
of easy. In exchange for OSU's
cooperation, the NCAA was
willing to play good cop. It
could have suspended five
ineligible players who allegedly
sold and/or bartered
memorabilia to a local tattoo
shop for the Sugar Bowl, but it
didn't. It could have declared
all five players retroactively
ineligible and stricken all
eleven Buckeye wins in 2010
from the books, along with
their share of the Big Ten title,
but it didn't. It could have gone
after Ohio State the way it
went after USC, in search of
bowl bans and significant
scholarship losses, but it
didn't. In the wake of the
sledgehammer that fell on the
Trojans last summer, the
punishment for Ohio State —
a straightforward five-game
suspension for four of the
offending players to start the
2011 season, games the
Buckeyes are likely to win,
anyway — seemed minimal,
perfunctory. Which is one of
the reasons it made so many
people so angry, or confused,
or both.
That, of course, was before
Tressel's long-running,
deliberate coverup of the
violations saw the light of day,
and before it became clear
that the NCAA — and possibly
the higher-ups at Ohio State
themselves — had been
misled by one of the most
respected men in the
profession. What cooperation
will buy you in leniency,
deception will buy in
retribution, and the NCAA
began to extract its pound of
flesh Friday with an official
notice of allegations to the
university.
It makes three allegations of
"potential major violations,"
specifically:
• That, between November
2008 and May 2010, multiple
student-athletes received
preferential treatment and
"sold institutionally issued
athletics awards, apparel and
equipment to Edward Rife,
owner of a local tattoo parlor,"
adding up to more than
$13,000 in cash, free tattoos,
a loan and a discount on a
used car one of the players
bought from Rife.
• Under the same heading,
that Tressel "knew or should
have known" that at least two
players had made
inappropriate transactions with
Rife, per a credible email
tipster, but "he failed to report
information to athletics
administration and, as a result,
permitted football student-
athletes to participate in
intercollegiate athletics
competition while ineligible."
• That, as reported by the
university, Tressel "failed to
deport himself in accordance
with the honest and integrity
normally associated with the
conduct and administration of
intercollegiate athletics as
required by NCAA legislation
and violated ethical-conduct
legislation" by failing to report
emails alerting him to
violations, withholding the
information for months,
allowing possibly ineligible
players to play for the entire
season and "falsely attest[ing]
that he reported to the
institution any knowledge of
NCAA violations" when he
signed a compliance form last
September...
Why This Website
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz v. Maura
Larkins defamation
SDCOE
CVESD
Castle Park
Elementary School
Law Enforcement
CTA
CVE
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz
Silence is Golden
Schools and Violence
Office Admin Hearings
Larkins OAH Hearing
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz v. Maura
Larkins defamation
SDCOE
CVESD
Castle Park
Elementary School
Law Enforcement
CTA
CVE
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz
Silence is Golden
Schools and Violence
Office Admin Hearings
Larkins OAH Hearing
San Diego
Education Report
Education Report
Cover-ups in schools
This high school student would probably be surprised to know that schools
hire attorneys who instruct school employees to cover-up the truth during
court depositions!
The Ethicist
Driving the Price Up
By ARIEL KAMINER
April 15, 2011
NYTimes.com
...I am a high-school student. Recently my school came up for review.
Members of an accreditation board walked around the school for a few
days, observing classes and asking students questions. Accreditation
reviewers pulled students out of the crowd to speak at length. This was a
huge deal for the administration. To prepare, many of my teachers began
coaching us. They told us what to say if one of the accreditation reviewers
asked us about certain education standards and asked us not to say
anything negative about our school.
I felt uncomfortable during all of this. By coaching us, aren’t our teachers
subverting the inspection? Or is it expected that preparations should be
made? NAME WITHHELD, LA JOLLA, CALIF.
Yes and yes. It subverts the inspection, and it’s expected. It’s dishonest,
and it’s the norm. Maybe not for schools — educators who engage in such
practices don’t brag about it to the press — but public-rating systems in
general are multiplying and so are ways to game them. From book reviews
on Amazon to doctor reviews on RateMDs to restaurant reviews on Yelp, if it
sounds as if it was written by a publicist, you might as well assume that it
was (or at least by the owner or author or doctor in question). It’s unethical,
but then again, it’s just an updated form of advertising, and woe to him who
seeks truth therein.
Gaming a system of professional accreditation is a dicier proposition: higher
stakes and lower rewards, because the school wins the approval of a
system the school itself has proved to be corruptible. Still, if that’s unethical,
then forcing students into the act is unconscionable. You’re there to learn
stuff, to make friends, to be adorable and obnoxious and obstinate and
precocious — in short, to be kids, not to be shills for an institution that holds
so much power over you. Coaching students on how to lie (not to mention
doing so in a manner likely to fail) is a curious form of education indeed. If
your parents haven’t already screamed, they should.
Then drop us a line from morning assembly when the administrators decide
to turn it into a “teachable moment.”
hire attorneys who instruct school employees to cover-up the truth during
court depositions!
The Ethicist
Driving the Price Up
By ARIEL KAMINER
April 15, 2011
NYTimes.com
...I am a high-school student. Recently my school came up for review.
Members of an accreditation board walked around the school for a few
days, observing classes and asking students questions. Accreditation
reviewers pulled students out of the crowd to speak at length. This was a
huge deal for the administration. To prepare, many of my teachers began
coaching us. They told us what to say if one of the accreditation reviewers
asked us about certain education standards and asked us not to say
anything negative about our school.
I felt uncomfortable during all of this. By coaching us, aren’t our teachers
subverting the inspection? Or is it expected that preparations should be
made? NAME WITHHELD, LA JOLLA, CALIF.
Yes and yes. It subverts the inspection, and it’s expected. It’s dishonest,
and it’s the norm. Maybe not for schools — educators who engage in such
practices don’t brag about it to the press — but public-rating systems in
general are multiplying and so are ways to game them. From book reviews
on Amazon to doctor reviews on RateMDs to restaurant reviews on Yelp, if it
sounds as if it was written by a publicist, you might as well assume that it
was (or at least by the owner or author or doctor in question). It’s unethical,
but then again, it’s just an updated form of advertising, and woe to him who
seeks truth therein.
Gaming a system of professional accreditation is a dicier proposition: higher
stakes and lower rewards, because the school wins the approval of a
system the school itself has proved to be corruptible. Still, if that’s unethical,
then forcing students into the act is unconscionable. You’re there to learn
stuff, to make friends, to be adorable and obnoxious and obstinate and
precocious — in short, to be kids, not to be shills for an institution that holds
so much power over you. Coaching students on how to lie (not to mention
doing so in a manner likely to fail) is a curious form of education indeed. If
your parents haven’t already screamed, they should.
Then drop us a line from morning assembly when the administrators decide
to turn it into a “teachable moment.”