 |
|
My actual take on that specifically is the report is wrong
Posted on: September 20, 2017 at 16:23:57 CT
FIJItiger MU
Posts:
147933
Member For:
22.52 yrs
Level:
Moderator
M.O.B. Votes:
7
"The list of violations also states that the players received cash in the amount of $520 and that Tuley arranged for the use of a local gym. Tuley said the cash was provided for gas and food because Clarkson, Criswell and Bolton arrived with no money."
http://www.columbiatribune.com/6c7158b1-5102-58fe-bdb1-c06c36aeacc1.html
I am of the opinion that was mis-attributed to the wrong student athlete example in the report, and that it was actually dispersed among the three parties who arrived with no money the year before rather than Gant. That seems logical and plausible, but I don't know that.
A booster giving a student athlete cash is a violation. My contention is that the self penalization is entirely out of line with the actual findings, not that violations were not uncovered. If any program conducts an investigation, violations are going to be found. Especially if they want to find them and have a vested interest in identifying violations as was the case in this instance.
No program who was making a serious attempt at competing would vacate a season, ban themselves from postseason play, take away multiple scholarships, etc because of the list of violations included in the report. Particularly since none involved the coaching staff and should have been the responsibility of the compliance department to oversee the boosters, and because it gave MU no competitive advantage whatsoever.
Edited by FIJItiger at 16:29:01 on 09/20/17
http://www.columbiatribune.com/6c7158b1-5102-58fe-bdb1-c06c36aeacc1.html
I am of the opinion that was mis-attributed to the wrong student athlete example in the report, and that it was actually dispersed among the three parties who arrived with no money the year before rather than Gant. That seems logical and plausible, but I don't know that.
A booster giving a student athlete cash is a violation. My contention is that the self penalization is entirely out of line with the actual findings, not that violations were not uncovered. If any program conducts an investigation, violations are going to be found. Especially if they want to find them and have a vested interest in identifying violations as was the case in this instance.
No program who was making a serious attempt at competing would vacate a season, ban themselves from postseason play, take away multiple scholarships, etc because of the list of violations included in the report. Particularly since none involved the coaching staff and should have been the responsibility of the compliance department to oversee the boosters, and because it gave MU no competitive advantage whatsoever.
Edited by FIJItiger at 16:29:01 on 09/20/17
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
My actual take on that specifically is the report is wrong - FIJItiger MU - 9/20 16:23:57