 |
|
Wishful thinking
Posted on: June 26, 2019 at 08:53:13 CT
ScottsdaleTiger MU
Posts:
12757
Member For:
26.28 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
It was an NCAA probe, not a criminal trial, i.e.
A written statement from the tutor would have been sufficient. No requirement the tutor testify. No right to confront and cross examine.
No set standard of proof, i.e. no "beyond a reasonable doubt", not even a "clear and convincing evidence".
Fraud included independent third party schools, i.e. the correspondence course work.
Tutor would know what she did. The NCAA could find out what work was done in a particular course at a particular school. If it was what the tutor claimed, that's pretty solid confirmation of her story. And under the NCAA "rules of evidence", you don't need anything more to find a violation.
A written statement from the tutor would have been sufficient. No requirement the tutor testify. No right to confront and cross examine.
No set standard of proof, i.e. no "beyond a reasonable doubt", not even a "clear and convincing evidence".
Fraud included independent third party schools, i.e. the correspondence course work.
Tutor would know what she did. The NCAA could find out what work was done in a particular course at a particular school. If it was what the tutor claimed, that's pretty solid confirmation of her story. And under the NCAA "rules of evidence", you don't need anything more to find a violation.
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
- 
Wishful thinking - ScottsdaleTiger MU - 6/26 08:53:13