Live discussion with Marc Maggard of Kentucky Ink

Guys, it’s MUCH better to make an account before the show starts….it gives you the ability to call in and request to talk, so you can join the discussion.

The show tonite should be fine. Shouldn’t be any real issues. Get there a few minutes early, however.

If you end up not being able to hear, go to www.roundballrecruiting.com and you can listen to the live stream from the player in the top left corner.

TRU….make sure you use the screenname you use here in your profile…..that’s how I’ll know it’s you so I can bring you on the show.

mm

You too guys really should think about doing a pre-game / Half time show together. You have opposite opinions and stand up for what you think is right. I think it would be one hell of a show. IMO it would be a blast….you are like Oscar, and Mark is not really like that other guy, but he tends to be a little more opinionated. It would be a great show. You two should talk about it

No Tubby then. Still Anti-UK bias by the newspaper. I can’t remember any time when it didn’t exist. Maybe back in the 1960’s?

Folks who spin the Tubby angle in the LHL situation further their own agenda.

(Clipped from NCAA findings)
At the request of the NCAA Committee on Infractions, the University of Kentucky submitted a May 19, 1987, written report of its findings and conclusions regarding its investigation of allegations of NCAA violations that appeared in a Lexington, Kentucky, newspaper on October 27, 1985. The university’s report acknowledged violations the university was able to substantiate, and identified corrective and disciplinary actions to be taken. The NCAA enforcement staff conducted independent inquiries primarily concerning possible violations occurring within the NCAA’s four-year statute of limitations and failed to develop information substantially different than that of the university. In this regard, representatives of the newspaper that printed the original article refused to assist either the university or the NCAA in efforts to verify or support statements concerning violations of NCAA rules that it published. The enforcement staff recommended to the Committee on Infractions that the university’s findings be adopted, and that the corrective and disciplinary actions be accepted in lieu of a penalty to be imposed by the committee.

The committee, however, determined that university representatives should be requested to appear before the committee for the purpose of reviewing the information developed concerning the men`s basketball program. An appearance was scheduled for June 4, 1987, during which the university’s written report identifying the allegations and findings, detailing the scope of the university’s inquiries, stating the university’s position as to the probable truth or falsity of the allegations and identifying the corrective or disciplinary actions taken would be discussed. The university’s report had been submitted under the provisions of Section 7-(g) of the NCAA enforcement procedures, and the university renewed a standing request for the committee to accept its findings as sufficient and to take no further action in the case.

At the June hearing, the university reported that although some violations occurred prior to 1981, no violation could be confirmed within the NCAA’s four-year statute of limitations (i.e., October 1981 to October 1985). The university also reported that corrective actions had been implemented in an effort to prevent future violations. The committee was concerned, however, that complete information had not been developed in the case, and determined that the university again should be requested to appear before the committee to discuss both the specific allegations and the university’s investigative techniques and policies. This request was made pursuant to NCAA Constitution 4-2-(a), Bylaw 9-5-(e) and the Preamble to the Official Procedure Governing the Enforcement Program, which provides in part that the university is obligated to cooperate fully with the NCAA Committee on Infractions in the conduct of relevant inquiries into the university’s intercollegiate athletics program. The committee requested the institution to be prepared to discuss its responses to the following specific questions:

A. Did the university’s investigative techniques hinder or reduce the opportunity to obtain complete and correct information in this case?

B. Has the university taken all reasonable steps to develop information and to confirm information initially reported in a local newspaper?

C. Has the university taken adequate steps to interview all potential sources of information?

D. Should additional action be taken by the university against outside representatives or former student-athletes who have refused to cooperate in its investigation?

E. Does the university contend that the newspaper accounts are substantially incorrect and, if so, why?

Subsequent to the committee’s request, the university’s new president, David P. Roselle, met with NCAA enforcement staff members to discuss the committee’s concerns and then directed the university’s investigators to renew efforts to interview several individuals prior to the university’s hearing before the committee. Questions relating to the university’s investigation, as well as the specific allegations regarding the basketball program, were discussed in detail at the university’s appearance on February 6, 1988. Allegations concerning extra benefits to enrolled student-athletes, including “cash handshakes,” excessive remuneration for speaking engagements, discounts for clothing purchases, free meals and improper sales of complimentary tickets, were considered. Concerning each of these categories, the university asserted either that it was unable to develop sufficient information to conclude that a violation had occurred, or concluded that any proven violation was outside the NCAA’s four-year statute of limitations. The NCAA enforcement staff also was unable in its investigation to develop substantial information (either from individuals identified in the newspaper article or from other possible sources) to confirm violations occurring within the four-year statute of limitations.

After the February hearing, the committee concluded that the university conducted an inadequate investigation on these matters that were within the NCAA’s four-year statute of limitations. General denials of involvement by principals were accepted with little, if any, follow-up questioning as to specifics or independent investigation of facts. For example, although statements by former student-athletes included information indicating that there may have been rules violations regarding the sale of complimentary tickets and the impermissible receipt of money for speeches by student-athletes, the university did not pursue these statements with other possible sources. In addition, the committee found that inadequate efforts were made to induce former student-athletes and representatives of the university’s athletics interests to cooperate in the investigation, despite the continued enrollment of some former student-athletes in professional schools at the university and the fact that these student-athletes and representatives had talked with the newspaper reporters. For example, in its letters to former student-athletes who were not reached by telephone, the university seemed to suggest, as a viable option, that refusal to be interviewed would be a satisfactory response (e.g., “In order for us to complete our investigation, it is necessary for us to interview you regarding the article, or obtain your refusal to be interviewed. In an effort to assist you in making this determination, I am enclosing a list of questions which we would like to ask you.”). Nothing in the letter indicated that the university preferred the cooperation of the addressee, rather than a refusal to be interviewed. Not surprisingly, many recipients of the letter refused to be interviewed.

I don’t see where a sports page has need of a Mike Wallace and I don’t see any balance in Tipton’s “writing”.

I certainly don’t see why we should sit on our hands, accept, or certainly praise efforts to damage our recruiting or reputation.

I’ll be more than pleased to see, first Tipton out on his can and then to see the LHL close it’s doors or be forced to operate deep in the red. I can deal with the Courier Journal’s coverage and that publication is not acting as a cheerleader.

I don’t see how anyone can read these articles this rag throws out and can say with a straight face that UK is covered with even neutrality, forget any semblance of a positive slant.

It’s a clearly negative slant that the Hearld has elected to cover the program with, they are being down and dirty and the University and it’s supporters ought to throw our weight around too. Pull credentials, boycott sponsors, resist the urge to “click”, cancel subscriptions, and crash their email server.

Free speech is not speech without cost. We shoould make every effort to let the LHL know the cost of less than even handed coverage of Kentucky athletics.