R
Sidney case to court
- Thread starter MSU124
- Start date
there's no law that says they can't ask for pretty much anything they want to ask for before declaring a player eligible. And there's no law that says they have to declare a player eligible who doesn't give them whatever information they ask for.
hell, im not "dirty" but i damn sure dont want to give my records to anyone for the chance that i accidentally or unknowingly did something wrong much less if i know for damn sure that there are some things not claimed and such.
Its opening a can of worms for them that has nothing to do with the ncaa...they could be completely clean with them but have not been claiming income whether its "side jobs" or whatever else.
It is ******** though...the ncaa has no proof minus an article written. They had shitloads of proof on the USC boys and nothing. They pick and choose and thats what makes it ********. Just like jackie...millions upon millions of dollars spent on both sides for $1700. I could find that much "dirty" **** at ricks or the library over a semester in oxford or starkville. Absolute horseshit.
Its opening a can of worms for them that has nothing to do with the ncaa...they could be completely clean with them but have not been claiming income whether its "side jobs" or whatever else.
It is ******** though...the ncaa has no proof minus an article written. They had shitloads of proof on the USC boys and nothing. They pick and choose and thats what makes it ********. Just like jackie...millions upon millions of dollars spent on both sides for $1700. I could find that much "dirty" **** at ricks or the library over a semester in oxford or starkville. Absolute horseshit.
Jackson is going to have to show by clear and convincing evidence that the NCAA is discriminating against Sidney solely on the basis of race with INTENT to discriminate in this manner, and not just in effect. The bar Jackson has set for himself and his client is insurmountably high.
As has been stated on here hundreds of times by me and by others, waive bye bye to Renardo and, in your best Italian, repeat after me: "Addio, addio!"
As has been stated on here hundreds of times by me and by others, waive bye bye to Renardo and, in your best Italian, repeat after me: "Addio, addio!"
I don't disagree with anything in your post and I don't think Rabid does either. The point of disagreement here was the suggestion that there is a law that governs this issue. There isn't.
My only contention was the statement "the law is clear."
For the record I never believed for a minute that Sidney would be cleared.
For the record I never believed for a minute that Sidney would be cleared.
Each school usually puts forth a candidate. He was probably the most qualified person that wanted to do it in his class at Alabama State
The question I've always had for the NCAA is how can they hold an athlete responsible for the actions his parents took when he was a minor living in their home. What recourse does this minor have, move out on his own?
Further, unless they can prove the "athlete" took money for playing the game that he is asking for amateur standing, how does that affect his amateur status. I don't think even the LA Times article ever said Renardo was paid money to play basketball at any time.
Further, unless they can prove the "athlete" took money for playing the game that he is asking for amateur standing, how does that affect his amateur status. I don't think even the LA Times article ever said Renardo was paid money to play basketball at any time.
S
seawaterland
Guest
The Minor should not be punished because of what His parents do. My dad was not the type of man that took kindly to me telling him what to do.
Sidney told a friend last night that ,"He expect to be cleared in Oct.' I'm sure he knows a little more about the process than I do.
Sidney told a friend last night that ,"He expect to be cleared in Oct.' I'm sure he knows a little more about the process than I do.
I don't think its realistic to separate the kids and parents in situations like these. If the NCAA said Sidney was at no fault because all shady business was channeled through his father and declared him eligible, that clears the path for parents to be bought off with no repercussions whatsoever.
If the Sidneys had been accused of taking money from colleges in order to sign with them, I'd agree with you. But to my knowledge this has never been the case.
I understand and support the roll of the NCAA in trying to maintain a level playing field among colleges and universities. I just don't see their roll in monitoring the salaries parents are paid by entities with no conection to any academic institution. I also don't see its roll in monitoring loans or leases entered into by the parents. It seems to me that NCAA is trying to assume a roll that is beyond its capabilities to legally monitor.
I understand and support the roll of the NCAA in trying to maintain a level playing field among colleges and universities. I just don't see their roll in monitoring the salaries parents are paid by entities with no conection to any academic institution. I also don't see its roll in monitoring loans or leases entered into by the parents. It seems to me that NCAA is trying to assume a roll that is beyond its capabilities to legally monitor.
The salaries Mr. Sidney was paid weren't enough to pay the rent. So the NCAA is asking for information to support where the money to pay the rent did come from. If he'd made enough in salary to pay the rent, Sidney would alredy be declared eligible. That's the NCAA's "role" in this.
The money thing is my biggest problem with it from a legal standpoint. There are federal court case holdings which essentially broke up the high school athletic associations in Alabama and Louisiana. These associations were created by the white public schools after the initial rounds of desegregation. Essentially, towns were redrawing school district lines to maintain some sort of legal form of segregation. The white schools all joined an athletic association which also allowed in a few private schools. These athletic associations were essentially private entities, but almost 90 percent of the money from each came from pubic entities. Using this reasoning the court held that they were quasi-public institutions and therefore subject to scrutiny for their admissions practices.
I really do think there is a legitimate argument that the NCAA should be subject to public scrutiny due to the sheer amount of money that comes from public institutions. However, I think that this argument has been made and roundly rejected.
I did a fair amount of research on this for a paper in law school. I don't have the paper with me and I'm not paying for research to prove somebody wrong on a message board.
I've read the cases. The NCAA is a private entity. They can do what they want.
Financial records are causally related to a persons ameture status. Further, using employment as an example was probably a bad idea. The federal laws surrounding employment are much more extensive. Regardless, if the shoe were on the other foot, I don't think many on this board would feel the same way.
How would you feel if the feds came in and determined how you decided who did and didn't get into your Country Club? Rotary Club? Civic or professional organization? I don't want that, and I don't think you do either.
I really do think there is a legitimate argument that the NCAA should be subject to public scrutiny due to the sheer amount of money that comes from public institutions. However, I think that this argument has been made and roundly rejected.
I did a fair amount of research on this for a paper in law school. I don't have the paper with me and I'm not paying for research to prove somebody wrong on a message board.
I've read the cases. The NCAA is a private entity. They can do what they want.
Financial records are causally related to a persons ameture status. Further, using employment as an example was probably a bad idea. The federal laws surrounding employment are much more extensive. Regardless, if the shoe were on the other foot, I don't think many on this board would feel the same way.
How would you feel if the feds came in and determined how you decided who did and didn't get into your Country Club? Rotary Club? Civic or professional organization? I don't want that, and I don't think you do either.
recruiting....pay the preacher, pay the uncle. as long as the escalade is in momma's name the kid did no wrong. come on guys. msu did nothing wrong here but this kid is dirty and its obvious to everybody on the green earth. i'll never suggest that anybody's recruiting is perfectly clean but big time basketball is the dirtiest of all. ugly ugly business.
and before the flames start about jackie.........every school he's led has ended up on probation....some twice.
and before the flames start about jackie.........every school he's led has ended up on probation....some twice.
Name the schools that have been accused of paying money to Renardo Sidney -- either directly or through his parents. I don't think that accusation has ever been made in this whole process. I believe the questions centered around the shoe companies and AAU.
I think this is going to end up being the craziest mess of all time in SEC basketball history.</p>
Yep, the NCAA has an impressive series of court wins behind them. Maurice Clarett and the Colorodo snowboarder come to mind. I thought both of those players had good cases and they both lost. But in each of those the NCAA had proof of benefits to point to as a reason for declaring the student was not an amateur. So far, they don't here. I can't think of a case where the NCAA went to court and won based solely on suspicion. Maybe there is one though.
Don't make the mistake of forgetting that the NCAA most likely only goes to court when it thinks it will win. Even if it loses, most likely it will be narrowly, in a way that will not affect other cases or the way they do business. But one bad case can change everything. They are not worried about a financial judgement in Sidney's favor, they have deep pockets. They would only worry about a case that might derail the gravy train in some way.
I agree that financial records are causally related. I think the house rental is the one thing that puts this on the NCAA's side. I don't know why they haven't given that as their reason. Of course, they don't have to until it goes to court. Maybe the Sidney's had it on one of those idiot loans, and don't want to reveal they're bankrupt. Maybe they lied about their income to get it. Plenty of possible reasons that aren't related to Sidney's amateur status.
The feds already have some say in who does and doesn't get into clubs etc., even beyond the federally protected classes. You just have to not be dumb, and not give a specific reason that will look bad in court. If the reason will look bad, just don't give a reason.
About the only chance we have of the courts putting Sidney on the bball court is for a judge to look at the records in chambers and declare him an amateur. Maybe there's tax fraud at issue or some other illegality, but not payments, and that's why they won't provide them.
But the stacked deck in the courts is probably why the attorney is looking at Congress. Think Title IX. IF Congress gets involved, whatever they end up doing will fundamentally change how the NCAA does business. But that sure seems like a Hail Mary the lawyer is going after doesn't it?
Don't make the mistake of forgetting that the NCAA most likely only goes to court when it thinks it will win. Even if it loses, most likely it will be narrowly, in a way that will not affect other cases or the way they do business. But one bad case can change everything. They are not worried about a financial judgement in Sidney's favor, they have deep pockets. They would only worry about a case that might derail the gravy train in some way.
I agree that financial records are causally related. I think the house rental is the one thing that puts this on the NCAA's side. I don't know why they haven't given that as their reason. Of course, they don't have to until it goes to court. Maybe the Sidney's had it on one of those idiot loans, and don't want to reveal they're bankrupt. Maybe they lied about their income to get it. Plenty of possible reasons that aren't related to Sidney's amateur status.
The feds already have some say in who does and doesn't get into clubs etc., even beyond the federally protected classes. You just have to not be dumb, and not give a specific reason that will look bad in court. If the reason will look bad, just don't give a reason.
About the only chance we have of the courts putting Sidney on the bball court is for a judge to look at the records in chambers and declare him an amateur. Maybe there's tax fraud at issue or some other illegality, but not payments, and that's why they won't provide them.
But the stacked deck in the courts is probably why the attorney is looking at Congress. Think Title IX. IF Congress gets involved, whatever they end up doing will fundamentally change how the NCAA does business. But that sure seems like a Hail Mary the lawyer is going after doesn't it?
that there is no specific allegation. For all the NCAA knows his dad made the money for the rent selling drugs. While not legal would not affect Renardo's amateur status. It does seem there would have to be a specific allegation and then the Sidney's could theoretically disprove that allegation.
I don't have anything to hide either, but I'm not willing to just open up my personal records to the ncaa. When you apply to go to a university and to get pell grant money you have to fill out a financial statement to see if you qualify don't you. This is so ********, its not even funny. You've got kids coming from all walks of life and arrive on campus in a fine ride. Where is the ncaa on these? Hadn't heard much from the Reggie Bush deal lately, other than he and Kim Kardeshian broke-up.
Then college football would be completely overhauled.
Hell yeah it's a longshot, but I don't think that is the point.
I would refer you to the scene in Thank You for Smoking when the main character looks at his son and says, "It's not about convincing you. It's about convincing them."
Hell yeah it's a longshot, but I don't think that is the point.
I would refer you to the scene in Thank You for Smoking when the main character looks at his son and says, "It's not about convincing you. It's about convincing them."