Forums

[Gazoo]

Originally Posted by UncleFester I wish I would have listened better to Jay Bilas on Mike & Mike this morning. Say what you will About him, he is a basketball guy and a lawyer. He was explaining the federal charges, and from what I remember, he said any school that accepts any form of money from the Federal government that exceeds "x" amount ( I believe it was a paltry $40K ) is open to this investigation. He then proceeded to say that student athletes are considered an "asset" on the university ledger ( for their potential profitability ). Thus, with all the shenanigans with the bribes etc, these government funded entities cannot properly determine their expenditures or income from these "assets". The assets are being illegally manipulated from outside or inside sources. Posted via Mobile Device

Originally Posted by cj Any school that accepts federal dollars for student loans is fair game. In other words, every school except Hillsdale.

Originally Posted by rollo True. But they are State employees who cannot use their position to accept outside money for power or influence or perception of same. Should the assistant or head coach be allowed to take money from Honda for each car a current player buys from them? Or get kickbacks from Milanos for taking recruits out to eat? I'm not an elected official but as a gov't employee I can't take a coke from your local landfill for fear the next decision I make that benefits them may have been influenced.

Today's WSJ: https://www.wsj.com/articles/probe-i...ies-1506553296

"The government’s sprawling investigation into bribery in top-tier college basketball programs has prompted some in the sports and legal communities to question whether the alleged activity violates federal law."

"The investigation is unusual because while the alleged misconduct violates National Collegiate Athletic Association rules, some legal experts say it may not have necessarily broken federal law."

"Gabe Feldman, a sports law professor at Tulane University Law School, said it was fair to question whether prosecutors were overreaching in trying “to turn what might be an NCAA violation into a criminal violation.”
“The conduct itself doesn’t necessarily appear to violate any laws, standing on their own,” he said. “But it’s the combination of factors that appear to have convinced the government to bring this case.”
Prosecutors in the criminal complaints are primarily alleging violations of federal bribery and fraud laws. The charges are likely to face challenges in court, legal experts say.
All four coaches were charged with honest-services fraud conspiracy. The government accuses the coaches of depriving the universities of their “honest services” as university employees by soliciting and receiving bribes.
Honest-services fraud is a crime under the federal wire-fraud statute, a broad law that is widely used by prosecutors to charge virtually any type of fraud that involves an email or phone call. Every defendant in this case was also charged with wire-fraud conspiracy.
The law governing honest-services fraud is both controversial and in flux, lawyers said. The definition of what it means to deprive an employer of honest services is vague, and a 2010 Supreme Court ruling narrowed the definition of honest-services fraud to cover only certain types of bribery and kickback schemes. The statute has often been used to charge corrupt politicians."


This is my point, it might be unethical but I'm struggling to say illegal.