forums

Ruiz potentially suing the NCAA….

AtlAtty said:
Maybe I am just programmed from so many years as a lawyer, but I don’t trust anything other than the adversarial process. We all know the adversarial process is flawed, especially those of us in the system, but we also know that it is still the best system for getting as close to the truth as possible. The inability to cross examine makes this current NC2A system virtually useless IMO.

I had this same complaint when I repped students accused of sexual misconduct under Title IX. We could not cross examine the accuser, but the hearing examiner was permitted to cross examine our client. And needless to say we almost always “lost” but with limited damage to the accused. Thankfully this has been changed but only in the past few years.
Click to expand...
Granted I only played one on TV as Perry Mason, but....

1. Why were you not permitted to cross examine the accuser? This is a denial of their right isn't it?
 
Advertisement
Check out this lovely bullcrap.

As described earlier, Katie had her assistant tell the Cavinders that John Ruiz was legit, and not some creeper. But here's where the NCAA's "presumption" comes back in: "as a RESULT of the assistant coach's call, the prospects agreed to meet with the booster". How does anyone know that? Not to mention, the meeting with Mr. Ruiz took place TWO DAYS before the visit, which means that it wasn't "lots of moving parts" that was the issue, it was just about knowing that John Ruiz was a legitimate person.

Then you get a couple of spots where the NCAA can't get its story straight.

First, the NCAA tries to get you to believe that Katie and/or assistant arranged the dinner. BUT THEN THE NCAA ACKNOWLEDGES THAT JOHN RUIZ WORKED WITH THE CAVINDERS' AGENT TO MAKE THE ARRANGEMENTS, and NOT with Katie or her assistant. So which is it? Did Katie make all the arrangements? Or did Mr. Ruiz make all the arrangements? Because it sure as **** sounds like it was Mr. Ruiz doing all the heavy lifting.

Second, the NCAA tries to clutch its pearls by acting like poor Katie ONLY FOUND OUT ABOUT THE DINNER from the picture that Mr. Ruiz took, EVEN THOUGH THE NCAA TRIES TO ACT LIKE KATIE KNEW ABOUT THE DINNER IN ADVANCE. So which story is true, NCAA? Which story do you believe? Or do you just believe anything and everything (regardless of timeline conflicts) that allows you to act offended?

****, even worse for the NCAA's Frankenstein monster of a story, now they introduce the plot device of "head coach provided the booster with profiles of the prospects". I realize the NCAA tries to act like this is such a big deal (and maybe it is, in a vacuum), but it does undermine the "I was shocked to learn of the dinner" claim that the NCAA implies is "John Ruiz going rogue".

Oops, here's an unhelpful fact...the Cavinders actually took ANOTHER visit to ANOTHER school. God forbid, they like Miami better than any other trip.

Finally, what difference does it make if Katie felt she could "make introductions" if she never actually made any introductions? Wait, remind me again, which NCAA story am I supposed to believe?

1678742989271.png
 
Last edited:
And here comes the presumptions, followed by the lecture.

Katie should have asked questions.

Katie should have communicated with compliance.

Katie should have reported her discomfort if it lasted longer than 4 hours.

And, of course, Katie should not have connected the family and the booster. Even though the NCAA just said that Mr. Ruiz contacted the Cavinders and the agent on his own.

1678743259086.png
 
DerpaDerp said:
Granted I only played one on TV as Perry Mason, but....

1. Why were you not permitted to cross examine the accuser? This is a denial of their right isn't it?
Click to expand...
At the time (very recently changed) the Dept of Education, had created the Title IX rules, prevented us from cross examine the accuser. The accuser was allowed to tell their story, the accused was allowed to tell their story, and then the hearing examiner questioned the accused only about their story. Crazy, lopsided and the results were completely slanted against the accused.

I had a case in which the police found the accusation to be BS and would not arrest the accused, but his school still suspended him for a semester. The two met on Tinder, had *** twice in night one. First time they had *** she told him to stop and he did. Then she re-initiated the *** and again told him to stop but says he did not. He agreed with everything except that he said she never told him to stop the 2nd time they had *** on the first night. And for that he was suspended. And we were prevented from questioning the accuser.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
Some additional thoughts on the NCAA Violations case...

3-person panel:

Chief hearing officer - Gary Miller - president of the University of Akron
Dave Roberts - VP of Athletics Compliance at USC (but not, you know, the AD), he was the interim AD when Lynn Swann stepped down
Cassandra Kirk - some rando chief magistrate judge in Fulton County, Georgia (Atlanta)

Important factors here:

1. The NCAA is DEFINITELY tipping its hand that all future cases will be based on a PRESUMPTION of causality and guilt, and will not be burdened down by some horrible requirement to investigate and develop facts.

2. The NCAA reeeeeeaaaaaallllllly wants to disossociate somebody/anybody, not because it is the right or fair outcome in a case, but to scare everyone else straight ("the disassociation pently presents an EFFECTIVE penalty...").


View attachment 232775
Click to expand...
The ncaa wanting Miami to disassociate from Ruiz, and being mad at Miami because they wont is pretty much what it all boils down to imo. Now we know why they were there and what they wanted. They really want Ruiz gone. I bet if he were a collective for the sec none of this would be a problem. It'll be really telling who they **** with next.
 
MovingZen said:
The ncaa wanting Miami to disassociate from Ruiz, and being mad at Miami because they wont is pretty much what it all boils down to imo. Now we know why they were there and what they wanted. They really want Ruiz gone. I bet if he were a collective for the sec none of this would be a problem. It'll be really telling who they **** with next.
Click to expand...
some school with a business entity signing kids to NIL deals. Pepsi? Snickers? Dr Pepper?

Nawww...those is Alabama kids. They ain't going into Saban's backyard and money house. They know better.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Some additional thoughts on the NCAA Violations case...

3-person panel:

Chief hearing officer - Gary Miller - president of the University of Akron
Dave Roberts - VP of Athletics Compliance at USC (but not, you know, the AD), he was the interim AD when Lynn Swann stepped down
Cassandra Kirk - some rando chief magistrate judge in Fulton County, Georgia (Atlanta)

Important factors here:

1. The NCAA is DEFINITELY tipping its hand that all future cases will be based on a PRESUMPTION of causality and guilt, and will not be burdened down by some horrible requirement to investigate and develop facts.

2. The NCAA reeeeeeaaaaaallllllly wants to disossociate somebody/anybody, not because it is the right or fair outcome in a case, but to scare everyone else straight ("the disassociation pently presents an EFFECTIVE penalty...").


View attachment 232775
Click to expand...
We told them to take a little taste and then **** off. The summary is nuts by the way. There’s no misconduct by Ruiz and they’re crying because we didn’t fold and tell Ruiz to stay away. I mean talk about trying to do the SEC a favor… And over this piddling ****.

I don’t think they can force disassociation just penalize us if we don’t if they demand it. What’s a COI? I know that as a Certificate of Insurance. Lol
 
TheOriginalCane said:
And here comes the presumptions, followed by the lecture.

Katie should have asked questions.

Katie should have communicated with compliance.

Katie should have reported her discomfort if it lasted longer than 4 hours.

And, of course, Katie should not have connected the family and the booster. Even though the NCAA just said that Mr. Ruiz contacted the Cavinders and the agent on his own.

View attachment 232783
Click to expand...
UM should’ve sued the NCAA to put an end to this ****. They had them.
 
At a glance this would not be a good move by Ruiz. I can't figure the guy out at times I think he's got his **** very much together and is toying with everyone else and then times like this I think he's heading for a self inflicted wound. It's not immediately clear to me what the legal cause of action he could even bring here, and he when this first broke he made public remarks saying he has not been harmed/injured in any way by the NCAA's action and those tweets are the first things the NCAA would attach to their motion to dismiss the suit...
 
Advertisement
Wake_Cane said:
At a glance this would not be a good move by Ruiz. I can't figure the guy out at times I think he's got his **** very much together and is toying with everyone else and then times like this I think he's heading for a self inflicted wound. It's not immediately clear to me what the legal cause of action he could even bring here, and he when this first broke he made public remarks saying he has not been harmed/injured in any way by the NCAA's action and those tweets are the first things the NCAA would attach to their motion to dismiss the suit...
Click to expand...
The statement of not being damaged doesn’t help but it’s not everything and damages can develop I suppose. Do you think he’s going to have to wait for them to try again with something like disassociation?
 
RVACane said:
The statement of not being damaged doesn’t help but it’s not everything and damages can develop I suppose. Do you think he’s going to have to wait for them to try again with something like disassociation?
Click to expand...
Well I would expect them to use those statements to make the argument that he lacks standing to file any suit in the matter at all. And in reality, even without those statements, it's not clear to me that he would have standing. The two parties that would have had the clearest claims to an injury and have standing are the University of Miami and Coach Meier and they both were fine with what was negotiated.

As far as disassociation...that would be closer but just trying for it likely isn't enough. If they tried to have him disassociated and the University said nah then he'd still probably be in shallow water on standing/injury.
 
Wake_Cane said:
Well I would expect them to use those statements to make the argument that he lacks standing to file any suit in the matter at all. And in reality, even without those statements, it's not clear to me that he would have standing. The two parties that would have had the clearest claims to an injury and have standing are the University of Miami and Coach Meier and they both were fine with what was negotiated.
Click to expand...
I agree on who has better standing arguments and wish UM put an end to this **** once and for all. At some point the NCAA could cross the line and create a situation where it more clearly impacts his ability to do nil business.
 
RVACane said:
We told them to take a little taste and then **** off. The summary is nuts by the way. There’s no misconduct by Ruiz and they’re crying because we didn’t fold and tell Ruiz to stay away. I mean talk about trying to do the SEC a favor… And over this piddling ****.

I don’t think they can force disassociation just penalize us if we don’t if they demand it. What’s a COI? I know that as a Certificate of Insurance. Lol
Click to expand...
Committee on Infractions...aka beta little fuqtards who can do little else in life.
 
Back
Top