Will Reggie Get His Heisman Back??

look who benefitted. one person. caching. sc

I deleteed most of the pleadings and transcripts--

I sitll had one.

a) "The enforcement staff had the telephone records of both McNair and Lake, which showed that the late-night call was initiated by Lake, not by McNair. Cretors testified that Lake adopted the mistake and gave a motivation to McNair for calling him when McNair did not make the telephone call. Cretors testified she was initially skeptical of Lake because of his criminal history. She explained that Lake was not covered by the cooperative principle and was under no obligation to talk to the NCAA. The enforcement staff did not interview Michaels. The record contains no testimony from Bush."

b) "Realizing that they had gotten the year of the late-night call wrong, the enforcement staff considered reinterviewing McNair using the date of 2006 instead of 2005, and giving McNair the context of the call so he might better remember. However, the enforcement staff decided not to interview McNair again."

c) The COI hearing

At the close of its hearing, held over three days in 2010, the COI began deliberations and made various findings concerning USC, but was unable to reach a determination about McNair.

To make a finding against an institution such as USC, the NCAA had to find either a loss of institutional control or that an employee knew about a rules violation and failed to report it. Some voting members of the COI expressed difficulty with the interviews of McNair and Lake. One called the Lake interview “choppy;” one said the McNair interview was “botched” because the dates were wrong; another said the record was “recklessly constructed”, and one said the investigation had “fallen short.” One member observed that Lake even had difficulty recalling McNair’s name until the enforcement staff prompted him. Some members noted that the question was whether McNair actually knew about Lake’s agency and the benefits Lake gave Bush, which would make lies out of McNair’s denials to the investigators. One member found no evidence that McNair was

11 personally involved or had specific knowledge of any wrongdoing. Nonetheless, the COI ultimately agreed to the operative statement as written.

d) "The court called Lake’s interview

answers “unclear and unresponsive to the point of being

unreliable,” and “impossibly vague.” Therefore, the court

concluded that McNair’s denial that he had knowledge of Lake’s

payoffs to Bush “was not credibly rebutted or impeached” and so

the NCAA’s evidence about what was said in the late-night phone

call was insufficient to justify the verdict.

e)Contrary to the operative statement, it was

Johanningmeier, not Lake, who said “McNair makes a call to you

[Lake].” The significance of this incorrect assertion is that in

response, Lake, who did not appear to remember the call,

attributed a motive to McNair for calling—knowledge of the

agency and benefits—when McNair had not made the call.

Cretors acknowledged this at trial. As the court reasonably

observed, “McNair could have had no purpose in making an

unmade phone call.” Indeed, Lake appeared to be guessing at the

late-night call’s topic, stating, “I think that was like, that was

like him trying to resolve it.”

Far from being inconsequential, these points—who made

the late-night call [stated falsely by the NCAA], and the purpose of the call—constitute core

elements of the statement of reasons because they are the evidence for the operative statement’s assertion that McNair

knew about the improper benefits and agency agreement. Lake

gave an unresponsive and vague answer to the question whether

McNair had indicated in the late-night call that he knew that

Bush was taking money: “I mean, he knew.” And, although Lake

said that McNair “knew,” he did not base this statement on

anything that was said during the late-night call, but on

assumption drawn from events that did not occur during the late-

night call. When asked directly why he believed McNair knew,

Lake responded that the reason was that McNair was “around a

lot”...

f)Finding Lake’s

answers to be unclear, unreliable, speculative, vague, and so

unresponsive that they would have been stricken had they been

made in court, the statement of reasons concluded that the

interview—the only evidence of the contents of the late-night

call—was “without evidentiary value to support” the operative

21 statement, and that “no reasonable trier of fact could have found

that” the operative statement’s assertions about McNair were

true based on Lake’s interview.

Thanks TG!

Need to reread it but sure seems that McNair's testimony being used as the big smoking gun to connect USC with the crooked agent was quite weak. No wonder he won a settlement and on appeal.

Exactly. Even if Reggie was aware of this arrangement between Lake and his parents, just exactly was he supposed to do about it, whether he agreed with it or not? They are his PARENTS, they are free to make their own (unethical in this case) decisions. He has to veto power here. This gets consistently overlooked.

And again, this was all an arrangement for Reggie TO LEAVE USC EARLY, This wasn't pay for play, play while academically ineligible, etc. USC gained NOTHING here.

I just tell it like it is. The Bruins 2nd string defense had a bad day.

VY's mom had excellent qualifications. Everyone knows that. You're grasping desperately.

Fair points. But Black Superman #10 had a pretty good year as well.

Don't disagree. VY was a great player but Reggie was on another level. A true generational player. A word often misused.

Except heisman is awarded before bowl games. sc

Reggie win the trophy fair and square. There have been at least 8/9 trophy winners who did not deserve the trophy. Reggie was not one

Nnnnnoooooooo he didn't .

You maybe right....CBS Morning America carried the story.

https://x.com/cbsmornings/status/1694682165588504693?s=46&t=Swo8B0dOHK5YmDIJya2xCQ

Except the ncaa didn't name him. Much ado about nothing

Not following?