FBI investigation, NCAA, and Wade

On # 2, nobody has access to the tapes or the transcripts except the FBI and the parties to the criminal case (US attorney and defendants). If those tapes are not admitted at the second trial (and I do not think they will be), the NCAA will likely never have access to the tapes.

The only reason it came is because the defense attorneys leaked parts of the tapes to Yahoo.

No it is not publicly available and will only be so if it is admitted at trial or produced under FOIA request (not likely to happen).

quote:

---

The only reason it came is because the defense attorneys leaked parts of the tapes to Yahoo.

---

How is he not held accountable for that?

I would think some things are voluntarily provided, although I may be wrong. Similar to an employer requiring access to social media accounts.

quote:

---

couldn’t Wade publicly insist for a meeting with ONLY Alleva

---

I imagine Alleva and Wade have been talking through this entire process. I cant even blame Alleva for anything anymore I'm convinced hes not allowed to make decisions on anything.

1) Anyone Wade speaks to can get a subpoena and be forced to testify as to what Wade said. Any recordings or notes can face the same. The defense has a motive to hurt anyone and everyone.

2) should get released after the trial.

3) it seems like the NCAA is investigating.

4) I don't think compliance can force anyone to reveal bank statements, especially players.

quote:

---

1. Why is it unwise for Wade to talk with LSU prior to end of FBI investigation into Dawkins? If the issue is the NCAA being present, couldn’t Wade publicly insist for a meeting with ONLY Alleva to show good faith and reassure LSU fans he has nothing to hide? It would go a long way I think for a lot of people.

---

I think it is unwise on several fronts. And while not "illegal" to attend that meeting, it is still unwise.

1. The presence of a 3rd party (NCAA) complicates matters regarding 'private', 'privileged', 'public', and 'subject to subpoena' .

2. I'd want to hash things out with my employer first before having the NCAA there. And the meeting was scheduled; Wade planned to attend. Then canceled/rescheduled for the NCAA to be in attendance. If wary of a setup, that's going to scare Wade right there. It's a clear indication who the 'partners' are. LSU says 'you come meet with US (LSU & NCAA)', not 'WE (LSU & Wade) should meet with them'. Admin decided which side of the table everybody was on; and Wade was going to be alone on his side.

3. One thing the Feds absolutely love to do is investigate defense witnesses. If they can find any dirt on you, you get prosecuted even if a lower class felony. Why? It can discredit any testimony (Wade was on defense's witness list) you have or might have. Anything said in that meeting that was not in line with possible testimony is a potential perjury trap, which because he is a defense witness the Feds would be all over. That issue is compounded by the presence of the NCAA AND the fact LSU indicated they partnered with the NCAA and not their employee. Either party, NCAA or LSU, could easily volunteer minutes or affidavit to Feds to possibly setup the perjury trap. There was no limit to questions granted as requested, with a 3rd party there, any lawyer is going to say hell no.

quote:

---

3. NCAA investigation and LSU’s responsibility to investigate the alleged remarks. Does LSU have the responsibility to investigate allegations made in media stories? Does the NCAA?

---

Under the NCAA's collective bargaining agreement LSU and they both share investigative responsibility. It's like many licensed professions (real estate, lawyer, etc.) where a duty lies with LSU to rat on itself or anyone else. Neither LSU or NCAA, unlike the court, have to have a crime to investigate. They can investigate anything they want, when they want. Neither, especially the NCAA, requires proof either; they can act on reasonable inference (those tapes) or strong/overwhelming suspicion. LSU has to worry about violation of contracts in its definition of "reasonable", the NCAA not so much.

quote:

---

4. Where is LSU’s compliance department in all of this? Isn’t it their job to look at family bank accounts, athletes’s perks, etc.? How could something big like this is alleged to be totally escape their scrutiny?

---

LOL, for a while there they were driving the car. You don't think Bohansen would rather partner with Wade than the NCAA do you? Hell no, his deference (not loyalty) is to the NCAA. To our compliance department the NCAA is the partner, both LSU and it's coaches/departments are the subject against which they are partnered.

Very thorough and informed responses. Thank you.

So, why not insist (and do it publicly) on meeting mano-a-mano with Alleva, no recording devices, no lawyers, no NCAA? Then Alleva can either defend or argue against Wade’s continuation as Lsu’s Head coach to the BOS. Why wouldn’t this work? Everything said would be considered hearsay in court.

On 4., I’d like to know what compliance has access to with regard to the players, ie financial, academic, etc in order to ensure compliance.

Maybe, but the prosecutor would have to prove he made the statement to Alleva and sans a recording device, difficult to do, especially if Wade denies.