re: Per Scott McKay Facebook post, LSU compliance department scuttles reinstatement of Wade...

quote:

---

Same goes for witness questioning. I would be surprised if anything came out implicating Wade in any wrongdoing. I doubt the judge will just give the defense a free-for-all and allow them to grill witnesses about unrelated matters.

---

Agreed. I've been saying as much since the announcement of the subpoena. Regardless of what new leaks have occurred since, that doesn't change whether or not any of it is relevant to the criminal proceedings. If they are not on trial for bribing Will Wade, I have no idea how they plan on asserting his conversations with Dawkins are relevant to the defense of the underlying charges. Anyone can be issued a subpoena, but that doesn't mean his testimony will follow through without objection. I am curious as to the scheduling order as it pertains to pre-trial Motions. I've said I'd expect to see a Motion to Quash Wade's subpoena filed by the federal prosecutors or Wade's attorneys, but I guess we'll see on that end.

But you're absolutely right, a federal judge isn't going to allow his courtroom and these proceedings turn into a circus like the defense wants. It's just not the proper forum and judges don't typically allow that to happen.

quote:

---

And FWIW, I did see some of your earlier comments and found them quite informative.

---

I may come off as a contrarian sometimes, but I try to take emotion out of things like this, read up on the story, and see both sides before taking a position one way or another. I think a lot of emotional reactions occur on here right after a news story breaks and assumptions get made, not necessarily intentionally, but that are just unwarranted when all the facts aren't understood or available yet. I still stand by my position that Wade made a boo boo in talking to Dawkins in the first place. But, in fairness, I don't think it would ever be a reasonable expectation that dude's phone was wire-tapped either. That's not exactly the status quo of reasonable expectations when dealing with street agents

However, as far as the legal stuff, I've always thought the subpoena was not going to be as spectacular as the masses wanted or feared it would be. There's just nothing there that I see as being, in any way, relevant to the proceedings. So, if the NCAA hopes to get their evidence on a silver platter to hammer Wade and/or LSU, it isn't going to be in Court.

One question I do have, however, as it's outside my field, is whether the FBI can legally release phone conversations obtained through a wire-tap of an non-consenting third party (Wade) through an FOIA request if said conversations are deemed inadmissible and not made part of the official record. I just don't know how that would jive with privacy rights.

In any other arena, one party has to consent to the conversation for it not to be an invasion of privacy, in most states that is. I don't believe there are any states that require no consenting parties but there are states that require both parties to consent. I'm also not sure what state's laws would govern (calls, I assume, were between parties in two different states).

But my question really is...are these laws effectively rendered void for Wade if the feds had a warrant to effectively waive Dawkins' rights to have his phone calls wire-tapped? I just don't know the answer to that and honestly don't have the time to go down a westlaw rabbiot hole to figure it out. If the NCAA can't get recordings of those calls due to privacy rights Wade has, I think they're going to be left holding their dicks as long as our compliance department doesn't go on a power trip.

quote:

---

So which organization would you rather be the compliance person at: LSU Athletics or OLOL?

---

right now, fricking neither. Both need to clean house and LSU needs to hire an actual attorney with previous extensive experience as in-house counsel for a respected major corporation. They would be very expensive, as guys with jobs like that are paid well, but it would be well worth it instead of having someone who only has experience in athletic admin work and a 4 year degree in a liberal arts major.

These folks need to be able to stand their ground with a regulatory agency. This is done all day every day in private industry and the public sector. Yes, when you’re wrong you’re wrong but even if you are you still fight for fair treatment from said regulator.

I remember when you called this back when the Yahoo story broke.

Credit where due.

quote:

---

If LSU goes against the recommendation of the compliance department, it would look really bad to the NCAA.

---

The NCAA would not be privy to this information.

But, that's not to say we shouldn't heed the advice of our compliance department. While most fans are frustrated by it, it's times like this when they are valuable.

quote:

---

yeah, if I'm LSU I hire someone with extensive experience as in-house counsel for a major company, you know someone with compliance legal expertise

---

agree

quote:

---

not simply a former college athlete who has worked in the athletic department her entire adult life.

---

really agree

quote:

---

Yeah, that's not accurate. The only people who have that are the FBI and the defense counsel in that case (who selectively leaked out portions to a blogger). The reality is the NCAA and LSU will likely never get the tapes. The best way to get them is if they are admitted into evidence in the trial in April, and I just don't see how these tapes are relevant to the crimes these defendants are accused of committing. Other than that, I'm not sure the FBI hands out copies o

---

Understood. Obviously, if he didnt ever have those conversations, he would run to whoever he could and say "its not me on thise tapes, ive never spoken a word like that" To my knowledge, he has not denied it since the information broke. From what i remember, Yshoo has been pretty accurate when breaking stories like this.