quote:
while we're on the topic of suspensions, I personally hope LM suspends JH for 2-4 games for his total lack of self control. I fully realise that none of this would have happened if the other drunken douche had kept his punk mouth shut but the fact remains that JH risked his eligibility/future and stained the program's rep when he forgot about 'team' and only thought of 'me'. he needs to sit and comtemplate. JMO.

Absolutely.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by Baloo

Formerly MDGeaux

Member since Sep 2003

49645 posts

Posted on 8/14/13 at 10:13 am to CptBengal

quote:
no. There is circumstantial evidence he SIGNED autographs. There is ONE person claiming he gave him money. 1 person, who isnt going to cooperate.

No, now we have to explain the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence. There is DIRECT evidence he signed autographs. We have video. Circumstantial evidence is evidence that permits conclusions that indirectly establish the existence or nonexistence of a fact. The fact we have have evidence he hates signing autographs yet has done it a lot on multiple occasions for multiple brokers is circumstantial evidence he took money to perform a task he dislikes so intensely so many times.

quote:
so there's no proof at all...that's not even circumstantial. It's pure conjecture.

No, it's not pure conjecture. It's a logical conclusion based upon evidence presented, which is what circumstantial evidence is. A main fact may be inferred from supporting established facts. That's how circumstantial evidence works, which, again, is enough to "convict" in the NCAA rulebook. We don't need direct evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

quote:
1) He didnt receive remuneration
2) He didnt advertise anything
3) he didnt recommend or promote the sale or use of any COMMERCIAL product or service.

4) If this is applicable, any player who signs an autograph that gets sold is guilty.

Read the rule. Enumeration is irrelevent. You don't need to take cash to break the rule. However, signing a large quantity of merchandise for an autograph broker is quite literally creating inventory for the broker. That is promoting the sale of a commercial product or service: the broker's service.

And this is different than an athlete signing a regular autogrpah because this is one guy signing IN BULK explictly FOR A BROKER. Maniel knew he was signing for a broker, which is unidisputed at this point. By signing such a large quantity and not a one-off autograph for an anonymous person, this is clearly distinguishable from "any player who signs an autograph". Circumstance matters.

By the text of the rule, Manziel is guilty even if he never took a dime, which strains credibility to the breaking point anyway. Now, I agree it's a stupid rule that shouldn't be on the books, much less enforced. I think "ethically", he's done nothing wrong. But he has broken the text of the rule.

I don't think he's guilty until proven innocent. He's guilty based upon the evidence. Now, argue it's a stupid a rule and it doesn't matter, I'm likely to agree. I think he should play, too. But he's clearly guilty under the text of the bylaw, by signing a large quantity of items on multiple occasions specifically for a broker, who he knew was a broker. That's a violation even without a check. Though I don't think anyone honestly believes based upon the evidence presented that he would do it without receiving payment. But, ultimately, that doesn't matter. the rule does not require payment for there to be a violation.

Page 1 2 3 4