re: Did compliance department folks leak stuff to Yahoo?

quote:

---

Ok I am not nearly as knowledgeable on this trial as you but my questions, may seem dumb but i am just curious...

---

I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV and did not sleep in a Holiday Inn last night. But curiosity has gotten the best of me and in particular I've been very curious about what evidence has been presented, in what form, and when. I also have been conversing with my lawyer about this (on a personal, not professional, level). He's an Arkansas fan/grad and loves all things anti-LSU. Other than that, I have first-hand experience in dealing with the Feds (as a witness).

quote:

---

#1, correct or incorrect, is Wade being subpoenaed by Dawkins defense team to testify on the matter or who subpoenaed him?

---

To the best of our knowledge (public), he is on the defenses witness list and has not been subpoenaed at this time. With the one (best we know) relevant wiretap tape to this case having been suppressed he might not be put on the stand and/or receive a subpoena. He most assuredly received notice to make himself available IF the court wants testimony and has likely been deposed. That's different than a full blown get-on-the-stand subpoena; however any depositions were probably under oath to protect both sides against lying.

That deposition (or affidavits, or interviews) right there is probably Wade's biggest legal jeopardy (at this time). He was likely deposed under oath, multiple times, and anything he might say in meetings that contradict the deposition could be lying to law enforcement or perjury or similar. Lots of lawyers involved, they are experts at parsing words. Mistakes are lies if they want them to be. So are minor discrepancies. Once you've talked under oath, you are done talking for a while. And that's just how it works.

quote:

---

#2, if Wade doesn't incriminate himself and there is no direct evidence of "pay for play" and Im not talking about what he did say on the wiretaps but instead; a papertrail OR him directly saying on another wiretap transcript something that leaves out anything for interpretation and makes statements that are "cut and dry" and indefensible OR have a player, current or former go on record admitting they received cash or something from Wade or indirectly from Wade to play for him?

---

we have no idea if any of that is out there. If it is out there we have no idea who all has knowledge of it. Based on the defense's position (the schools are part of the fraud), if they have it will leak or would have already been leaked. If Wade's lawyers know it is out there and only DOJ has it, they are likely telling him to not say shite and piss off the DOJ lawyers so it doesn't leak from their side and make things worse for him (the DOJ wants the schools to be the "victim"). LSU's actions in regards to Smart indicate they don't have anything else, but that's far from us knowing; only an indicator. Compliance is fishing and, as par for the course, assume there is something out there and playing uber-safe (or uber-aggressive depending on your POV). The DOJ doesn't really give a shite as long as it doesn't interfere with their case. So there's the short list of motivations right there.

quote:

---

#3, the information that i have heard or read, to me seems to actually give the feeling that Wade will be subpoenaed next month, likely not be found of any wrongdoing (regardless of what he did say on the wiretaps) thus ending his run in with the legal system and then putting the league and/or the institution with the burden of proof. If they are then unable to prove Wade actually paid a player or players or did voilate rules in regards of recruiting by the NCAA or LSU then there's actually a solid chance Wade will be exonerated and there will not be any consequences. As a result, LSU will have a bigger PR problem and egg in the face over their knee jerk reaction to a media leak. Do you see this as a possibility of actually playing out?

---

yes, I see this as where it is going. The defense wants to implicate as many schools as possible vis-a-vis the coaches. The DOJ wants this to be about money, Adidas, and Adidas' bagmen to show that the fraud was committed ON the schools. We, LSU, should be "cooperating" with the DOJ to make their case. Anything that helps the NCAA helps the defense just by quirk of strategy. The DOJ will win in the end. I have my doubts (see #1) that Wade will be testifying. It is possible however. But even if on the stand, with that wiretap suppressed, the DOJ will object to any questions posed that refer to it. And their cross examination will lean heavily towards Dawkins and those like him who are part of this fraud. Crude example: instead of DOJ asking Wade "did you ever give money for a recruit" they would ask "did Dawkins ever solicit money for a recruit".

As far as the court case goes there are several things that line up in Wade's (thus LSU's) favor to prevent any wrongdoing by the coaches (thus schools) from coming to light. And our admin's/compliance's actions are pissing away that advantage instead of waiting to see if the DOJ is successful in their strategy. And it is the SDNY, they WILL be successful.

Remember, NCAA has several reasons why it is in their best interest to implicate the schools too:
1. It is what they do
2. If it is the schools, it isn't 3rd party fraudsters permeating through the system
3. If there's not far reaching fraud and it is the schools committing violations, no one in NCAA is party to fraud
4. Catching schools instead of these multiple fraud helps dispel "negligence" on NCAA's part.
5. NCAA wants to appear to be reacting to DOJ's findings, while doing the opposite, to look like the "white knight" in all of this. The only way to do that is to while the DOJ is busting everybody but the schools, they are busting only the schools.