re: Correcting some important information in the Will Wade situation

Huh? You both prosecuted and defended federal cases, and you're not smart enough to know Will Wade is not a party to the case, nor is he even a witness. The ONLY thing is that the defense attorney said he "planned" to call Will Wade as a witness. As of today, that has not happened.

Will Wade has yet to be served with a subpoena. There are absolutely no restrictions on what he can talk about or who he can talk to. No legal restrictions whatsoever until he is served.

Yes, I defended mass tort lawsuits for 37 years. Retired now. Will Wade is under no restrictions whatsoever as far as what he can say or who he can speak to. The law doesn't prohibit him in any way.

Again...he is not under subpoena. Saying you plan to call him as a witness means absolutely nothing. This isn't difficult to understand, people.

I can completely understand why Will Wade's lawyers don't want him to speak to LSU and the NCAA. People were suggesting that he couldn't legally do so. He certainly can.

I find it difficult to believe he's working with the FBI. The defense would call him as a witness for the FBI?

I’m pretty sure Dawkins has been in jail for the last 5/6 months already and was just sentenced again on the 5th of this month. The FBI isn’t after him what Wade and coaches are involved in is a move to put more pressure on Dawkins to flip. I’m not saying you’re wrong or that I know I’m just reading the tea leaves as best I can and trying to keep the noise out and focus on the known info. But this situation is such an outlier when we have other examples to go off of and our admin has lied so much something isn’t right and we are being fed bullshite by the uppers and mouthpieces at LSU.

quote:

---

The whole "institutional control" thing just got a lot more important with the OLOL fallout. We're in trouble and definitely need to minimize the damage.

---

Valid point I'll admit even though I'm on the side of "it was stupid to call this meeting".

LSU admin at least have an inkling of what was found in that audit. LSU counsel was notified due to two findings. We don't know what those are, if related to athletics, and if was something done by an LSU employee or done against an LSU employee.

It could be anything from funneled cash to recruits to LSU's donations were mishandled by others.

quote:

---

Then it becomes even worse, a conspiracy to defraud the public by the university, and all involved. The university would knowingly be giving scholarships funded by taxpayer money to in-eligible players. Which is why the universities will do everything they can to maintain plausible deniability such as suspending and firing coaches.

---

agree wholeheartedly. But defense gonna do defense things. Which is why I say we should be on the side of the DOJ. The defense wants to point at the universities being complicit with Adidas to refute the fraud charges. The DOJ wants it to only be Adidas and it's co-conspiritors.

The real question is where does the DOJ see the NCAA in all of this. I believe they see them as negligent; if they can prove they knew anything about fraud with Adidas, the AAU, medicare fraud, admissions fraud, bribery, or the granting of athletic scholarships to non-athletes there it will be much worse than negligence.

Hence we should be 100% working with the DOJ. Not setting up our own employees with the NCAA.

“ The NCAA l”

The bottom line is if there is significant wrongdoing by the LSU coaching staff that’s going to result in some type of penalty, that wrongdoing was done long ago and suspending the head coach for the last game of the regular season is going to do nothing to alleviate whatever penalty is forthcoming.

Anyone under a notice of a subpoena shouldn’t discuss what their testimony might be with anyone. LSU knew what calling wade into a formal meeting would provoke. Their acting as if it’s SOP for Wade to attend such a meeting prior to giving testimony is naive and silly.

quote:

---

Their acting as if it’s SOP for Wade to attend such a meeting prior to giving testimony is naive and silly.

---

Nah, it's conniving and sinister. They knew a meeting with NCAA present was a nonstarter.

They already decided to fire him and are trying to do it without paying out the rest of his contract.

quote:

---

Hence we should be 100% working with the DOJ. Not setting up our own employees with the NCAA.

---

I agree. It's also possible Wade is doing just that and LSU is trying to sabotage him for whatever reason.

Somewhat different topics, I know. Still though, something isn't adding up with the Wade/LSU thing. Namely, LSU's pettiness.

Just a few tidbits:
1. Why can't Wade walk into to administration and give a full accounting if he didn't break any NCAA rules and/or has no reason to fear a criminal case.
2. Everyone posts about Wade's attorney advice. What about LSU's attorney's advice and the recommendation of their compliance department?

I just can't understand the blanket defense of Wade and the blanket condemnation of LSU's interest based on the legal or compliance advice they have been given.
Everyone keeps talking about the PR damage. The damage was first caused by the transcripts which were not LSU's doing. They were the result of Wade's recorded conversations. Plus, many suggest that this would all just pass if LSU administration would have held its water. That's not true. At each step of the post season, this would be brought up just as it is now. The news around Miller at Arizona has not died down because no one cares, it's because Zona is not going to be in the tourney.
The national media doesn't really care about the clusterfrick that is the LSU administration.

quote:

---

Tig321’s post in this thread. I think it sums it up pretty well.

---

Not really IMO.

quote:

---

both parties have handled this poorly.

---

Agreed.

quote:

---

hard for me to support LSU’s decision to have the NCAA meeting with Wade before they have sat down with him.

---

I would assume that they have lost confidence that he has committed no serious violations. We don't know what we don't know.

Good post. I agree that it's difficult to understand LSU not meeting with WW privately beforehand without the NCAA present. LSU did not want to get rid of WW for many reasons: (1) basketball success and generation of more revenue and fan excitement; (2) WW was not suspended when first "bad news" came out in Oct 2018; (3) he is only on suspension and not fired at this time.

Things got more complicated when 2nd shoe dropped and wiretap leaked-- (1) NCAA began talking to LSU about "institutional control". Perhaps even requiring LSU to include them in all meetings; (2) WW couldn't/wouldn't meet under those circumstances; and (3) an ill-advised PR campaign on both sides in an attempt to curry favor with fan base.

I've read WW's entire contract. He does have an obligation to fully cooperate with LSU and NCAA in any possible investigation. It's inconvenient this leaked info came out when it did-- my conspiracy theory is to derail LSU run in tourney (both SEC and NCAA) -- but you play the cards you are dealt. LSU was silly to insist on meeting with NCAA present before any private meeting. WW was silly to insist on being reinstated publicly without talking privately to AD. MY GUESS is -- LSU told WW NCAA would have to be present and WW told LSU he wanted to be reinstated-- both privately and "off the record." When neither got their way-- PR campaign ensued.

Now-- LSU says it needs WW to state he is innocent of any NCAA violations and explain the context of the wiretap and be convincing. WW will be hard-pressed to do so-- even after the federal trial in April. Yes-- I've heard all the "explanations" posted here. Those will not carry the day in a civil court of law. Hopefully WW will be better at explaining than the posters here have been.