Silvio
-
After some deliberation and thought, I have written (and not posted) two penetrating, and entirely different explanations of what is probably going on here with Silvio and his eligibility prospects related to the NCAA and the FBI/DOJ. I therefore infer I just don’t understand what this is all about and will have to continue to wait and see.
Rock Chalk!
-
KU has gone out of its way to be careful and proactive when dealing with this type of situations as shown by not playing Diallo, Alexander and Preston even when the NCAA did not indicate they could not play. The NCAA did not officially notify KU at all that Alexander or Preston were not eligible both neither of them played after the potential/possibility of a violation was raised.
Silvio’s guardian still proclaims he was not paid and until there s proof he was then it is all allegations.
At this point I don’t know what to make of the FBI indictment; it is certainly in the realm of possibility that it jumped the gun before it had all its ducks in a row and now it is running into problems trying to prove the case. Doesn’t it surprise you that if the allegations were true and the FBI had Sean Miller on tape we would have heard more about it and he would be out of a job? Instead, we have not heard anything else…and Miller is still coaching.
I see a lot of similarities with the Mueller Grand Jury. They indicted 13 individuals and 3 entities(including one that did not even exist when it allegedly committed the crime) and when defendants requested a speedy trial, Muller asked the Judge not to grant it because it did no have the case ready and when the defendant’s lawyers asked for all new evidence they were told there was none, which would appear to indicate it the indictment was a fishing expedition to turn some of the defendants to get information and so far has not worked. The NCAA case appears to be similar insofar as the indictment seems to have been issued with the purpose of turning accused individuals and getting them to provide evidence and it has not happened. Without a conviction or at least the start of a trial, the NCAA would open itself to potential liability if it prevents an individual, presumed to be innocent, from playing college ball and potentially causing irreparable harm to his career.
-
JayHawkFanToo said:
KU has gone out of its way to be careful and proactive when dealing with this type of situations as shown by not playing Diallo, Alexander and Preston even when the NCAA did not indicate they could not play. The NCAA did not officially notify KU at all that Alexander or Preston were not eligible both neither of them played after the potential/possibility of a violation was raised.
Silvio’s guardian still proclaims he was not paid and until there s proof he was then it is all allegations.
At this point I don’t know what to make of the FBI indictment; it is certainly in the realm of possibility that it jumped the gun before it had all its ducks in a row and now it is running into problems trying to prove the case. Doesn’t it surprise you that if the allegations were true and the FBI had Sean Miller on tape we would have heard more about it and he would be out of a job? Instead, we have not heard anything else…and Miller is still coaching.
I see a lot of similarities with the Mueller Grand Jury. They indicted 13 individuals and 3 entities(including one that did not even exist when it allegedly committed the crime) and when defendants requested a speedy trial, Muller asked the Judge not to grant it because it did no have the case ready and when the defendant’s lawyers asked for all new evidence they were told there was none, which would appear to indicate it the indictment was a fishing expedition to turn some of the defendants to get information and so far has not worked. The NCAA case appears to be similar insofar as the indictment seems to have been issued with the purpose of turning accused individuals and getting them to provide evidence and it has not happened. Without a conviction or at least the start of a trial, the NCAA would open itself to potential liability if it prevents an individual, presumed to be innocent, from playing college ball and potentially causing irreparable harm to his career.
Do you know if it is legal in either/or both cases for the FBI/DOJ to engage in a “fishing expedition”, as you characterize “a lot of similarities” between the reputed actions of the “Mueller Grand Jury” and the reputed actions of the FBI/DOJ regarding the situation reputedly involving a petroshoeco official, Silvio, and KU?
I have been wondering about the legalities involved in fishing expeditions. Is the state within its legal authority, if it engages in “fishing expeditions?”
In the instance of the “Mueller Grand Jury”, I suppose the state could plausibly assert that national security interests justified a fishing expedition.
Might be tough plausibly to argue national security interests in the Silvio situation.
-
@HighEliteMajor We have seen the NCAA drag its heels to impose a lengthy de facto sanction as occurred with BP. Happened with Cliff, too, and would probably have dragged on longer if KU hadn’t made a major ruckus about Diallo.
Interestingly, all 3 of those occurred when the player was being held out by our staff as a precaution.
So, does that mean we made a good prophylactic decision to avoid a major penalty on KU (at the kid’s expense, altho we scrambled due to unavailabilty), or that we should force the NCAA’s hand by announcing we will play someone?
Is it possible the delay on Silvio, which allegedly was due to his last-minute paperwork and the NCAA holiday, was another de facto suspension due to the NCAA having notice of the guardian issue?
-
Unfortunately the government does it all the time. Manafort was indicted for the alleged crimes of money laundering and tax evasion that happened in 2005 and 2007 and more than 10 years before Trump declared his candidacy and with clear intent of having him come up with information damaging to Trump. Mueller even had to judge shop since one already told him these crimes had nothing to do with the scope of the current investigation.
The expression a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich was coined to illustrate how a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict just about anyone.
It is not my intent to introduce politics into this thread but simply to illustrate the similarities of the two investigations/indictments.
-
@JayHawkFanToo but you always do
-
Every time I read where people think Silvio will be ineligible I wonder what part of the story I’m missing.
I think Silvio will be eligible, and if there is a penalty it will be for a few games.
Is there proof that Silvio knew about the money?
-
Always? Really? And you are always free not to read my posts.
Having said that, don’t you see the similarities in both indictments?
-
“Follow the money” That’s the mantra for every financial crimes investigator out there.
Financial crimes often end up going back years and years.
Let’s say that a criminal robbed a bank 10 years ago, but they weren’t caught at that time. Over the next decade, they trickled the money back into the financial system slowly, buying property and other assets, allowing them to build a company.
Perhaps now, most everything that they do is completely legitimate, except that they have their first few transactions still out there, and they had to lie to the bank (bank fraud) about the source of the funds, and they had to hide the true source of those funds (money laundering).
An investigator comes in and starts unraveling this. If you limit the investigation to just this year, you can’t prove the money laundering because you can’t show the false statements used to build the business because you can’t prove that the statements are untrue without getting to the source. Tax records for ten years ago show they didn’t have that income (tax evasion) legitimately. The original loan and purchase records show that it was purchased with cash, but the forms were doctored to make it appear that it was a bank instrument.
Everything falls apart if you dig deeper. But if you skim the surface, nothing comes to light.
Manafort was hoping they wouldn’t dig. He lost that bet.
-
@drgnslayr Here is what you might be missing, as most people optimistic about Silvio seem to be ignoring it: Brian Bowen was ruled ineligible for next season based on the money his dad got for him going to Louisville despite the NCAA apparently having determined he did not know about it, despite the fact that Louisville held him out all last year, and despite the fact that he was now enrolled at South Carolina which had nothing to do with it. The amount was allegedly over $100,000 if that is a major difference.
-
Eligibility has little to do with wrongdoing. The NCAA is not absolutely tied to any of that, so they can make whatever ruling they so desire.
-
I’m frustrated with the prospect of another season of constant requests for eligibility updates from Coach Self and the tendency on his part to remain optimistic for his player, like we saw with Diallo, Alexander and Preston. How many times last season was he asked about Billy Preston’s availability and Coach Self responded that he expected Billy to be cleared to play any day. I see the same situation arising with Silvio, except Silvio is a proven player who will be sorely missed if he doesn’t play. I’ll always wonder if Billy was going to contribute double digit points (that’s what I penciled in preseason) or was just going to be a 6’10’’ disappointment. I hate that I’ll never know. I don’t get frustrated with absences due to injuries, like Joel’s back; those are an understandable part of sports. It’s the uncertainty surrounding the prospectively ineligible player that drives me batty.
-
Bowen’s father reputedly collects consideration for him and Bowen loses eligibility.
Sean Miller is reputedly recorded offering consideration and he is still coaching.
UNC reputedly keeps players eligible with easy classes and the school is not heavily penalized.
UK fills its roster with about 10 OADs, and Duke with 9, and nothing happens.
A UK player with a unibrow is reputedly reported to have been paid 6 figures to play for UK, the Chicago paper refuses to retract, nothing happens.
Pitino breaks silence about recruit channeling, then is reputedly forced out over prostitutes and recruits.
“That’s entertainment!!”
-
It’s easy to penalize players/families because they have no power or authority. They generally don’t have the resources to fight the NCAA in court, so its an easy target.
Coaches are powerful. They are popular within their own fan base, so its hard to turn the court of public opinion against them. The biggest ones also have tons of money, so fighting the NCAA isn’t a hardship. Plus, since the NCAA can’t market the players from year to year, they depend on the big time coaches for revenue generation.
University athletic departments are the same as coaches, except with more resources and a fan base that is unlikely to turn against the school itself. While the fan base may dislike a coach or AD, they are still on board with the school as a whole.
The penalties reflect that. Players and families are ruled ineligible for all sorts of things all the time. Coaches get penalized if they are repeat offenders, but generally not for first time offenses, and usually not very harshly. Schools are only penalized for the most gross of offenses. And schools know that the NCAA is never going to enforce the death penalty ever again (nearly destroyed SMU as a D1 program, played a role in the demise of the SWC), so they just keep doing whatever it takes to win, knowing that its worth it from a fundraising/ticket sales/merchandise standpoint even if they ultimately have to send back NCAA tournament money or forfeit wins.
-
Good grief … just more of the same social injustice absurdity.
-
I believe Louisville is perhaps the dirtiest school on the planet. They remind me of the old SMU football program. I do believe that has a lot to do with it because their environment is horrific. Their culture needs to change.
But I hear what you are saying. I really think this is one of those “glass half full or half empty”-type situations. It’s easy to support both sides to that coin.
I am in no way saying I am positive Silvio will be eligible. I just see the glass as half full!
-
@drgnslayr https://247sports.com/college/kansas/Article/What-theyre-saying-How-Kansas-Jayhawks-Silvio-De-Sousa-are-approaching-FBI-probe-into-college-basketball-119016511?utm_source=247Sports%20Newsletter&utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_campaign=180613_183009_Kansas%20Jayhawks&utm_content=Link&liveconnect=06-B1-67-D8-16-44-EE-DB-85-4A-DD-8A-1E-BF-CB-45180613_183009KansasJayhawks
-
You nailed it. And the same injustice is in the court system because a good attorney can get you out of just about anything… but you will pay out your nose for it!
-
The ability to fight a charge is worth as much as anything in criminal justice. Same applies here.
The NCAA has limited resources for pursuing these types of things, same as a prosecutors office would. It’s simply easier to pursue things against individuals that won’t/can’t fight than it is to pursue them against individuals or entities that can/will fight.
There was a story not too long ago out of Wyandotte County about a man being released from jail after spending more than 20 years behind bars for a crime he didn’t commit.
The prosecutor at the time, who it was later discovered had an affair with the judge sitting on this case, introduced some questionable evidence, and withheld evidence from the defense, including witnesses that would have testified that the defendant was not the person that committed the crime. It has later come to light that the reason this person was even accused of the crime was because his mother rejected the advances of a law enforcement officer.
Obviously, that’s an extreme case. But we can look elsewhere.
Look at Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein. Larry Nassar. They have dozens of victims each. The only reason they came to light was because many women came forward against each of them. Had it been only one, each of those men was too powerful to ever be prosecuted. Again, extreme cases, but that shows what happens when you have resources versus when you don’t.
Yet this person went to prison on the false testimony of one LEO. No corroborating testimony. No physical evidence.
Perhaps if he had access to funds to hire an investigator himself (although the prosecution is required by law to turn over potential exculpatory evidence), he would have discovered the witnesses that disputed the police story and been exonerated at his initial trial.
But access to a lawyer to mount a serious defense would have made an enormous difference. And before anyone says anything about public defenders, they are underfunded and at times amount to nothing more than plea factories, attempting to clear as many cases as quickly as possible or face contempt charges. Yet there is little public interest in funding this Constitutional mandate.
Weinstein, Cosby and Nassar all have access to strong legal teams, which have been able to make the prosecutors earn every inch in their attempt to convict them.
The same thing happens here. The ability to fight is as valuable as any. Otherwise you can just get swept away.
-
Let’s not confuse topics here, and let’s not confuse issues.
The schools – like KU – work very hard on behalf of their players. To get them eligible, to argue with the NCAA, to present information, and to keep them eligible. So the dissertations aren’t applicable here. Did Preston suffer because KU didn’t help? Alexander? Diallo? Of course not. Schools provide massive resources to get and keep kids eligible.
Someone is trying very hard again to inject the social justice (political) arguments back into the discussion.
-
It is disturbing about the frequency you call attention to, but frequency is not the same as legality and constitutional authorization.
I am a layman, but I doh’t recall any clauses authorizing this sort of use of police and judicial powers by the Federal law enforcement and justice agencies.
I am curious what constitutional-legal grounds FBI-DOJ would justify this sort of activity, if required by the Executive, or Legislative branches, to do so.
-
I’ve written a number of responses building on what you said an trying to take it to another level, but have not suitably persuaded myself, so I am just going to take the opportunity to say you distilled this phenomenon well and found a fitting dynamic that drives it.
Rock Chalk!
-
-
@FarmerJayhawk if coach feels like we are in a good place with this whole ordeal /Silvio- -then I’m good with it. - - Trust the process - - ROCK CHALK ALL DAY LONG BABY
-
It’s like you say with the ShoeCos. They have power, so they have some say in how things play out, whether that’s with recruits, or whistles, or money.
Speaking of the ShoeCos, in this situation, the bad actor was not acting on behalf of any particular university. Instead, they were acting on behalf of a ShoeCo. However, the NCAA has not even approached the subject of penalizing any ShoeCo as a result of these actions.
Instead, the ShoeCo blames the individual person. Perhaps they acted alone in this instance. But that doesn’t answer the critical question of where this lowly person got all that money…
-
How can the NCAA penalize a shoe co? The NCAA has really no power to do anything outside making players/programs/coaches ineligible, retroactively and proactively and forfeiting money and maybe imposing fines that are usually appealed and settled.
It could potentially sue in Civil Court but the members schools would most likely not allow it because you don’t bite the hand that feeds you; shoeco money drives college sports.
-
To most of us it would be unethical but to the best of my knowledge it is legal and used frequently in the same way that police detectives can lie to a suspect during interrogation which has been ruled at all levels to be permissible and legal.
If you want unfairness look at how a grand jury operates. One prosecutor and members of the grand jury selected by the prosecutor with no judge present and no defense attorneys allowed in the room and the prosecutor can present selective evidence and does not have to inform the jurors of any exculpatory evidence…and the jurors are sworn to secrecy. Talk about a one sided affair.
-
You don’t have to look that far. I’m dealing with a school superintendent and his wife the school counselor who are making threats on my 8 year old boys life. Not just in print, but actually throwing what amounts to poison in my backyard.
I will win the battle, but it will be hard fought. They will go down in flames or I will die trying. Don’t mess with my family!
-
You need to hire @justanotherfan
-
I wish you the best in your situation. Sounds tough. Especially when kids are involved! Your kids only have YOU to protect them!
-
Unfortunately, that isn’t the type of law I have expertise in. I definitely understand protecting your family. You have to do what is necessary to protect those you love.
One thing I have learned about dealing with school people/local authority figures is that if you do end up needing to get a lawyer, get one that does not live in that town/district/area. While every lawyer is supposed to act in the best interests of their client, its always best to have a lawyer that doesn’t fear any sort of retribution for themselves or their loved ones by taking on the situation. They will be able to approach the situation with a much clearer vision.
Good luck, and most importantly, STAY SAFE.
-
@justanotherfan @drgnslyr @approx @crimson @mayjay thank you. I’m just trying to get through this without any prison time! They will hang themselves if I give them enough rope.
-
@jayballer73 Silvio is playing, and probly our 6th man, until proven otherwise. Rock Chalk!
-
@dylans every time I make a pband j I feel bad!
-
@Crimsonorblue22 They are delicious. I get wow butter and jelly. It’s decent. Sunflower butter is horrid. Cashew butter is ok, but a little bland and expensive.
-
Silvio really came on towards the end of last season. I really look forward to seeing him after a summer with the team. Hope the eligibility issues are all cleared up (yea right) before the season begins so a cloud isn’t hanging over us.
-
Just don’t stoop to their level! Take the high road!
There are always many ways to deal with situations. If one method doesn’t work, try another.
You are also setting an example for your kids and showing them how such situations should be dealt with.
There are always better ways to gain control over a situation than to become violent or threatening. Those are always last resorts and only show desperation… a weakness! You want to show strength and you will show strength by dealing with this situation the proper way. Try to remove your emotions and discover what your real options are, including legal options.
It’s easy to get caught up in emotions and have those emotions churn over and over inside, to the point where your emotions take on too much importance. It is easy to start seeing things distorted, too. Very dangerous.
Try to seek advice from trusted friends, hopefully with some level of spiritual consciousness. It wouldn’t hurt to seek some legal advice, too.
-
from his twitter today
-
It occurs to me that teams already mentioned in the FBI releases generally took an aggressive stance with those players. Arizona played their people and so did others, daring the NCAA to do something (which they didn’t/haven’t yet). If all the teams mentioned so far (and those that may be named in the future) take the same stance and play these kids despite the “accusations”, would the NCAA really punish every team? Such an action by the NCAA would have far reaching (and negative, in my opinion) consequences for the sport at the college level.
-
@Gorilla72 Do you think enforcing the rules would have better, more important impact? Punish every team that was involved, punish every team that played an ineligible player? I do.
That may mean KU being punished, and if it gets this going in the right direction, that is away from the pro model, then I’m all for it.
-
@HighEliteMajor I am pretty sure that would eliminate a season or two of D1 basketball while every college restocked with players who, with their extended families, all could pass lie detector tests.
