<&ije 4
24, /jSy
Mitigating factors save #Cats from "Death Penalty'
'W/?/7e breakdowns occured in the institution's control over the program, the university's president acted forcefully to uncover all relevant information in the case and to set a proper direction for the future of Kentucky's athletics program."
MISSION, Kansas-The NCAA Committee on Infractions has placed the University : of Kentucky basketball program on three years probation for violations of NCAA regulations. But although the committee termed the case "major," it said that because : of "significant actions" taken by the univer-: sity's president, the sanctions levied were less severe than they could have been. The terms of the probation are as follows:
Kentucky's basketball team is barred from postseason tournament play for the 1989-90 and 1990-91 seasons, and may not begin those seasons against outside competition before the fourth Friday in November;
Kentucky's basketball team may not appear on any live telecast during the 1989-90
season:
In the 1989-90 academic year, Kentucky may award only two intitial institutional financial aid awards in the sport of men's basketball other than the one grant already committed. No additional grants may be awarded on the basis that members of the men's basketball team do not return to the university as a result of the postseason sanc-I lions imposed on the university:
In the 1990-91 academic year, three initial grants-in-aid may be awarded on the same basis as those permitted in 1989-90:
Because an academically ineligible student-athlete represented Kentucky in the 1988 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Championship, the Committee on Infractions I will recommend to the NCAA Executive Committee that it require Kentucky to return the university's full share of receipts from that
championship (after distribution to the conference office and other conference institutions):
The committee accepts and adopts Kentucky's disciplinary action to disassociate a representative of the university's athletics interests from the university's intercollegiate athletics program.
?The committee noted that although it considered the case "major," mitigating factors led it to suspend other penalties it was considering levying against Kentucky. These mitigating factors include:
Kentucky's extensive internal investigation (mandated by the university's president) of the men's basketball program and its full cooperation with the NCAA investigation:
The university's appointment of a new athletics director, who. together with the president, has begun to design and implement a meaningful program for establishing institutional control of the men's basketball program;
The resignation of the former men's basketball staff, which made certain elements of legislatively prescribed minimum penalties inappropriate:
The university's disassociation from its athletics program the representative of its athletics interests involved in several violations;
The university's placing of Wildcat Lodge, which formerly was under the control of the Kentucky Athletics Association, directly under the control of the university's housing office.
UK president David Roselle
?When an academically ineligible student-athlete is found to have represented an institution in an NCAA championship, the NCAA Executive Committee may require the institution to return up to 90 percent of its share of the net receipts from that event, an amount that would not be reduced to reflect conference sharing plans. As a result of the mitigating factors listed above, the Committee on Infractions will recommend to the Executive Committee that the Executive Committee require Kentucky to return only that portion listed above. The Committee on Infractions, in further consideration of the above mitigating circumstances, suspended the following penalties:
A prohibition of any expense-paid visits to the institution for prospective basketball student-athletes during the 1989-90 academic
year;
A second year of live television sanctions;
A stipulation that only two men's basketball coaches may recruit off campus during the 1989-90 academic year.
?The committee determined that several "major" violations occured. Among the most serious, it said, were:
A former assistant coach sent cash to the father of a prospective student-athlete;
A student-athlete committed academic fraud by cheating on an ACT test;
The student-athlete competed in regular-season and postseason competition even though he knew and Kentucky should have known that he was ineligible for intercollegiate competition due to his improper test score;
A former assistant coach demonstrated a knowning and willful effort to violate NCAA regulations; further, he provided false and misleading information to Kentucky, the NCAA Staff and the Committee on Infractions concerning his involvement in and knowledge of the violation of those regulations.
?The committee noted the seriousness of these and other violations, and found that the violations would justify a curtailment, in whole or in part, of Kentucky's 1989-90 regular-season basketball schedule. The committee, however, indicated that the case also was evaluated in light of the university's actions to bring itself into compliance.
"While breakdowns occured in the institution's control over the program." the committee said in its report, "the university's president acted forcefully to uncover all relevant information in the case and to set a proper direction for the future of Kentucky's athletics program. The committee credited these actions, and so the penalties, although severe, do not include any limitation on regular-season competition."
Kentucky's probation begins the date its 15-day appeal period expires or the date Kentucky notifies the NCAA executive director that it will not appeal, whichever is earlier. In the event Kentucky appeals the sanctions, the probation would begin the date the NCAA Council subcommittee of Division I members rules on the appeal.
The full text of the committee's report (with names deleted) is attached.
It's all here
Full NCAA report details the Kentucky Wildcat basketball program's three-year sentence
MISSION, KansasThis report is organized as follows:
I. Introduction.
II. Violations of NCAA legislation, as determined by committee.
III. Committee on Infractions penalties.
I. Introduction.
Approximately one year ago, on March 3, 1988, the NCAA Committee on Infractions issued an infractions report concerning the men's basketball program at the University of Kentucky. That report was the culmination of a process that began when a Lexington, Kentucky, newspaper published an article in October 1985 containing allegations of violations of NCAA rules in the university's men's basketball program. At the request of the Committee on Infractions, the university submitted a written report regarding its investigation of the alleged violations that were raised in the newspaper articles. The NCAA enforcement staff conducted independent inquiries concerning possible violations within the NCAA's four-year statute of limitations.
During a June 1987 appearance before the committee, the university reported that it had substantiated that some violations had occured, but no violations could be confirmed within the NCAA's four-year statute of limia-tions. The university also reported that it had taken corrective actions to prevent future violations and urged the committee to accept the university's actions as sufficient. The committee was concerned, however, that complete information had not been developed in the case, and determined that the university again should be requested to appear before the committee to discuss both the specific allegations and the university's investigative techniques and policies. In response to this request, the university conducted additional inquiries and reported its conclusions to the committee at an appearance on February 6, 1988. The university reported that it was unable to develop sufficient information to conclude that violations had occurred within the NCAA's four-year statute of limitations, and the NCAA enforcement staff reported that sufficient information was unavailable to determine that violations had occurred within this period.
After the February 1988 hearing, the committee concluded that the university had conducted an inadequate investigation on the matters that were within the NCAA's four-year statute of limitations. On March 3, 1988, the committee issued an infractions report that publicly reprimanded the university and stated that the university had failed to satisfy its obligations of membership to cooperate with the Committee on Infractions in the conduct of relevant inquires into allegations of violations of NCAA legislation in the university's men's basketball program. The committee's penalties required the university to make periodic reports to the NCAA concerning the results of a comprehensive institutional monitoring program in men's basketball.
By the spring of 1988, as a result of the committee's actions described above, the university had taken steps to monitor its men's basketball program to make sure that it operated in full compliance with NCAA legislation. The new president of the university, David P. Roselle, had taken office earlier in the year and had expressed his commitment to the Committee on Infractions that the university would operate its athletics program
in an appropriate manner.
In April 1988, the matter that is addressed in Part II-A of this report first came to the attention of university officials when news media representatives contacted the university to inquire about a possible violation in the men's basketball program. The president of the university responded promptly and, at his direction, the university quickly determined that the circumstances warranted investigation. The president then put in place a procedure that ensured an extensive investigation that began immediately and that pursued vigorously all avenues of information available to the university. The president immediately informed the NCAA enforcement staff of the primary allegations that had come to the university's attention, and a process was implemented by which NCAA enforcement representatives and the university's investigators worked cooperatively through the investigation to develop complete and accurate information about the matter. In addition, the NCAA and the university conducted independent inquiries concerning other matters that were raised during the course of the investigation.