NCAA CONTINUED
On July 22, 1988, the NCAA sent the university an official inquiry that included one alleged violation of NCAA rules involving the men's basketball program. On October 3, 1988, additional allegations were sent to the university, and individuals who were alleged to have been involved in violations received notice of the.allegations. The university and several of the individuals named in allegations submitted written responses to the official inquiry. In its response, the university acknowledged some violations of NCAA rules.
In accordance with NCAA procedures, after receipt of the responses, the NCAA enforcement staff conducted prehearing conferences with university representatives and with legal representatives of several individuals named in the allegations. During these conferences, the parties discussed the allegations in the official inquiry and reviewed the available information upon which the NCAA enforcement staff intended to rely in supporting that violations had occurred. Following the prehearing conferences, supplemental responses were submitted by the university and some of the involved individuals.
Subsequently, a hearing was held on April 22 and 23, 1989, before the Committee on Infractions at which university representatives, members of the enforcement staff, and various individuals named in the allegations and their legal representatives were present. During this hearing, the information relating to the allegations were presented to the committee, and the enforcement staff, university representatives and individual parties responded to questions and participated in a review of the evidence. All parties were heard on the allegations of violations that might affect them. Following the hearing, the committee deliberated in private and made determinations as to findings of violations and penalties, which are set forth in Parts II and III, respectively, of this report.
It should be noted that prior to the university's hearing before the comrnittee, the president of the university took significant actions that demonstrated the university's commitment to operate its athletics program under the control of the institution and consistent with the university's expectations for academic and rules compliance. In addition, the university appointed a new director of athletics, and the university secured the resignations of its men's basketball coaching staff. The university's athletics dormitory was brought directly under the control of the university housing office, and a new compliance position, within the athletics department, was approved.
The current case that comes before the Committee on Infractions, therefore, appears to present a picture of genuine university concern at the highest level for NCAA principles concerning intercollegiate athletics competition. The university's president has acted forcefully and unambiguously, moving both promptly and with consideration for the interests of individual student-athletes and staff members who might be affected by his actions, to make clear his determination, first, to discover to the best of his ability whether the university's basketball program committed the alleged violations and, secondly, to dispel any doubts within either the university or larger community as to his intention that the basketball program is expected to operate in compliance with NCAA rules.
The committee has carefully considered the issues presented in this infractions case. Under the rules of the Association governing the enforcement program, a standard of proof in making findings is followed that requires the committee to base its findings on information that it determines to be credible, persuasive and of a kind on which reasonably prudent persons rely in the conduct of serious affairs. The committee has applied this standard to the evidence and has found that violations occurred. These findings are set forth in Part II of this infractions report.
The policies of the Association also direct the committee to follow certain principles in determining penalties. The penalties should be "broad and severe" if the violations reflect a general disregard for the governing rules [NCAA Bylaw 19.01.4]. Under the general principles of the Association, institutional staff members found in violation of NCAA
the policies the NCAA membership has established to govern intercollegiate athletics competition. One involved the sending of a large amount of cash from the university's own athletics department to a relative of a recruit, and a second finding concerned unethical conduct of an assistant coach as a result of involvement in this violation. Another violation involved fraudulent practices in satisfying academic requirements needed to establish eligibility for intercollegiate athletics competition at the university (i.e., a national precollege entrance examination). A separate finding involved the institution's failure to maintain adequate eligibility certification procedures to detect the submission of false academic information in order to establish eligibility for competition. The institution's certification procedures were insensitive to information that indicated a possible problem with the validity of the data offered to establish eligibility. Each
ball program itself, the university's president acted forcefully to uncover all relevant infor-matin bearing on these matters and to set a proper direction for the future of the university's athletics program.
The committee has credited these actions, and so the penalties, although severe, do not include any limitation on regular-season competition. The penalties imposed by the committee are set forth in Part EI of this infractions report.
II. Findings of violations, as determined by committee.
A. [NCAA Bylaw 13.2.2]
On March 30, 1988, while recruiting a prospective student-athlete, a then men's assistant basketball coach sent a package (via an overnight mail service) that contained a videotape and 20 S50 bills to the young man's
4  ',   - --
Dr. David Roselle (middle) hired James Park Jr. (left) to head up UK's investigation. The NCAA concluded that the overall cooperation provided by UK proved to be a positive factor in reducing other possible sanctions. On the right is Bernie Vonderheide, head of university public relations.
regulations also shall be subject to disciplinary or corrective actions tiirough the show-cause procedures of the enforcement program [Bylaw 19.01.3]. Under these principles, such an athletics staff member is subject to disciplinary or corrective action whether the violations occurred at the certifying institution or during the individual's previous employment at another member institution [Bylaw 19.01.3]. The Association's enforcement policies require the committee to determine if a violation is secondary or major. A secondary violation is one that provides only a limited recruiting or competitive advantage and that is isolated or inadvertent in nature [Bylaw 19.02.1]. All violations other than secondary violations are major violations [Bylaw 19.02.2]. The Committee on Infractions, in previous cases, has taken the position that violations involving fraudulent academic practices are, by their nature, major. Further, once the committee determines a violation to be major, the committee must apply severe minimum prescribed penalties unless the committee finds the case to be unique based upon specifically stated reasons [Bylaw 19.4.2.2].
The committee has determined that this is a major case that is subject to NCAA major penalty guidelines. It is the opinion of the committee that the findings set forth in Parts U-A, II-B, JJ-C and U-D of this report are particularly serious. They strike at the heart of
violation, by itself, would make this a major case under the Association's enforcement procedures.
There are additional reasons for concern. Part II-E of this report describes a violation of the requirements to maintain institutional control within the athletics department and the men's basketball program. Some of the activities addressed in this case occurred soon after the university's appearance before the Committee on Infractions in February 1988 during which athletics officials indicated that heightened attention would be given to the task of opearating the men's basketball program in full compliance with the NCAA standards. Some violations found in this case occurred contemporaneously with the consideration of the earlier case.
Because of the nature of the violations found in this case, the committee seriously considered whether the regular-season schedule for the men's basketball program should be curtailed in whole or in part for one or two seasons of competition. In the judgement of the committee, the nature of the violations found would justify such a penalty. However, this case also was evaluated in the light of the university's actions to bring itself into compliance. While breakdowns occurred in the institutional control exercised over the men's basketball program within the athletics department and in the men's basket-
father at the prospect's home.
B. [NCAA Bylaws 10.1, 10.1-(d) and 14.01.4.3]
A student-athlete committed academic fraud by cheating on a June 1987 precollege entrance examination that was taken at a high school in Lexington, Kentucky; further, the student-athlete acted contrary to the provisions of ethical conduct in that he provided false and misleading information to the university and the NCAA enforcement staff concerning this test.
C. [NCAA Constitution 2.1.1, and Bylaws 14.1.2, 31.2.2.4 and 31.2.2.5]
In the summer and tall of 1987, the university failed to satisfy its conditions and obligations of membership in that institutional personnel had not implemented appropriate procedures that would have questioned the validity of the June 1987 test scores of a student-athlete; further, as a result, the institution certified the young man eligible for competition when, in feet, he should have been considered a partial qualifier, and finally, the young man participated in regular-season competition and in the 1988 National Collegiate Division I Men's Basketball Championship, even though the young man knew and the univer-
(Continued on page 6)