Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="shantydaze, post: 2340171, member: 666"] A couple of thoughts. First, "everyone does it" is not a valid defense and people need to let that argument go. All that matters is whether a rule was broken and whether the NCAA can show the rule was broken. It is an article from 2011, so I do not know whether it is still accurate, but will assume it is. [URL='http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011/05/mock_ncaa_inquiry_sheds_light.html']LINK[/URL] "Then again, as noted by Potuto - the former chair of the infractions committee - an NCAA hearing is not a legal proceeding. The NCAA's standard of proof is equivalent to "clear and convincing evidence" in a civil case, such as those involving parental rights, Potuto said." So, a normal civil case (personal injury, breach of contract, etc.) generally is that the Plaintiff must prove its claim by the preponderance of the evidence, i.e. more likely than not. As I am sure we are all aware from television and movies, the prosecutor in a criminal matter must prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A "clear and convincing" standard of proof is in the middle of the preponderance of the evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt, so rather than being more likely than not, it must be substantially more likely to be true than not true. Ultimately, the "objective" standard of proof is largely subjective. The standard of proof does not tell the whole story, however. What can be as important as the standard of proof is the standard (foundation) in which information/evidence is admitted in the proceeding. For instance, in most civil and criminal cases, hearsay is not admitted. In other words, a person can only testify as to what he or she actually saw something. They could not testify, however, as to what their best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw something. In addition, people generally are not allowed to speculate. Non-UK message board posters "know" Kentucky cheats. Unless we could actually testify that we saw Person A paid Player 1 a bagful of money, what we "know" is still just speculation. It should be noted that this is different than making a reasonable inference based on the evidence. The linked story does not say what foundation is needed for information to be presented to the enforcement committee. Does testimony need to be given under oath? Is hearsay allowed for all purposes, for limited purposes, or not at all? Does physical evidence need to be authenticated? Can information not relevant to the alleged violations be presented? Can information of which the prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value be presented to the committee? What information is allowed before the committee is as much, if not more, important than the burden of proof. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?