McNair’s Defamation Case Could Lead to More Transparency for the NCAA

In recent years transparency has become one of the buzzwords in NCAA criticism. Transparency is held out either as an end by itself (i.e. “The NCAA should release all information about investigations.”) and as a means to another (i.e. “Transparency would solve the athlete major clustering problem.”). The NCAA has moved toward being more open and transparent, with media events like the Enforcement Experience and press releases about secondary infractions and reinstatement cases.

But former USC assistant football coach Todd McNair has revealed the other edge of this sword. McNair is currently suing the NCAA for both forms of defamation, slander and libel, among other charges. As long as the NCAA continues to say more, it is more likely that the association will say something that someone does not just disagree with, but finds to be untrue and defamatory.

This Has Happened Before

Saying things people disagree with is nothing new for the NCAA. The association and its members have a stance on college athletics that is extremely unpopular in some circles. But recently the NCAA has been saying very specific things that specific people have taken offense to.

Like Ryan Boatright:

But Scott Tompsett, an attorney representing Ryan’s mother, Tanesha, issued a statement calling Saturday’s NCAA news release that announced the findings false and misleading. He said the people providing the benefits were friends of the Boatright family and had “no expectation of repayment or reciprocation.

Shabazz Muhammad:

Shabazz’s family is very distressed by the NCAA’s recent decision and the manner in which it was announced. Shabazz and his family have been cooperating with the NCAA for well over a year. Earlier this year, the NCAA asked Shabazz and his family not to reveal to each other or to the press facts related to the NCAA investigation. Despite the many untrue rumors which were circulating on the Internet, Shabazz and his family dutifully did what they were told. In order to entice Shabazz’s family and others to cooperate, the NCAA repeatedly gave assurances that it would keep details of the investigation strictly confidential. As recently as November 2012, the NCAA promised that it would not issue a Press Release.

And Indiana athletic director Fred Glass:

“While we are disappointed with the denial, we are even more disappointed in the case summary as communicated by the NCAA public relations staff,” Glass said in a release.

McNair has taken this displeasure to its logical conclusion: suing the NCAA for defamation. Defamation suits for public figures, which could include McNair and would almost certainly include star athletes and celebrity head coaches, are notoriously difficult to win. This is one reason McNair’s suit takes issue with the NCAA’s process in the USC investigation:

The disputed issues in McNair’s appeal centered on the believability of one of the NCAA’s key witnesses in the case, Lloyd Lake, the would-be sports marketer who allegedly provided substantial amounts of money to Bush over a two-year period while the star running back played for the Trojans. McNair, the NCAA ruled last June, either knew or should have known about Bush’s relationship with Lake and purposely misled investigators.

McNair’s Case is a Tough Sell

Essentially what McNair is arguing is that the NCAA, in believing Lloyd Lake and not allowing McNair to cross-examine him, willfully disregarded the truth. McNair is not just arguing that the NCAA made a mistake or has a flaw in its process, but that this flaw rises to the level of a concerted effort to ruin his life. That is a tough sell, but it appears McNair has found a receptive audience so far.

There are a number of hurdles to defamation suits becoming widespread. Not only is there the high bar of a willful disregard for the truth. Many athletes will find it difficult to prove damages if they do not lose their scholarships, given the traditional suspicion courts have for speculative professional earnings. As activist litigation, defamation also leaves a bit to be desired given that monetary damages are more likely than injunctions against NCAA rules and procedures.

If Successful, McNair’s Case Could Change the NCAA

But if McNair’s case is both successful and the start of a trend, defamation suits could have wide-ranging impact on the NCAA’s enforcement and reinstatement processes. For starters, it would mean more lawsuits against the NCAA, even when the athlete or coach got a favorable result. Witness the Boatright case where the release the family took exception with was one saying he would not be suspended for the violation.

The current practice of selective releases would need to change. Either the NCAA would need to release information as a matter of course in every case or will need to get much more selective about which cases get a press release. The catch–22 is that the cases the NCAA most wants to get the information out, those cases that are controversial or potentially misunderstood by the public, are exactly the type of cases that will draw a legal challenge. The push for improvement would also need to include the process by which the NCAA and the involved individual/school agree that the information can be released publicly.

Beyond press releases, defamation suits could impact case reports and the outcomes of cases. If public case reports, like every major infractions report, are a target of defamation claims, those reports will need to be edited even more carefully. That editing takes time, and will further delay decisions that almost everyone agrees take too long. And if a possible lawsuit is in the minds of the NCAA staff or Committee on Infractions, it could ultimately result in fewer or lesser charges against individuals. That would be a major step back for the NCAA after the increased penalties and individual accountability approved by the Board of Directors last month.

McNair’s case illustrates the push and pull with transparency in the NCAA. If sunshine is to be the disinfectant, it may be counter-productive to also throw bleach on anything the light touches. The NCAA is more likely to resist the release of unfiltered information and instead pick and choose its spots even more carefully. It might be that short term wins for athletes and coaches result in a long term slowing of the march toward a more open and transparent NCAA.

Do you think more transparency in the NCAA is necessary  Let us know in the comments section below, or connect with us on Facebook, Twitter, or Google+!

I have received a letter from the college coach, does that mean I am being recruited?

What if I play for a small high school; will I still be scouted?

How to determine when you are actually being recruited.

How do I get the college coach to read my recruiting profile or watch me play?

How important is a college recruiting video?

 

Posted on by John Infante
This entry was posted in Bylaw Blog, Bylaws. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to McNair’s Defamation Case Could Lead to More Transparency for the NCAA

  1. Andy says:

    Again, you’re missing the point. Not sure how many times this needs to be flagged, but the problem in McNair’s case is likely not widespread. It’s not an issue of curtailing NCAA enforcement; rather, the issue in McNair’s case is whether the NCAA investigators were “malicious” and willfully disregarded the truth. Looking at the process the NCAA set up is evidence to either support that contention or refute it. So, let’s look at the process with McNair and USC. It looks like, based on the court record, there were email exchanges amoung a COI member and an Appeals Committee Member. You do understand that the Appeals Committee is purportedly supposed to do an independent review of the COI decision. Yet, we have a COI member and Appeals Committee member exchanging emails about the evidence. Do you not see an enormous conflict???? But it doesn’t end there. These likely weren’t some innocent exchanges or some exchanges that were to enhance the “truth finding” process the infractions committee should be focused on. No, the judge said these exchanges could reasonably be concluded to be “malicious” in nature. So there you have it. A COI member is exchanging malicious emails with an Appeals Committee member regarding McNair almost certainly prior to the Appeal and probably prior to the COI decision. These facts show a COI that was out of control, and it was almost certainly due to the LACK OF TRANSPERANCY that these individuals thought that they could get away with it. So, no, I’m not concerned that a pandora’s box is being open here. If the COI does it job correctly – in a fair and equitable manner – the NCAA has nothing to fear as the defamation claim is an exceedingly high standard. However, if you have members of independent committees, one of which is to review the other, then you start to see something that smells a little more rotten. Combine this with a “malicious” tone to the emails and it really starts to stink. Add in a made up standard the NCAA only used for USC, which is “high profile athletes demand greater compliance,” and it starts to smell of rotting carcass. Throw in a PR statement by the NCAA right after the penalties were handed out to the effect that “precedent doesn’t matter” in NCAA cases, and it should be clear to anyone with a modicum of understanding of legal processes that this was an all out railroad job. Precedent is the cornerstone to ensure that each violator is treated fairly. If the NCAA wants to give heightened penalties, it should be the COI’s job to justify the increased penalties based on the facts. As John Infante has now finally – two years later – acknowledged that the penalties against USC cannot be reconciled with any past or SUBSEQUENT precedent. In other words, this was a one time deal without any justification for such.
    Big change should come from this. Process is what matters. And if the NCAA enforcement process were open to the public, it would be much less likely that you’d have a rogue COI member maliciously colluding with an Appeals Committee member, as is likely the case in McNair’s situation. My guess, this is the tip of the iceberg. Hopefully, this leads to major change, if not, entirely getting rid of the NCAA. Hopefully, Congressional leaders from California, when they see the railroad job against one of its constituents, takes this issue up. Hopefully, Congress revisits the NCAA’s exemption from antitrust laws. Colluding by enforcement committee members cannot be tolerated.

  2. Andy says:

    This is an interesting read. Finally, another media outlet is picking this up. Hopefully this gains transaction…. We shall see. The NCAA wasn’t looking for the truth; they had an ax to grind.

Leave a Comment