Filed under: Auburn, SEC, FanHouse Exclusive
Slive said that he received a final set of established facts in the Newton case on Monday of this week. It was only upon receiving these established facts -- those facts that were agreed to by both the NCAA and Auburn -- that Slive was able to determine whether Newton violated SEC bylaws as well. That decision ultimately came down to Slive's interpretation of SEC bylaw 14.01.3.2, a bylaw I analyzed two weeks ago for FanHouse. It reads:
"If at any time before or after matriculation in a member institution a student-athlete or any member of his/her family receives or agrees to receive, directly or indirectly, any aid or assistance beyond or in addition to that permitted by the Bylaws of this Conference (except such aid or assistance as such student-athlete may receive from those persons on whom the student is naturally or legally dependent for support), such student-athlete shall be ineligible for competition in any intercollegiate sport within the Conference for the remainder of his/her college career."
As the individual given specific power in the bylaws to determine what these rules mean, Slive's decision on whether Newton or his family had received improper benefits boiled down to how he read the above section. Specifically, what did "receives or agrees to receive" mean in the context of a solicitation? In making his decision, Slive, a lawyer and former judge, considered the particular language of the bylaw within the context of three additional forms of authority:
Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments
LA Lakers Roger Federer New Jersey Devils Nicklas Lidstrom Michael Jorden
No comments:
Post a Comment