APPEALS COMMITTEE UPHOLDS DECISION FOR BALL STATE UNIVERSITY FORMER COACH

Transcription

1 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Wednesday, CONTACT: Stacey Osburn Associate Director of Public and Media Relations 317/ APPEALS COMMITTEE UPHOLDS DECISION FOR BALL STATE UNIVERSITY FORMER COACH INDIANAPOLIS The has upheld findings of violations and penalties for the former head women s tennis coach at Ball State University. The case centered on violations of NCAA rules governing playing and practice seasons, tryouts, recruiting inducements and unethical conduct by the former head coach. The former head women s tennis coach appealed each of the findings of violations, including the unethical conduct finding. She also appealed the three-year show-cause penalty, which outlined how athletics duties must be limited at her present or future employing institutions. These limitations are further detailed in the public report. In her appeal, the former head coach asserted that she was denied a fair hearing; the violations were secondary rather than major; she was not provided sufficient information in the notice of allegations; and the findings are contrary to the evidence presented. She also appealed the show-

2 NCAA NEWS RELEASE Wednesday, Page No. 2 cause order penalty on the grounds that it should be considered excessive such that it constitutes an abuse of discretion by the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions. In affirming the findings of violations and penalties, the Infractions Appeals Committee stated in its report that it found no basis to conclude the former head coach was denied a fair hearing and that the record supports the determination that the violations were major, not secondary. Further, after an extensive review of case precedent, the appeals committee stated that the findings of violations in this case supported the show-cause penalty. In considering the former head coach s appeal, the Infractions Appeals Committee reviewed the notice of appeal; the transcript of the university s Committee on Infractions hearing; and the submissions by the former head coach and the Committee on Infractions. The Infractions Appeals Committee may overturn a determination of fact or finding of violation if the Committee on Infractions finding is contrary to the evidence presented; the facts found by the committee do not constitute a violation of NCAA rules; or a procedural error affected the reliability of information that was used to support the findings. A penalty by the Committee on Infractions may be set aside on appeal if the penalty is considered excessive such that it is an abuse of discretion.

3 NCAA NEWS RELEASE Wednesday, Page No. 3 The members of the Infractions Appeals Committee who heard this case were: Christopher L. Griffin, Foley & Lardner LLP, chair; Jack Friedenthal, law professor at George Washington University; William Hoye, executive vice president for administration, planning and legal affairs at the Institute for the International Education of Students; Patti Ohlendorf, vice president for legal affairs at University of Texas at Austin; and David Williams, vice chancellor and general counsel at Vanderbilt University.

4 REPORT OF THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION DIVISION I INFRACTIONS APPEALS COMMITTEE Former Head Women s Tennis Coach Ball State University Muncie, Indiana This report is filed in accordance with NCAA Bylaw and is organized as follows: I. INTRODUCTION II. BACKGROUND III. VIOLATIONS OF NCAA LEGISLATION AS DETERMINED BY THE COMMITTEE ON INFRACTIONS... 1 IV. PENALTIES IMPOSED BY THE COMMITTEE ON INFRACTIONS V. ISSUES RAISED ON APPEAL VI. APPELLATE PROCEDURE VII. INFRACTIONS APPEALS COMMITTEE S RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUES RAISED ON APPEAL... 5 VIII. CONCLUSION.... 8

5 I. INTRODUCTION. The former head women s tennis coach at Ball State University appealed to the NCAA Division I Infractions Appeals Committee specific findings of violations and penalties as determined by the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions. In this report, the Infractions Appeals Committee addresses the issues raised by the former head women s tennis coach (hereinafter referred to as former head coach). II. BACKGROUND. The Committee on Infractions issued Infractions July 14, 2010, in which the committee found violations of NCAA legislation in the women s tennis program. On the basis of those findings, the Committee on Infractions determined that this was a major infractions case and imposed penalties accordingly. [July 13, 2010, issue of The NCAA News.] This case centered on violations of NCAA bylaws governing playing and practice seasons; tryouts; inducements and unethical conduct. After the Committee on Infractions issued its report, former head coach filed a timely notice of appeal July 15, A written appeal was filed August 23, The Committee on Infractions filed its response September 22, The former head coach filed her rebuttal to the Committee on Infractions response October 14, The case was considered by the Infractions Appeals Committee November 13, 2010 (see Section VI below). III. VIOLATIONS OF NCAA LEGISLATION AS DETERMINED BY THE COMMITTEE ON INFRACTIONS. [Please note that the cites below are the cites as they appear in the Committee on Infractions report dated July 14, 2010.] B-1. EXCEEDING PRACTICE HOUR LIMITATIONS. [NCAA Bylaws , , , , and ] During the 2007 through 2009 fall semesters, the former head coach required women's tennis student-athletes to participate in countable athletically related activities that exceeded daily and/or weekly practice-hour limitations and failed to provide two calendar days off per week. At times, the activities were not recorded on playing and practice logs. B-2. INVOLUNTARY SUMMER ACTIVITIES. [NCAA Bylaws , , and ]

6 Page No. 2 In 2009, the former head coach required women's tennis student-athletes to participate in countable athletically related activities during the summer vacation period. B-3. IMPERMISSIBLE TRYOUT. [NCAA Bylaws and ] In June 2008, the former head coach conducted a training session at which student-athlete 1 and three other then prospective and now current women's tennis student-athletes ("student-athletes 5, 6 and 7," respectively) demonstrated their athletic abilities in the sport of tennis while they were on the institution's campus for freshman orientation. B-4. IMPERMISSIBLE INDUCEMENTS. [NCAA Bylaws , ] On August 17, 2009, the former head coach provided two then prospective student-athletes ("student-athletes 8, and 9") with loans of $125 each, a total of $250. B-5. UNETHICAL CONDUCT. [NCAA Bylaws and (d)] During the fall of 2009, the former head coach failed to deport herself in accordance with the generally recognized high standards of honesty and sportsmanship normally associated with the conduct and administration of intercollegiate athletics when she 1) asked student-athletes to provide false and misleading information; and 2) requested that student-athletes conduct an impermissible practice. IV. PENALTIES IMPOSED BY THE COMMITTEE ON INFRACTIONS. [Please note that cites below are cites as they appear in the Committee on Infractions report dated July 14, 2010.] The Committee on Infractions imposed additional penalties because of the involvement of the former head coach in a number of the violations. The penalties imposed on former head coach are set forth in Part C-6: The former head women's tennis coach committed knowing, multiple violations of NCAA playing and practice legislation. She held a mandatory timed run on August 23, 2009, despite being told by the compliance director and men's tennis coach that it was impermissible, and she exceeded four hours of practice per day on occasions going back to

7 Page No She also exceeded eight hours per week of countable activities during the off-season and failed to give her team the required two off-days per week. Further, she instituted an involuntary summer workout program, and she held an impermissible tryout during freshman orientation. She gave loans to two student-athletes and she requested that three student-athletes provide false and misleading information regarding her activities and that other student-athletes hold an impermissible practice. Therefore, the committee imposes a three-year show-cause period upon the former head coach. During that period, which begins on July 14, 2010, and ends on July 13, 2013, the committee restricts the athletically related duties of the former head coach at any employing NCAA member institution as follows: a. The former head women's tennis coach shall have no contact of any kind with the student-athletes on her team from the day the final exam at the end spring semester is held through the first day the institution allows students to occupy on-campus housing in preparation for the fall semester. This prohibition includes, but is not limited to, contact by letter, phone, texting and . Any permissible contact with student-athletes during the summers must be made by other members of the coaching staff. b. The former head women's tennis coach shall submit playing and practice logs to the institution's compliance office on a daily basis. The playing and practice hours recorded on the log must be affirmed daily by the former head coach and each student-athlete on the squad list who takes part in the countable activities recorded on the logs; c. If she is employed by an NCAA member institution, the former head women's tennis coach shall attend an NCAA Regional Rules Seminar during each year this show-cause order is in effect. Within 30 days of the release of this report or 30 days after the hiring of the former head women's tennis coach, whichever is later, any employing institution shall file a report with the office of the Committees on Infractions setting forth its agreement with these restrictions or asking for a date to appear before the committee to contest the restrictions. Every six months thereafter through the end of the period of the show-cause order, the employing institution shall file further reports detailing its adherence to these restrictions.

8 Page No. 4 V. ISSUES RAISED ON APPEAL. In her written appeal, the former head coach asserted that the findings of violations against her should be set aside because: 1. The misconduct of the members of the Committee on Infractions was so egregious that former head coach was denied due process and a fair hearing (findings of violations B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4 and B-5); 2. The findings of violations are based on an erroneous determination that the former head coach s actions were major rather than secondary violations of NCAA legislation (finding of violations B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4 and B-5); 3. The former head coach was not provided adequate notice of the allegations (finding of violation B-1); and 4. The record evidence shows the findings of violations are clearly contrary to the evidence presented to the Committee on Infractions (findings of violations B-1 and B-4). Additionally, the former head coach asserted that the penalties should be set aside because they are excessive such that they constitute an abuse of discretion by the Committee on Infractions. VI. APPELLATE PROCEDURE. In considering the former head coach s appeal, the Infractions Appeals Committee reviewed the notice of appeal; the transcript of the institution s July 14, 2010, hearing before the Committee on Infractions and the submissions by the former head coach and the Committee on Infractions referred to in Section II of this report. The hearing on the appeal was held by the Infractions Appeals Committee November 13, 2010, in Indianapolis, Indiana. The former head coach was present and was represented by her attorney. The Committee on Infractions was represented by the appeal coordinator for the Committee on Infractions and the director of the Infractions Committees. Also present were the vice president of enforcement, director of enforcement, assistant director of enforcement and assistant general counsel of the NCAA. The hearing was conducted in accordance with procedures adopted by the committee pursuant to NCAA legislation.

9 Page No. 5 VII. INFRACTIONS APPEALS COMMITTEE S RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUES RAISED ON APPEAL. In reviewing the report in this case, the Infractions Appeals Committee may overturn a determination of fact or finding of violation only if: a. The committee s finding clearly is contrary to the evidence presented to the committee; b. The facts found by the committee do not constitute a violation of the Association s rules; or c. A procedural error affected the reliability of the information and but for that error, the Committee on Infractions would not have made the finding of violation. [Bylaw ] A showing that there was some information that might have supported a contrary result will not be sufficient to warrant setting aside a finding nor will a showing that such information might have outweighed the information on which the committee based a finding. The Infractions Appeals Committee... will set aside a finding only on a showing that information that might have supported a contrary result clearly outweighed the information on which the Committee on Infractions based the finding. (University of Mississippi, Public Infractions Appeals Committee Report, Page No. 10, May 1, 1995.) The Committee on Infractions determines the credibility of the evidence. A penalty imposed by the Committee on Infractions may be set aside on appeal if the penalty is excessive such that it constitutes an abuse of discretion. [Bylaw ] As we stated in the Alabama State University case: we conclude that an abuse of discretion in the imposition of a penalty occurs if the penalty: (1) was not based on a correct legal standard or was based on a misapprehension of the underlying substantive legal principles; (2) was based on a clearly erroneous factual finding; (3) failed to consider and weigh material factors; (4) was based on a clear error of judgment, such that the imposition was arbitrary, capricious, or irrational; or (5) was based in significant part on one or more irrelevant or improper factors.

10 Page No. 6 [Alabama State University, Public Infractions Appeals Committee Report, Page No. 23, June 30, 2009] The former head coach appealed to this committee on several grounds, including that: (a) improper, prejudicial, and erroneous demeanor, statements, and communications made during the April 16, 2010 Committee on Infractions hearing [constituted misconduct] so egregious that [she] was denied due process and a fair hearing.... ; (b) the Committee on Infractions relied on an improper standard to define secondary and major violations... and did not adhere to the plain meaning of NCAA ByLaw ; (c) she was denied due process because the enforcement staff and Committee on Infractions failed to provide her with adequate notice of the alleged violations that formed the basis of finding b-1 ; and (d) the imposition of penalties C-6 and C-6-c constituted an abuse of discretion. (Written Appeal Page Nos. 1 and 2.) We will address these points seriatim: 1. Comments At Committee on Infractions Hearing: The former head coach s concerns regarding the statements made at the Committee on Infractions hearing centered on: (a) references to the late retention of her appellate counsel; and (b) suggestions that she and her counsel s assertion of certain defenses and objections suggested that the committee was without an open mind and forced the former head coach to abandon certain approaches and to, therefore, present her case differently than she otherwise would have. (Written Appeal Page No. 20) We first note that comments from members of the Committee on Infractions regarding their view of a particular argument are not per se inappropriate, and may, in fact, be helpful by informing a party, or the party s counsel, that the argument is not persuasive or assisting the party s cause. However, this committee agrees that in this instance some of the statements to which the former head coach refers in her appeal were relatively intemperate and perhaps inappropriate in the context of an impartial fact-finding process. Still, we find no basis on which to conclude that the statements, whether considered separately or collectively, were so egregious as to constitute a denial of due process or other reversible error. 2. Bylaw : The former head coach s principal argument is that the language of Bylaw does not permit aggregation of several secondary violations to sustain a finding of a major violation because, according to the former head coach, it provides that multiple secondary infractions may collectively be considered as a major infraction only against a member institution and not an individual. (Written Appeal Page No. 31; emphasis supplied). While it is true that the bylaw directly includes member institution, this does not necessarily mean that it excludes involved individuals. We note in this regard

11 Page No. 7 that: (a) the institution, in fact, was found to have committed a major violation based on the acts of the former head coach; and (b) there was no finding against the institution which was not based on the former head coach s acts. Moreover, the narrow reading suggested by the former head coach is illogical given the structure and goals of the NCAA s enforcement process, and would seriously thwart the obvious purpose of the subject bylaw within that structure and those goals. Finally, even if this committee accepted the former head coach s argument, and thereupon disregarded violations which might be considered secondary but were aggregated by the Committee on Infractions to sustain a finding of major violation, the violation which remains (impermissible tryout, impermissible inducements and unethical conduct) is alone sufficient to support the penalties imposed on the former head coach. 3. Sufficiency of the Allegations: The former head coach argued principally that: (a) the allegations failed to state with sufficient particularity the number of days or hours each student-athlete allegedly exceeded NCAA limitations or participated in purported illicit activities (Written Appeal Page No. 41); and (b) the Committee on Infractions improperly rejected the introduction of the Student-Athlete Countable Activity Calculations chart which the former head coach offered for consideration by the Committee on Infractions (Written Appeal Page No. 45). Regarding the former argument, we conclude that the allegations presented were not insufficiently stated. As to the latter contention, we note first that the basis on which the Committee on Infractions refused to consider the chart was not fully clear from the record or from the Committee on Infractions presentation to this committee. However, even if the chart had been accepted, and all of the information presented within it was considered to be true and accurate, this would not alter the fact, as noted in paragraph two above, that the record otherwise supports the finding of a major violation, which in turn supports the imposition of the penalties which the former head coach appealed. 4. The Show-Cause Order: This committee has extensively reviewed the Committee on Infractions and this committee s show-cause order precedents. From that review, we conclude that the three-year order imposed in this case is not, as the former head coach argues, excessive such that it constitutes an abuse of discretion.

12 Page No. 8 VIII. CONCLUSION. Findings of violations (B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4 and B-5) and penalty (C-6) are affirmed. 1 2 Christopher L. Griffin, chair Jack Friedenthal William Hoye Patti Ohlendorf David Williams. 1 According to the Division I Infractions Appeals Committee Policies and Procedures (See III.A.2.d at Page No. 4), any penalty that is appealed is automatically stayed through the appeal process. This stay is triggered with the filing of the notice of appeal by the appellant and ends with the public release of the committee s decision. Therefore, the appellant s affirmed penalty C-6, three-year show-cause order shall be applied, through April 26, William Hoye replaced Susan Cross Lipnickey who recused herself from this case. The National Collegiate Athletic Association April 26, 2011 WAW:kas