KB549
03-02-2017, 09:19 PM
Sorry so long.
I may be completely wrong on this, but it is annoying me every time I read it. People keep saying that even if the tapes do exist and it doesn't matter because Leo has immunity.
The NCAA's definition of immunity may differ greatly either broadly or specifically to Leo in this case from legal immunity in a criminal case.
Imagine that we are talking about a burglary case and someone named Takeagun is given immunity for testifying that he was an accomplice to breaking in a jewelry store. Just because he was given immunity for being an accomplice to that particular crime does it mean that if it is later found out Takeagun was an accomplice to a gun burglary at a booster's house that he could play the immunity card to the cops.
Since we don't know the details Leo's immunity deal we can only speculate. However, I find it hard to believe that the NCAA would give him blanket immunity for all violations he could have committed. I believe it was specific immunity for Mississippi. For example, how bad would it look if they gave him immunity for the $15,000 from Mississippi and it was later proven that we gave him $1,000,000.
I imagine some discussion was had where they said we will give you immunity for testifying against Mississippi, only if you can assure us that no money was changed and between you and MSU. If you are you lying about that and we discover it, your playing days are over.
IMO, if there really is a tape it's likely that 1 or more things happened.
- 1. The conversation really happened and Mississippi made a fake tape to mimic the real conversation between someone and Leo's mom
- 2. Leo told the NCAA about milking Mississippi for as much as possible by fabricating a story about other offers.
- 3. It was a sting operation by the NCAA that didn't pan out
- 4. Option 3 plus Mississippi says on the tape that we don't do that sort of thing but then they stop the tape and agree to something. The NCAA has the whole tape.
Now. I can tell you with almost 100% certainty that no tape exists or if it does, it will never see the light of day. It's simple.
If they had this, they would have turned him in after he didn't sign with them (like we did with Cam.). No way would he have played a down this season. Maybe they couldn't if they were sloppy with the payments to him.
By not turning him in and continuing to recruit him, that would be another Level 1, I would think. It was different for us and Cecil since there wasn't a rule specifically about the parent. Now there is. So if they had a tape, they were recruiting an ineligible player and didn't turn it over then, but turn it over now, I believe they would self incriminate themselves. I haven't read the NCAA compliance rules, but I'd think that would be a serious infraction.
I may be completely wrong on this, but it is annoying me every time I read it. People keep saying that even if the tapes do exist and it doesn't matter because Leo has immunity.
The NCAA's definition of immunity may differ greatly either broadly or specifically to Leo in this case from legal immunity in a criminal case.
Imagine that we are talking about a burglary case and someone named Takeagun is given immunity for testifying that he was an accomplice to breaking in a jewelry store. Just because he was given immunity for being an accomplice to that particular crime does it mean that if it is later found out Takeagun was an accomplice to a gun burglary at a booster's house that he could play the immunity card to the cops.
Since we don't know the details Leo's immunity deal we can only speculate. However, I find it hard to believe that the NCAA would give him blanket immunity for all violations he could have committed. I believe it was specific immunity for Mississippi. For example, how bad would it look if they gave him immunity for the $15,000 from Mississippi and it was later proven that we gave him $1,000,000.
I imagine some discussion was had where they said we will give you immunity for testifying against Mississippi, only if you can assure us that no money was changed and between you and MSU. If you are you lying about that and we discover it, your playing days are over.
IMO, if there really is a tape it's likely that 1 or more things happened.
- 1. The conversation really happened and Mississippi made a fake tape to mimic the real conversation between someone and Leo's mom
- 2. Leo told the NCAA about milking Mississippi for as much as possible by fabricating a story about other offers.
- 3. It was a sting operation by the NCAA that didn't pan out
- 4. Option 3 plus Mississippi says on the tape that we don't do that sort of thing but then they stop the tape and agree to something. The NCAA has the whole tape.
Now. I can tell you with almost 100% certainty that no tape exists or if it does, it will never see the light of day. It's simple.
If they had this, they would have turned him in after he didn't sign with them (like we did with Cam.). No way would he have played a down this season. Maybe they couldn't if they were sloppy with the payments to him.
By not turning him in and continuing to recruit him, that would be another Level 1, I would think. It was different for us and Cecil since there wasn't a rule specifically about the parent. Now there is. So if they had a tape, they were recruiting an ineligible player and didn't turn it over then, but turn it over now, I believe they would self incriminate themselves. I haven't read the NCAA compliance rules, but I'd think that would be a serious infraction.