shannondawg
08-27-2017, 03:01 PM
I got this from someone else, but thought you guys that haven't heard it. Notice Parish never mentions Godfrey's name.
Please access the Gary Parrish Show podcasts at this link https://player.fm/series/the-gary-parrish-show and scroll down to Hour 1 of Gary?s (Friday, 8/25/17) podcast featuring Dan Wolken in segment 2, or click on https://d3efjls8gnbg8i.cloudfront.net/1642062/120278736.mp3?rhihttphost=wmfs.hosted.cx to access this podcast directly.
At the 29:10 minute mark of the 59:52 minute podcast, Parrish begins to interview USA Today?s Dan Wolken. Between the 34:30 and 42:25 minute marks, Parrish and Wolken discuss the Steven Godrey SBNation piece that was posted that same day. As you follow what I?ve transcribed below while listening to this podcast segment, note the dismissive tone that Parrish uses as he opens the discussion with reference to the SBNation article (Parrish never mentions Godfrey by name). Lying Hugh and Ross Bjork won?t have a professional future in collegiate athletics by the time the NCAA closes shop in Oxford, and Steven Godfrey hasn?t advanced any future he might have as a serious journalist either. I wonder how many more professional careers will be sacrificed by the Dixie Mafia on the altar of their over-sized egos.
Parrish
So earlier today there was a story posted? SBNation?I believe, about... It was connected to the Ole Miss NCAA investigation and focusing on Leo Lewis, I gather?and I clicked on it because?I was like?I do a radio show in Memphis. I probably need to read this. Then it looked very quickly like it was like 8 thousand million words, and I said, ?Nope, I don?t care this much.? I got Wolken on. I?ll just ask him. Is there anything I need to know that was in that story?
Wolken
Well, no, not really. Here?s the deal. Ole Miss, from the very beginning of the NCAA going in for that 2nd investigation, where they were giving players immunity. Leo Lewis provided the spark for a lot of the most serious allegations that ended up in that (2nd) NOA, including the $10,000 alleged payment from a (OM) booster. This is exactly the reason why, even though we would all prefer transparency in the process that the NCAA uses. This is why they have to be confidential, because you have these sort of leaks that come out that are very targeted, purposeful. You got somebody leaking the transcript of his (Leo?s) interviews?which I can?t imagine that anyone?s going to be pleased about that for a variety of reasons. Especially, when they?re not published whole. They?re sort of interpreted and ?exterpreted?, but basically the bottom line of it is: Ole Miss? defense is that they believe that Leo Lewis?that his testimony?that he gave the NCAA?is not credible?not believable. That he changed his story, and they suggest that he was coached and that there was some collusion on the part of Mississippi State to cover up for the fact that Leo Lewis also, most likely, took money from Mississippi State. If he admitted he took money from Ole Miss under this immunity deal, I don?t think anyone would be able to believe that?s the only school he took money from?and he didn?t go there. But that is sort of the difficult part of immunity is?that he was forthcoming and told the NCAA that he took money from other schools?so now what do you do with that? Does that mean you go after the boosters connected to the schools that?the other schools that gave him money? No. I mean, that sort of seems to be why Ole Miss is now throwing this Hail Mary pass and leaking this to certain friendly reporters is that they want Mississippi State to go down with them. According to what Godfrey reported in that story today, it seems like the NCAA opened an investigation into Leo Lewis and whether or not he got paid by Mississippi State and then closed it, citing lack of any sort of corroboration or credible evidence. So this now leads Ole Miss people back to say, ?Well, if you don?t think he was credible when he said that Mississippi State paid him, then how can you say he?s credible when he says that Ole Miss paid him? The problem with that is: The NCAA?s got text messages from a booster to a coach at Ole Miss talking about Leo Lewis backing out on the deal. That?s the damning part for Ole Miss, and I just think that?s the part where they?re going to really have a big problem in front of the Committee on Infractions.
Parrish
And I gather Ole Miss fans are, like, all up in arms about immunity. Like this isn?t new. You know who else got immunity from the NCAA to testify honestly against a school? Aaron Craft?a long time ago against Bruce Pearl. The kids who had gone on visits to Louisville and then went elsewhere. Antonio Blakeney at LSU? Jaquon Lewis at Ohio State. They were given immunity to testify honestly against Louisville. This isn?t new, nor is it unique to Ole Miss. Regardless of whether Ole Miss fans think the NCAA is using these methods to get ?em. They?ve used these methods to get other people, as well.
Wolken
Well and it was interesting, you know, Godfrey had a quote in that story from an anonymous SEC coach, and basically the gist of the quote was, ?Boy, this is really concerning if the NCAA is gonna start ?weaponizing??that was the word used: ?weaponizing??kids that you recruited, and that you didn?t get, to testify against you.? And I understand the concern of that coach in that issue, but that also strikes me as exactly the point. That?s exactly why the NCAA likes to use it, because the NCAA wants the idea out there that, yeah, if you are out there doing stuff that is against the rules with recruits, and they end up going to other schools, and then testifying against you? Well, that should be your incentive not to do that stuff. The NCAA and the enforcement process?is it always fair or consistent? No, it?s not, but the idea that if you do get caught?that you can get hammered?is the point for them, because, at least in their minds?that given the limited resources they have?that, at least in theory, provides the deterrent for other coaches to do those similar type of acts.
Parrish
Right. They don?t have subpoena power, so they have to use whatever they can. And again, the NCAA didn?t invent this. Law enforcement officials have been doing this for decades, if not centuries, and this is the best tool?I think the NCAA has realized?it?s their best tool in the pursuit of trying to hold?whether it?s boosters, coaches, anybody? accountable, and so I don?t mind them using it. I?like? I didn?t mind when they used it against Tennessee, when they used it against Louisville, and I sure don?t mind when they use it against Ole Miss.
Wolken
Right, and you know, look. I think it?s interesting. It would be interesting to find out how the NCAA got onto Leo Lewis, because I know a lot of people think that the NCAA investigators are just out there with a pad of paper?going into locker rooms and saying, ?We?ll give you immunity if you rat on some school,? and that is not how it works. They got some sort of information from somewhere saying that, ?You need to go talk to Leo Lewis about his recruitment, because he will have information about Ole Miss.? And there was some sort of other credible information that they had that put them onto that track in their investigation, and that?s never been identified: Who or what did that. According to the NCAA, in their documents, it was not somebody in the SEC, so that?s one interesting element. Also, when they give immunity to a kid, they don?t just rubber-stamp it, and say, ?Well, the kid says this, then we believe it.? They?re constantly testing that information and trying to corroborate that information. And it?s the reason why, for instance, like the Laremy Tunsil stuff. Even though the guy admitted on national television on NFL draft night (Parrish giggling in the background) that he took money from (OM) boosters, that is not in the Notice of Allegations, because they could not find?because, basically, at that point, he?s a professional athlete. He does not talk to the NCAA, and they couldn?t corroborate the claims, so it?s not in the Notice of Allegations. But do we think that based on the fact that he admitted on national television that he took money from Ole Miss, that he probably took money from Ole Miss? I think we could probably make that leap of logic.
Parrish
I have always made that leap of logic.
Please access the Gary Parrish Show podcasts at this link https://player.fm/series/the-gary-parrish-show and scroll down to Hour 1 of Gary?s (Friday, 8/25/17) podcast featuring Dan Wolken in segment 2, or click on https://d3efjls8gnbg8i.cloudfront.net/1642062/120278736.mp3?rhihttphost=wmfs.hosted.cx to access this podcast directly.
At the 29:10 minute mark of the 59:52 minute podcast, Parrish begins to interview USA Today?s Dan Wolken. Between the 34:30 and 42:25 minute marks, Parrish and Wolken discuss the Steven Godrey SBNation piece that was posted that same day. As you follow what I?ve transcribed below while listening to this podcast segment, note the dismissive tone that Parrish uses as he opens the discussion with reference to the SBNation article (Parrish never mentions Godfrey by name). Lying Hugh and Ross Bjork won?t have a professional future in collegiate athletics by the time the NCAA closes shop in Oxford, and Steven Godfrey hasn?t advanced any future he might have as a serious journalist either. I wonder how many more professional careers will be sacrificed by the Dixie Mafia on the altar of their over-sized egos.
Parrish
So earlier today there was a story posted? SBNation?I believe, about... It was connected to the Ole Miss NCAA investigation and focusing on Leo Lewis, I gather?and I clicked on it because?I was like?I do a radio show in Memphis. I probably need to read this. Then it looked very quickly like it was like 8 thousand million words, and I said, ?Nope, I don?t care this much.? I got Wolken on. I?ll just ask him. Is there anything I need to know that was in that story?
Wolken
Well, no, not really. Here?s the deal. Ole Miss, from the very beginning of the NCAA going in for that 2nd investigation, where they were giving players immunity. Leo Lewis provided the spark for a lot of the most serious allegations that ended up in that (2nd) NOA, including the $10,000 alleged payment from a (OM) booster. This is exactly the reason why, even though we would all prefer transparency in the process that the NCAA uses. This is why they have to be confidential, because you have these sort of leaks that come out that are very targeted, purposeful. You got somebody leaking the transcript of his (Leo?s) interviews?which I can?t imagine that anyone?s going to be pleased about that for a variety of reasons. Especially, when they?re not published whole. They?re sort of interpreted and ?exterpreted?, but basically the bottom line of it is: Ole Miss? defense is that they believe that Leo Lewis?that his testimony?that he gave the NCAA?is not credible?not believable. That he changed his story, and they suggest that he was coached and that there was some collusion on the part of Mississippi State to cover up for the fact that Leo Lewis also, most likely, took money from Mississippi State. If he admitted he took money from Ole Miss under this immunity deal, I don?t think anyone would be able to believe that?s the only school he took money from?and he didn?t go there. But that is sort of the difficult part of immunity is?that he was forthcoming and told the NCAA that he took money from other schools?so now what do you do with that? Does that mean you go after the boosters connected to the schools that?the other schools that gave him money? No. I mean, that sort of seems to be why Ole Miss is now throwing this Hail Mary pass and leaking this to certain friendly reporters is that they want Mississippi State to go down with them. According to what Godfrey reported in that story today, it seems like the NCAA opened an investigation into Leo Lewis and whether or not he got paid by Mississippi State and then closed it, citing lack of any sort of corroboration or credible evidence. So this now leads Ole Miss people back to say, ?Well, if you don?t think he was credible when he said that Mississippi State paid him, then how can you say he?s credible when he says that Ole Miss paid him? The problem with that is: The NCAA?s got text messages from a booster to a coach at Ole Miss talking about Leo Lewis backing out on the deal. That?s the damning part for Ole Miss, and I just think that?s the part where they?re going to really have a big problem in front of the Committee on Infractions.
Parrish
And I gather Ole Miss fans are, like, all up in arms about immunity. Like this isn?t new. You know who else got immunity from the NCAA to testify honestly against a school? Aaron Craft?a long time ago against Bruce Pearl. The kids who had gone on visits to Louisville and then went elsewhere. Antonio Blakeney at LSU? Jaquon Lewis at Ohio State. They were given immunity to testify honestly against Louisville. This isn?t new, nor is it unique to Ole Miss. Regardless of whether Ole Miss fans think the NCAA is using these methods to get ?em. They?ve used these methods to get other people, as well.
Wolken
Well and it was interesting, you know, Godfrey had a quote in that story from an anonymous SEC coach, and basically the gist of the quote was, ?Boy, this is really concerning if the NCAA is gonna start ?weaponizing??that was the word used: ?weaponizing??kids that you recruited, and that you didn?t get, to testify against you.? And I understand the concern of that coach in that issue, but that also strikes me as exactly the point. That?s exactly why the NCAA likes to use it, because the NCAA wants the idea out there that, yeah, if you are out there doing stuff that is against the rules with recruits, and they end up going to other schools, and then testifying against you? Well, that should be your incentive not to do that stuff. The NCAA and the enforcement process?is it always fair or consistent? No, it?s not, but the idea that if you do get caught?that you can get hammered?is the point for them, because, at least in their minds?that given the limited resources they have?that, at least in theory, provides the deterrent for other coaches to do those similar type of acts.
Parrish
Right. They don?t have subpoena power, so they have to use whatever they can. And again, the NCAA didn?t invent this. Law enforcement officials have been doing this for decades, if not centuries, and this is the best tool?I think the NCAA has realized?it?s their best tool in the pursuit of trying to hold?whether it?s boosters, coaches, anybody? accountable, and so I don?t mind them using it. I?like? I didn?t mind when they used it against Tennessee, when they used it against Louisville, and I sure don?t mind when they use it against Ole Miss.
Wolken
Right, and you know, look. I think it?s interesting. It would be interesting to find out how the NCAA got onto Leo Lewis, because I know a lot of people think that the NCAA investigators are just out there with a pad of paper?going into locker rooms and saying, ?We?ll give you immunity if you rat on some school,? and that is not how it works. They got some sort of information from somewhere saying that, ?You need to go talk to Leo Lewis about his recruitment, because he will have information about Ole Miss.? And there was some sort of other credible information that they had that put them onto that track in their investigation, and that?s never been identified: Who or what did that. According to the NCAA, in their documents, it was not somebody in the SEC, so that?s one interesting element. Also, when they give immunity to a kid, they don?t just rubber-stamp it, and say, ?Well, the kid says this, then we believe it.? They?re constantly testing that information and trying to corroborate that information. And it?s the reason why, for instance, like the Laremy Tunsil stuff. Even though the guy admitted on national television on NFL draft night (Parrish giggling in the background) that he took money from (OM) boosters, that is not in the Notice of Allegations, because they could not find?because, basically, at that point, he?s a professional athlete. He does not talk to the NCAA, and they couldn?t corroborate the claims, so it?s not in the Notice of Allegations. But do we think that based on the fact that he admitted on national television that he took money from Ole Miss, that he probably took money from Ole Miss? I think we could probably make that leap of logic.
Parrish
I have always made that leap of logic.