The Lance Thomas Jewelry Vigil

[dukelion]

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/8348908/former-duke-blue-devils-f-lance-thomas-purchased-100000-jewelry

[CLW]

Saw this on ESPN sad news and I'm sure the haters are going to want a full blown investigation as to how Lance came up with $30K as a college senior as a down payment on $100K in jewelry.

http://espn.go.com/ncb/conversations/_/id/8348908/former-duke-blue-devils-f-lance-thomas-purchased-100000-jewelry

[Li_Duke]

ESPN article says Lance Thomas purchased almost a hundred grand worth of jewelry his senior year, plopped down a $30k in down-payment, but then didn't pay the rest of the balance (which was extended to his on credit).

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/8348908/former-duke-blue-devils-f-lance-thomas-purchased-100000-jewelry

Comes as a bit of a surprise to me. 30 grand is a lot of cash for a college student. 100 grand is a big purchase for a guy not guaranteed to make the pros.

[Li_Duke]

Someone else started a thread just before me. You can delete this one. :)

[Li_Duke]

Saw this on ESPN sad news and I'm sure the haters are going to want a full blown investigation as to how Lance came up with $30K as a college senior as a down payment on $100K in jewelry.

http://espn.go.com/ncb/conversations/_/id/8348908/former-duke-blue-devils-f-lance-thomas-purchased-100000-jewelry

I'm not a hater, but I'm definitely curious. $30k is a LOT of money! It says his mom is a car plant manager, but I'd imagine that's a lot of money even for her. Also odd to me as he wasn't guaranteed to make it to the NBA.

[hudlow]

Maybe he was blackmailing Julius Peppers....
;)

[CampbellBlueDevil]

Yeah this is really strange. Lance wasn't even the caliber of playing that one would even pay to play. Yeah he was good, but not the type of player such as Anthony Davis or Shabazz.

[johnb]

... 30 grand is a lot of cash for a college student. 100 grand is a big purchase for a guy not guaranteed to make the pros.

I'm hoping his mother cashed out her 529 college savings plan and that he spent it as he saw fit (diamonds in the shape of Jesus, anyone?). I'm most concerned about the possible investigation but most puzzled that any senior at Duke would think that buying $100,000 in jewelry would be a wise decision.

[Jim3k]

One possibility is that things are not what they seem. The suit makes some allegations, but even if Lance bought some jewelry, it seems unlikely that the price was even $30,000. Maybe $3 thousand. But $100 K? Seems dubious to me. Who's going to lend $70,000 to a guy not projected to make the NBA?

Smell a scam anyone? An extortion?

[OZZIE4DUKE]

Wow! He bought the jewelry in December, 2009, before (he and) Zoubs were made starters and good things started to happen on the court. Hope this doesn't cost us the banner...

[moonpie23]

i just threw up some in my mouth......:(........man...i hope that doesn't turn out to be what it appears to be.....

[TKG]

To the leadership at the University: please be thorough and transparent in your investigation.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

To the leadership at the University: please be thorough and transparent in your investigation.

One thing that has been clear, from Watergate to Sandusky to Wienergate, the coverup (and punishment for it) is worse than the crime.

[savekyriestoe]

Even if it's an agent that gave Lance the $30K for a down payment and not Duke, which seems likely, the banner's gone, right?

[miltk]

Yeah this is really strange. Lance wasn't even the caliber of playing that one would even pay to play. Yeah he was good, but not the type of player such as Anthony Davis or Shabazz.

thomas is in the nba and highly sought after in high school. nuff said. rationalizing doesn't work.

[jafarr1]

One thing that has been clear, from Watergate to Sandusky to Wienergate, the coverup (and punishment for it) is worse than the crime.

I'm not advocating that Duke be anything but transparent during all of this, but recent NCAA punishments have shown that transparency leads to stronger punishment. It's one of the NCAA's many failings.

[savekyriestoe]

According to these Dan Wetzel tweets, here (https://twitter.com/DanWetzel/status/244187065279991809) and here (https://twitter.com/DanWetzel/status/244187471116640257), even if Lance legitimately had the $30K, he could still be guilty for receiving credit based on expected future earnings.

@DanWetzel:


As I understand NCAA rules, issue for Duke isn't necessarily that Lance Thomas had $30,000 to put down payment on jewelry (might be fine)... it would be if he received $67,800 credit based on expected future basketball earnings. NCAA prohibits that. Going to be interesting

[TKG]

Even if it's an agent that gave Lance the $30K for a down payment and not Duke, which seems likely, the banner's gone, right?

If proven to be true, in addition to the title being vacated, I would think the wins would be removed from K 's career stats as well.

[moonpie23]

we don't have all the facts.....just the lawsuit.......

considering that lance is making plenty of $$ in the nba to take care of this debt, does it seem right that he would allow this issue to come to duke over 67K?

sick to my stomach....

[savekyriestoe]

Also, I preferred the original title (Lance Thomas what the heck??!!!) to this thread.

[G man]

we don't have all the facts.....just the lawsuit.......

considering that lance is making plenty of $$ in the nba to take care of this debt, does it seem right that he would allow this issue to come to duke over 67K?

sick to my stomach....

Yeah I am freaking out. I believe the sky is truly falling.

[sagegrouse]

Even if it's an agent that gave Lance the $30K for a down payment and not Duke, which seems likely, the banner's gone, right?

Whoa! Whoa! There is leaping to conclusions, and then there is leaping off a cliff. You and I have no idea about the personal circumstances of Lance and his family.

sagegrouse

[gus]

Whoa! Whoa! There is leaping to conclusions, and then there is leaping off a cliff. You and I have no idea about the personal circumstances of Lance and his family.

sagegrouse

We also don't know yet that this lawsuit has any merit.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Even if it's an agent that gave Lance the $30K for a down payment and not Duke, which seems likely, the banner's gone, right?
Leave out the "Even if". That's the one scenario that would sink the boat...if it was an agent making the purchase for Lance. If it is was Lance's money then it would be less of an issue. Sure we would all wonder where it came from, but if it was legitimately his dough then it would be not so much of our concern.

That being said, this all smells pretty fishy. I'm with Sage..let the chips fall before the rest of the sky does.

[Chicago 1995]

Leave out the "Even if". That's the one scenario that would sink the boat...if it was an agent making the purchase for Lance. If it is was Lance's money then it would be less of an issue. Sure we would all wonder where it came from, but if it was legitimately his dough then it would be not so much of our concern.

That being said, this all smells pretty fishy. I'm with Sage..let the chips fall before the rest of the sky does.

Even if it was his dough, the extension of credit could be a problem for us. NCAA forbids loans like that for athletes.

This isn't pretty, and there are a ton of people gleeful about this turn of events.

[Lauderdevil]

Even if it's an agent that gave Lance the $30K for a down payment and not Duke, which seems likely, the banner's gone, right?

I would think Duke people would understand the absurdity of jumping to conclusions based upon a newspaper article. There are a million possible explanations for this, many of which would be just fine (e.g., Lance had just lost his rich Aunt Millie; a friend asked him to go to the store and pick up his purchase; the receipt had the wrong date; the jeweler is nuts or an extortionist and there was never a sale of anything like this amount; who knows?) and some of which might not be -- but there is a legal process in place and it sounds like Duke has its own process underway as well. Those processes should proceed before anyone starts getting all worked up, tearing down banners, reinstating Bobby Knight's win record, or anything of the sort. This is not a "presumption of innocence" matter; it's just common sense: the easiest, first assumption about what "must have" happened (the Duke lacrosse matter being only one of many recent examples) often turns out to be far wide of the mark. My own assumption is that Duke has a strong compliance team and training program, that Lance is a smart enough guy not to do a really dumb thing, and that this turns into nothing. If, on the other hand, there was in fact anything untoward, we'll all know about it soon enough.

[killerleft]

There's no evidence of anything except somebody filed a lawsuit. I'm waiting on something real before being concerned.

[hudlow]

It would surely be an easy way to take the focus off of issues other schools are having.....

[devildeac]

Just hope Packpride does not investigate this.
:rolleyes:

[cspan37421]

When the Lax hoax broke and everyone who knew I went to Duke asked me about it, I said, IF true, no defense ... let them be punished to the full extent of the law. That one turned out to be false. But I think your loyalty has to be with figuring out what is true first before condemning.

In the UNC case, what has already been admitted stinks to high heaven. So I have little trouble feeling that the boom deserves to be lowered on them.

In this case, we have an allegation. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If the allegations are true, we have to be prepared to take our medicine, though there is some solace and dignity in knowing that no one on staff or institutionally would ever have recommended what he is accused of doing. There's no upside to Duke by a player going off and bejeweling himself on credit. No competitive advantage, no boost to eligibility, etc. IF true, he would have pretty much done this on his own.

The key question: is it true?

If yes, then I suppose a follow up would be: who else knew? Might be hard to hide. Isn't the point of jewelry to show it off? Follow that chain of probabilities ... and the end of the line is not good. Still, it would be a totally lame way to lose a banner - one guy breaking a rule on his own.

I sure hope it's not true. But you've got to steel yourself ... bumpy road ahead.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Even if it's an agent that gave Lance the $30K for a down payment and not Duke, which seems likely, the banner's gone, right?

Wow people... let's just calm down a bit and see what's what before we storm Cameron and start tearing down banners.

Every single thing about this sounds weird as heck. Let's assume that things are fine until we get a detail or two clear.

[killerleft]

Wow people... let's just calm down a bit and see what's what before we storm Cameron and start tearing down banners.

Every single thing about this sounds weird as heck. Let's assume that things are fine until we get a detail or two clear.

Exactly. I'm having trouble working up a sweat. There's nothing but a lawsuit. At this point, anything that can be imagined may be true - or not. But weird it is.

[oldnavy]

This is weird.

Mike Bowers, the firm's attorney, said Thomas purchased a black diamond necklace, a diamond-encrusted watch, a pair of diamond studs, a diamond cross and a black diamond pendant in the shape of Jesus' head. According to the purchase order, signed by Thomas, the player agreed to pay a deposit of at least 25 percent of the purchase price and the remainder in 15 days.


First, why would a business agree to "loan" a college senior $70K with terms of 15 days? I'm thinking that if you feel he can pay it off in 15 days, then you wait until he has all the cash before you give him the jewels. If any of this is true the owners of that business are idiots.

Also, why would Lance not pay the money now if he did owe it? Why go through this mess? He is smarter than that.

I smell a rat here.....

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Also, the ESPN article mentions that his mother is the manager of a Ford plant... that's not a job that would earn chicken feed.

I reiterate, everything about this makes no sense.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

This is weird.

Mike Bowers, the firm's attorney, said Thomas purchased a black diamond necklace, a diamond-encrusted watch, a pair of diamond studs, a diamond cross and a black diamond pendant in the shape of Jesus' head. According to the purchase order, signed by Thomas, the player agreed to pay a deposit of at least 25 percent of the purchase price and the remainder in 15 days.


First, why would a business agree to "loan" a college senior $70K with terms of 15 days? I'm thinking that if you feel he can pay it off in 15 days, then you wait until he has all the cash before you give him the jewels. If any of this is true the owners of that business are idiots.

Also, why would Lance not pay the money now if he did owe it? Why go through this mess? He is smarter than that.

I smell a rat here.....

AND... if the theory is that the loan was made because he was headed for NBA riches... was that going to happen sometime in late December? The 15 day term is just strange.

[oldnavy]

AND... if the theory is that the loan was made because he was headed for NBA riches... was that going to happen sometime in late December? The 15 day term is just strange.

Yea, I mean if it was custom jewelry then you would think that a deposit up front before the jewels were crafted would be standard, not at receipt of the mercandise and the balance 15 days later. Why 15 days? Seriously, if I am running a jewelry business and I agree to custom make some bling, you better believe that I am getting a chunk of change upfront before I cut the first diamond, then I am getting the balance on receipt of the jewels. Again, I don't believe this, but if it is true, the people running that business are just plain dumb.

And you are correct about LT's projection as a pro. I loved his game, but I wouldn't have loaned him $100 bucks if his making the pros was the condition of getting it back.

[miltk]

Even if it's an agent that gave Lance the $30K for a down payment and not Duke, which seems likely, the banner's gone, right?

UCLA was stripped of a softball title because it was over on it's scholarship quota. Not only was the situation "transparent", it was out in the open for anyone to see. it involved 3 players(not starters) over the schollie limit who were never named. there was no newly declared nc winner because it could not be determined if that team, arizona, would have benefited if the 3 ucla bench players' had not played.

thomas was a starter on a banner team.

[ThePublisher]

If this turns out to be accurate, I am going to be one terribly upset fan if we get punished after un-cheaters getting away with academic fraud (so far). I find it incredibly hard to believe that anyone directly connected with Duke gave Lance 30K for some bling. Potentially an agent???

Fingers crossed this isn't a legitimate issue.

[Bojangles4Eva]

This whole story seems very illogical. I'm going to wait till more facts come out to formulate an official opinion, because none of this makes sense. If it is true that Lance did this, there doesn't seem to be any angle for him to justify dropping 30K only to be 70K in debt in two weeks. Lance always appeared to have a good head on him, so what motivation is there for him to have done something so potentially self destructive? If an agent were involved, why would he/she have thought that Lance was an NBA prospect in '09 (at least enough to pay him thousands of dollars)? He also doesn't have any diagnosed mental disorders (e.g. bipolar) that would cause him to go on a manic spending spree like that. All of this makes me think there is much more to this story. Hopefully it gets better.

My longshot bet based on little facts and a vast imagination is that this has something to do with identity theft......yea....

[oldnavy]

Well the first thing we have to do is to say it is not in anyone's interest to look back at the charges, because we will put measures in place to assure that nothing like this happens again, and we will fire the business school dean. That should satisfy the NCAA....

[gep]

This is weird.

Also, why would Lance not pay the money now if he did owe it? Why go through this mess? He is smarter than that.

.....

I thought about this... paying the money now. But, the article said that the lawsuit was filed back in January... so he could have paid it off then, and no story. But if ever found out, as others have said, the extension of a $70K credit for whatever reason may be even worse... :confused:

[hq2]

find it incredibly hard to believe that anyone directly connected with Duke gave Lance 30K for some bling.

Do you suppose the ghost of Sam Gilbert is wandering around West Durham somewhere? I dunno, like the LAX stuff, let's not
rush to judgement till we see the evidence (boy was there ever egg on the faces of the people who did back then!). The problem
is, Lance wasn't projected to be an NBA player, so if he didn't get it from his family, we have to wonder if anyone connected with
Duke is involved. Sure looks suspicious right now....

[Indoor66]

I thought about this... paying the money now. But, the article said that the lawsuit was filed back in January... so he could have paid it off then, and no story. But if ever found out, as others have said, the extension of a $70K credit for whatever reason may be even worse... :confused:

It is a lawsuit, for crying out loud. No decisions, no facts, just allegations. Get a grip.

There is a lot of question in this. A purchase, a deposit and a promise to pay in 15 days - three years ago! What happened in between then and now? A dispute about the goods purchased? Non-performance by the seller? And there are other possible issues in dispute. Let's get more facts before we start shredding records and banners.

[detule]

I know it's been said many times, but let's not jump to conclusions.

I personally have a hard time believing that a member of our basketball team could hope to pull something like that and keep it (and the jewels) under wraps. I think K's ear is close to the ground, and word of something like that would have made its way back to him.

If these charges are indeed true, first and foremost I'll be surprised at how incredibly stupid Lance would have proven himself to be.

[Olympic Fan]

As a Duke fan, this is VERY scary news.

But as a Duke fan, I know two things: (1) Not to convict anyone without knowing the whole story (we learned that in the Lax hoax) and (2) investigate honestly and if there is wrong-doing to punish appropriately (we learned that by watching UNC try to coverup, spin and deny its crimes).

That said, there are two potential problems here:

(1) If Lance really made a $30,000 down payment, that's a LOT for a college student. If they money came from a source other than his family or long-time family friends, that's a HUGE prioblem ... even if Duke knew nothing about it or if it came with someone with no connection to Duke, like an agent (just remember, a lot of UNC's actual penalty came from players getting benefits from agents ... John Calipari had his Final Four at UMass vacated because Marcus Camby took jewelry from an agent).

(2) If Lance was really extended $70,000 credit based on his status as an athlete or his potential earning power as an athlete, that's an impermissible benefit. The test is whether the credit was available to a non-athlete.

Again, it doesn't matter if Duke was involved or even knew what is going on. In such matters, the NCAA has a very strong policy that once a player matriculates on campus, it is the school's responsibility to teach him to follow the rules -- and if he doesn't, you are responsible. Benefits given kids BEFORE college are only a problem for the school if those benefits come from the school or some representative (such as a booster). That's why the Cory Maggette situation was different -- he did receive impermissable benefits and would have been ineliigible (for some length of time) had that knowledge come up while he was still at Duke, but Duke itself would not have been punished because Myron Piggie was not acting for Duke (he was paying kids to bolster his AAU empire).

I agree with a lot of previous posters -- A LOT of the story sounds fishy ... why would they give him $70,000 credit for 15 days? His mother is well off and didn't have to pay for his education, she could have dropped some money on him. I believe he had a well-off uncle who was very close to him. Why would Lance Thomas -- a kid who appeared to have no NBA potential in December of 2009 -- be getting the kind of deal that the jewelry company gave to estblished stars? Why would an agent be dropping that kind of money on him?

I want all these questions answered before I start talking about punishment. Worst case -- Lance took money from agent or got a sweetheart deal because he's an athlete and the banner comes down and the victories are vacated. I very much doubt that will be the case, but if it comes to that, I hope Duke does the right thing, admits the problem and self-imposes the rigth penalty.

If Duke acts like Chapel Hill -- "hey, it's in the past, we've corrected the problem and moved on, nothing to see here" -- I would stop being a Duke fan.

PS The worst part of this news is that whatever comes out of the investigation, Duke basketball and Coach K will forever be hit with this by the haters -- just as they continually bring up non-issues like Maggette and the job Chris Duhon's mom got in Raleigh. Mention AFAM studies to a UNC partisan and he'll start talking about the Sociology courses that a lot of Duke bball players took. This is never going to die -- even if it does turn out to be total BS.

[Edouble]

In my heart of hearts, I truly believe that if Lance had made a jewelry purchase that could jeopardize what the entire team was working for during the 2009-10 season, that Coach K would have found out about it. I just don't see how Lance could have bought this significant amount of bling and the fact that he had made the purchase not make it's way back to Coach K. I just think the guy has octopus arms, through his assistants, managers, players etc. etc. getting him info. about what's going on with all facets of the team. If Lance threw the wool over Coach K and acquired all of this jewelry without Coach finding out about it, then he is not the leader that I have always believed him to be. I do not mean for that to sound insulting. I'm just saying that I doubt this turns into something big and bad.

[dcdevil2009]

It is a lawsuit, for crying out loud. No decisions, no facts, just allegations. Get a grip.

There is a lot of question in this. A purchase, a deposit and a promise to pay in 15 days - three years ago! What happened in between then and now? A dispute about the goods purchased? Non-performance by the seller? And there are other possible issues in dispute. Let's get more facts before we start shredding records and banners.

For example, Lance might have had someone co-sign for him on the loan. I'm not sure what the NCAA rules are on the issue, but if Lance's mother or another family member were to co-sign with the expectation of Lance's future earnings being able to pay off the loan, could that still be considered an impermissible benefit? Even though no one really thought he would make the NBA midway through his senior year doesn't mean no one thought he'd be able to earn a living playing basketball. Playing abroad doesn't pay as well as the NBA, but it pays better than a lot of entry-level jobs right out of college.

[SmartDevil]

I concur with those who recognize that it is better to be patient and let the facts, many of which we do not know at this point, come out.

Maybe it was a Lance imposter. Maybe Lance was in the company of someone else who made a purchase, and the jeweler couldn't collect from the purchaser so now is turning to Lance as Lance has had some recent success. I can think of dozens of other "maybes"--including maybe this is all made up.

We learned from the lacrosse hoax not to prejudge situations. The only thing we do know is that someone is guilty of is exceptionally bad taste in jewelry !

[moonpie23]

the lawyer of the company said that lance ALONE made the deal and there was no one else involved...(their story)....so, it doesn't sound like there's a c0-borrower involved..

i hope lance comes out with a statement soon.....this just seems too wrong to be right....

[Chicken Little]

I agree with a lot of previous posters -- A LOT of the story sounds fishy ... why would they give him $70,000 credit for 15 days? His mother is well off and didn't have to pay for his education, she could have dropped some money on him. I believe he had a well-off uncle who was very close to him. Why would Lance Thomas -- a kid who appeared to have no NBA potential in December of 2009 -- be getting the kind of deal that the jewelry company gave to estblished stars? Why would an agent be dropping that kind of money on him?

Agreed. I'm not going to start measuring cinder blocks, but a quick google search (http://www.ehow.com/info_12160591_salary-car-factory-manager.html#ixzz25ppph900) for the salaries of car factory managers shows " the median annual wage reported in May 2008 for all production managers was $83,290, with the lowest 10 percent earning less than $50,330 and the highest 10 percent earning more than $140,530." So factor in a proud parent, who hadn't had to pay a Duke tuition for four years, and made at least fair money, agreeing to buy her son a graduation present of a down-payment on some silly jewelry. Plenty of my friends got cars when they graduated college, and their parents weren't pulling down (possible) six figures. When I graduated (a state school in Florida, certainly not as renowned as Duke) college in 2005, many of my relatives pooled their money and got me a decent-sized check to try and help get me started on the right path. With my parents as co-signers I was extended a line of credit to purchase a new car without great employment(I was working at Best Buy at the time). Add in a wealthy uncle as a possible wild-card, and though we might not agree with what he spent the money on, it is entirely possible that this was all above board, even if we choose to overlook the fishiness of the situation.

That said, something about this really doesn't seem to add up. I would have known better than this at a younger age, and I got a C in Economics in high school. I would be surprised to see that this doesn't clear up as the details emerge. I would be more nervous if it were a highly regarded player with clear NBA potential at the time, but none of this makes any sense, logically. The sky isn't falling just yet.

[FerryFor50]

Anyone on the board know Lance personally? I don't, but from interviews and such, it doesn't seem like a very "Lance Thomas" move in that it's pretty stupid.

Forget for a moment the jewelry store's belief that Lance was somehow the Dez Bryant of college basketball and loaned him 70k... Lance seemed pretty smart and I can't imagine he would be dumb enough to spend 100k on jewelry unless he was going to be able to pay for it.

Plus, as another poster mentioned, it's pretty hard to hide 100k of black diamonds, particularly encrusted in a Jesus head, so I can't imagine one of his teammates or coaches not seeing the jewelry and saying a collective "What the heck is that???"

Also, regarding the credit line... if a student were, say, a law school student, or a med school student, or had been in movies... wouldn't they be able to get loans of this size? I imagine that pro athletes are not the only people that graduate from college with "earning potential."

And did Lance Thomas sign the loan papers himself? Or did he have a co-signer? That would change things as well. That is, if this all actually happened.

I'm holding judgement on this until more facts come out. I don't like the sound of it, but I also didn't like the sound of the Corey Maggette stuff, or the Greg Newton stuff. And that all turned out ok for the university.

Regardless, I'll still be a Duke fan, unless they prove that Coach K has been buying his players diamonds.

[WakeDevil]

What's say is that some people are so wrapped up in rivalries, etc. that they HOPE this is true. That attitude pervades message boards because the fringe exists there. Thomas should get what's coming to him, for better or worse, just as Purvis and the UNC players should.

[wgl1228]

Whatever went down Lance needs to make a statement soon to clear up any misinformation. The longer it takes then it becomes more suspect as people start to believe he's trying to come up with a defense. Like others have said this whole thing smells fishy because who would give Lance such a large loan with the expectation he would pay it back in 15 days. I don't think anyone thought he would be an NBA player at that point. Lance has been such an inspiring person through his work ethic to make the pro's I hope there is just a misunderstanding. I pray this does not affect Duke as the 2010 season might have been my favorite TEAM of all time.

[Nosbleuatu]

It's hard to argue that the loan was based on future earnings if he was meant to pay it off in 15 days.

[dcdevil2009]

I'm not saying this happened, but what are the NCAA rules concerning former teammates giving stuff to current players. For example, would Gerald have been able to hook Lance, Zoobs, and Jon up with Christmas gifts worth 1%-2% of his salary or would those be considered impermissible benefits?

[BD80]

Many possible issues. The suit is for "unpaid" $70,000, but who knows what Lance expected to pay? Jewelry is typically discounted; 70% off "retail" would not be shocking.

FWIW this firm has shaken down at least one other pro athlete:


Rafaello & Co. filed a similar lawsuit against Dallas Cowboys receiver Dez Bryant last year, claiming he hadn't paid $240,000 for jewelry he purchased between January and May 2010.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/basketball/ncaa/09/07/Lance-Thomas-Duke-jewelry.ap/index.html#ixzz25qHE2lDd

I can't believe that the suit wouldn't have settled without filing if there was a real issue of non-payment.

[dukelilsis]

I can't be the only person who finds the timing of this news to be a little suspect. First, the Rodney Purvis mess for State and now this. Hmm... Also, if the NCAA jumps on this while allowing two banners to hang in the Dean Dome that should come down based on the players being involved in and being steered towards bogus classes/major, my head just may implode. I'm all for taking your licks if you're guilty but the blind eye pointed down the road has made me lose all faith in the NCAA. Seriously, I can't help but wonder which law school this attorney calls his alma mater. I may sound ridiculous but it just seems fishy to me.

[moonpie23]

It's hard to argue that the loan was based on future earnings if he was meant to pay it off in 15 days.

aren't all loans based on future earnings....?

[nmduke2001]

Agreed. I'm not going to start measuring cinder blocks, but a quick google search (http://www.ehow.com/info_12160591_salary-car-factory-manager.html#ixzz25ppph900) for the salaries of car factory managers shows " the median annual wage reported in May 2008 for all production managers was $83,290, with the lowest 10 percent earning less than $50,330 and the highest 10 percent earning more than $140,530." So factor in a proud parent, who hadn't had to pay a Duke tuition for four years, and made at least fair money, agreeing to buy her son a graduation present of a down-payment on some silly jewelry. Plenty of my friends got cars when they graduated college, and their parents weren't pulling down (possible) six figures. When I graduated (a state school in Florida, certainly not as renowned as Duke) college in 2005, many of my relatives pooled their money and got me a decent-sized check to try and help get me started on the right path. With my parents as co-signers I was extended a line of credit to purchase a new car without great employment(I was working at Best Buy at the time). Add in a wealthy uncle as a possible wild-card, and though we might not agree with what he spent the money on, it is entirely possible that this was all above board, even if we choose to overlook the fishiness of the situation.

That said, something about this really doesn't seem to add up. I would have known better than this at a younger age, and I got a C in Economics in high school. I would be surprised to see that this doesn't clear up as the details emerge. I would be more nervous if it were a highly regarded player with clear NBA potential at the time, but none of this makes any sense, logically. The sky isn't falling just yet.

My first job out of Duke was finance for Ford. I happen to be in a plant for my first rotation. I can tell you with certainty that plant managers make significantly more than your google search states. First, a plant has a lot of managers. Each “line” in the plant has a main manager and a shift manager. There are a lot of lines in a plant. The shift line manager makes about $120k. The main line manager (usually someone with an engineering degree) earns about $170k. The plant manager makes a lot of money. The guy at my plant earned over $350k and normally received a bonus above that. He managed about 1,500 employees.

[MCFinARL]

Also, regarding the credit line... if a student were, say, a law school student, or a med school student, or had been in movies... wouldn't they be able to get loans of this size? I imagine that pro athletes are not the only people that graduate from college with "earning potential."


Regardless, I'll still be a Duke fan, unless they prove that Coach K has been buying his players diamonds.

I don't know about being in movies, but I doubt a law or medical student would be able to get a loan like this--unless they had no educational loans. Plus, frankly, it's hard to imagine ANYONE getting a loan for $70,000 payable in 15 days, except maybe from the mob. 15 Days? Really? That just makes no sense. If the jeweler expected payment that quickly, surely they would hold the goods until the balance was paid; otherwise they would presumably set up an installment loan with monthly payments. As for K buying his players diamonds, that will be the day. ;)


Many possible issues. The suit is for "unpaid" $70,000, but who knows what Lance expected to pay? Jewelry is typically discounted; 70% off "retail" would not be shocking.

FWIW this firm has shaken down at least one other pro athlete:



I can't believe that the suit wouldn't have settled without filing if there was a real issue of non-payment.

Yeah, this just sounds off. If there is really an issue here, I agree with other posters that it needs to be figured out and dealt with straightforwardly, regardless of the consequences. But I'm very skeptical and I don't think it's just because of wishful thinking. If you lent someone $70,000 in Dec. 2009, payable in 15 days, would you wait almost 3 years for payment before suing? And if you were Lance Thomas and had actually assumed this obligation, due in 15 days, while you were a college athlete, would you have done so if you had no way to pay, or no intention of paying, if you weren't a complete idiot (which Lance didn't appear to be)? Someone earlier in the thread noted Lance was a hot prospect out of high school, but by 2009 it would have been clear to most folks that there was no guarantee he would get a big NBA payoff. Given that the jeweler apparently says no one cosigned or guaranteed the loan, why would the jeweler have advanced this money, on whose assurances? I'd like to hear Lance's side of this store before I draw any conclusions.

[jipops]

Unfortunately this does look like something to lose sleep over. The facts are few, and it all does seem fishy, but I'm afraid this doesn't end well.

[sagegrouse]

There are a lot of "hmmmms..."


What the heck would Lance want with a $100 thou of jewelry? I mean, if this stuff really worth $100 thousand? No one is gonna file a lawsuit to recover, say, a few thousand. Maybe the amounts in the case are multiplied many times over to make it worth pursuing.

Why would he be able to walk out the store with this stuff while paying only about 30 percent of the claimed value?

Why would the store extend credit to a college student with doubtful NBA prospects?

Why didn't he just return the stuff if he couldn't pay for it?

Why did it take two years to file the suit? Why was it filed in Austin when his real income was coming from the Hornets in Louisiana?

If it is a legitimate debt, why didn't he just pay it out of available funds? Or borrow the money?

Where is the jewelry now, and where has it been for the past 33 months?

Why does this whole thing seem like a Fellini movie or a Kafka novel?

sagegrouse

[nmduke2001]

Duke played Gonzaga in NYC on December 19th and did not play again until December 29th in Durham.

[Lord Ash]

If Duke acts like Chapel Hill -- "hey, it's in the past, we've corrected the problem and moved on, nothing to see here" -- I would stop being a Duke fan.



I am sorry, I just have to point out; there is just about no similarity between a kid buying an obnoxious amount of jewelry on credit he shouldn't have been extended that Duke knew nothing about (and that is the WORST case scenario) and an entire University creating a false program and allowing athletes to masquerade as students for years and years so they can win games in several NCAA sports. The two are very different situations in respect to the Universities involved.

Story seems disappointing; I hope there is a good explanation, as I like Lance too much.

[gep]

What gets me, so far, is the story says that the lawsuit was filed in January (2012?) in Austin, TX where Lance was with the Austin Toros at the time, and wasn't publicly disclosed.

For lawyers out there (obviously with my questions, I'm nowhere near law)... First, I thought lawsuits had to have "substance", otherwise, not "frivolous" before the court accepts the filing. Second, are lawsuits in the public domain immediately when filed, or does it have to be released to the public. If immediately public, why did it take so long for these "reporters" to find it. Third, doesn't the party being sued have to be notified when the lawsuit is filed? If so, did Lance know? After all, that was 8 months ago. Or is Lance just as surprised as us?

I can't wait for the details... this is very weird.

[Jim3k]

Black diamonds, by themselves, aren't even very expensive. Hopefully, I'm not violating any advertising policy by linking to a Zales advertisement (http://www.zales.com/family/index.jsp?categoryId=4450780) for black diamond jewelry to prove the point. In addition, here's a price list on loose black diamonds (http://www.ajediam.com/Black_diamond_prices.html) from another supplier, based on size.

Sure, you could conceivably order enough to run pieces up to $100 K, but these things aren't all that expensive and there is some question about how they should be marketed--carbonado isn't that pretty, compared to other types of diamonds, (http://askville.amazon.com/black-diamonds-valuable-white-yellow-precious-real/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=6147924) (they're black and don't sparkle) so why is there the demand? And why would a college senior have any interest in such a mundane jewel?

I smell a rat in this lawsuit.

[CampbellBlueDevil]

If Duke acts like Chapel Hill -- "hey, it's in the past, we've corrected the problem and moved on, nothing to see here" -- I would stop being a Duke fan.



These are two entirely different scenarios. However, you are free to disown your Duke support.

Scenario A: Player UNWISELY buys jewelery that he is unable to pay for

Scenario B: An academic institution creates a fraudulent major in which they funneled student-athletes into. This major included no show classes, questionable grades, and an overwhelming number of basketball players.

[-bdbd]

Don't jump the gun... If we learned anything from Mike Nifong, it was not to make snap judgements - least of all snap condemnations - until all of the facts are in. This simply doesn't smell right. There most certainly will be two sides to this. Hold off on taking down any banners quite yet.... :rolleyes:

[Olympic Fan]

These are two entirely different scenarios. However, you are free to disown your Duke support.

Scenario A: Player UNWISELY buys jewelery that he is unable to pay for

Scenario B: An academic institution creates a fraudulent major in which they funneled student-athletes into. This major included no show classes, questionable grades, and an overwhelming number of basketball players.

Let me be clear (I thought I was, but I guess wasn't).

If it turns out Lance did something illegal and it costs Duke a banner and games, I do NOT disown Duke. I am NOT comparing this potential violation (which I won't believe until I see a LOT more evidence) with the years of academic corruption in Chapel Hill. Even if the worst case scenario comes true, this is a molehill compared to the mountain of festering pus to our southwest.

What I'm talking about is the University response to the discovery of a violation. At UNC, the administration has done eveything possible to hide, deny and dismiss the facts. They're investigated about six times and said nothing happened ... only to have their sins exposed by Packpide or a Yahoo reporter or a reporter for the N&O ... then it's 'Oh yes, we missed that, but we've got it now. The problem is fixed ..." Meanwhile they've paid off the key people at the heart of the scandal without making them talk to the NCAA (both Blake and Butch Davis got their severence without the requirement that they cooperate with the NCAA. Debbie Crowder was retired. Jennifer Wiley was provided with a high priced UNC grad of a lawyer to protect her from inquiry). Meanwhile the UNC hired a public relations firm to spin the story in their favor.

My point is that if Duke acts like that, I will renounce my allegiance. I don't expect that. I expect the school to get to the bottom of this story, reveal the truth -- and if a penalty is warrented, take it and move on.

[miltk]

There are a lot of "hmmmms..."


What the heck would Lance want with a $100 thou of jewelry? I mean, if this stuff really worth $100 thousand? No one is gonna file a lawsuit to recover, say, a few thousand. Maybe the amounts in the case are multiplied many times over to make it worth pursuing.

Why would he be able to walk out the store with this stuff while paying only about 30 percent of the claimed value?

Why would the store extend credit to a college student with doubtful NBA prospects?

Why didn't he just return the stuff if he couldn't pay for it?

Why did it take two years to file the suit? Why was it filed in Austin when his real income was coming from the Hornets in Louisiana?

If it is a legitimate debt, why didn't he just pay it out of available funds? Or borrow the money?

Where is the jewelry now, and where has it been for the past 33 months?

Why does this whole thing seem like a Fellini movie or a Kafka novel?

sagegrouse

any area with a high profile sports team, be it pro or college, has dealers of some sort be it cars dealerships OR jewelry OR electronics, OR you name the high ticket item,,,who will extend credit to known athletes, or there may be "people" who will vouch for said athlete or who can place the two parties in the same room. one would be naive to think this can't happen in their area.

this is so simple. for anyone who doubts or believes the allegations, one thing is for sure.....IT'S OUT IN THE OPEN FOR NOW. think of it like all the recent steroid news with suppliers et al making charges against athletes. it's not as if ONLY the athletes are under attack. the accusers open themselves to scrutiny as well. so you ask yourselves, do you think the accusers WANTED to go public? it's almost like a blackmailer going public and telling everyone why.

[oldnavy]

aren't all loans based on future earnings....?

Not 15 day loans. This is the weirdest part of the whole story to me. I'll make the point again. You are a jeweler. You are asked to make a $100K in CUSTOM made jewelry. You take 25% as a down payment AFTER you make the pieces and let the customer have the jewels??? What if the customer never comes back, or doesn't like them or can't come up with the cash?? Makes no business sense for the dealer AT ALL.

The second weird thing is why take full payment in 15 days? Has anyone EVER bought anything on these terms? I have let people get life sustaining medications with the agreement to pay in a week because they were in between paychecks, but I wouldn't do that for a watch or earrings. And even in those cases with medication I only do it because I have compassion for some of the people who live paycheck to paycheck, and if they didn't pay me I would cover it out of my own pocket.

Why on earth would a company of any kind advance a kid this kind of money for these types of items for 15 days??? I would have said, Lance give me half now, we will make the pieces, and then half when you pick them up. That way if Lance never shows back up or doesn't have the cash, you have half the dough and all the jewels, so you can reset them or sell to to someone else who might like them.

If they thought Lance was going to make money playing ball, then why 15 day terms, why not 12 months???

This is just really weird, and I find to many inconsistancies with common sense to believe it as presented.

[blazindw]

As many have said, there are more holes in this story than Swiss cheese. I think we all just need to woosah for a bit and let the facts unfold. There are way too many discrepancies in what we've learned from the couple of reports thus far to speculate or jump to conclusions at this point.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTGdAGPDBpo

[killerleft]

any area with a high profile sports team, be it pro or college, has dealers of some sort be it cars dealerships OR jewelry OR electronics, OR you name the high ticket item,,,who will extend credit to known athletes, or there may be "people" who will vouch for said athlete or who can place the two parties in the same room. one would be naive to think this can't happen in their area.

this is so simple. for anyone who doubts or believes the allegations, one thing is for sure.....IT'S OUT IN THE OPEN FOR NOW. think of it like all the recent steroid news with suppliers et al making charges against athletes. it's not as if ONLY the athletes are under attack. the accusers open themselves to scrutiny as well. so you ask yourselves, do you think the accusers WANTED to go public? it's almost like a blackmailer going public and telling everyone why.

I'm trying to figure out why Nancy Grace is using "miltk" as a moniker on the Duke message board.:rolleyes: Seriously, neither the optimists or pessimists among us have anything on which to base our assumptions, unless the Lance Thomas we got to know and respect makes a difference.

And your blackmailer statement made me think. Wouldn't the lag time from January 'til now regarding public discovery make the argument that said blackmailers would have reasonably hoped that their scheme would have paid off for them by now?

[moonpie23]

i'd love to see the "loan agreement" that was allegedly signed.........

It could be my duke allegiance, but really? lance thomas DID do something shady and allows this to get to this point?? his own team mates see the bling and don't ask/do anything? this is just NOT adding up...

are we absolutely sure it wasn't dave chappelle posing as LT??

[wgl1228]

In this age of social media why has Lance not commented on this. He's got to see the implications of this as it relates to Duke and its integrity and get something out.

[Nosbleuatu]

i'd love to see the "loan agreement" that was allegedly signed.........

It could be my duke allegiance, but really? lance thomas DID do something shady and allows this to get to this point?? his own team mates see the bling and don't ask/do anything? this is just NOT adding up...

are we absolutely sure it wasn't dave chappelle posing as LT??

A close inspection of the original receipt sounds critical. It wouldn't be hard to take an old, legitimate receipt and add some extra items or zeros when you saw that somebody made it big a few years later.

[killerleft]

In this age of social media why has Lance not commented on this. He's got to see the implications of this as it relates to Duke and its integrity and get something out.

Commenting on social media about this would seem unwise at best. Proves nothing, can be misinterpreted. Depending on what he's told Duke or lawyers, he may have been told to keep quiet until they can investigate and verify things.

[MCFinARL]

any area with a high profile sports team, be it pro or college, has dealers of some sort be it cars dealerships OR jewelry OR electronics, OR you name the high ticket item,,,who will extend credit to known athletes, or there may be "people" who will vouch for said athlete or who can place the two parties in the same room. one would be naive to think this can't happen in their area.


Yes, but. This is a New York jeweler, not a Durham jeweler. Are you suggesting "known athletes" in such a case would include every kid who ever played ball in New Jersey, even if he was playing college ball far away from the NY area? Also, a 15-day extension of credit? I'm not saying this can't happen; obviously it can. But I haven't seen enough evidence to conclude that it happened here.

[uh_no]

Yes, but. This is a New York jeweler, not a Durham jeweler. Are you suggesting "known athletes" in such a case would include every kid who ever played ball in New Jersey, even if he was playing college ball far away from the NY area? Also, a 15-day extension of credit? I'm not saying this can't happen; obviously it can. But I haven't seen enough evidence to conclude that it happened here.

I think the saving grace here (other than the possibility that the suit is hogwash) is the 15 days....how can the credit have been extended on future earnings if he wouldn't ahve any earnings during the loan term? Since it was 15 days, there could have been no expectations of earnings and it must have been based on some current value (his families or his wealth?)...since that is the case, it seems plausible that this 15 day loan would be available to all students who had the types of monetary resources lance did at the time.

[MCFinARL]

What gets me, so far, is the story says that the lawsuit was filed in January (2012?) in Austin, TX where Lance was with the Austin Toros at the time, and wasn't publicly disclosed.

For lawyers out there (obviously with my questions, I'm nowhere near law)... First, I thought lawsuits had to have "substance", otherwise, not "frivolous" before the court accepts the filing. Second, are lawsuits in the public domain immediately when filed, or does it have to be released to the public. If immediately public, why did it take so long for these "reporters" to find it. Third, doesn't the party being sued have to be notified when the lawsuit is filed? If so, did Lance know? After all, that was 8 months ago. Or is Lance just as surprised as us?

I can't wait for the details... this is very weird.

I don't know state law in New York or Texas (my guess is the substance of the suit would be governed by New York law since that is where the transaction occurred), but a court will accept a filing as long as it states an actionable claim, assuming everything in the complaint is true. You don't need to prove anything to get through the courthouse door; that comes later. Even a frivolous claim may hang around for a while if the defendant doesn't move to dismiss, and courts often give the plaintiff every benefit of the doubt in deciding whether to dismiss a complaint.

Generally speaking, lawsuits are a matter of public record, though it might be possible (not claiming current expertise here) to file a complaint under seal in special circumstances (not sure what those would be in a case like this, though). But a lot of people file a lot of lawsuits--if the parties weren't publicizing this litigation, I'm not surprised it went unnoticed for a long time. Seems unlikely battalions of reporters would be scrutinizing court records to find litigation against people playing in the NBDL.

And, yes, they have to serve the defendant with a copy of the complaint.

[PumpkinFunk]

What gets me, so far, is the story says that the lawsuit was filed in January (2012?) in Austin, TX where Lance was with the Austin Toros at the time, and wasn't publicly disclosed.

For lawyers out there (obviously with my questions, I'm nowhere near law)... First, I thought lawsuits had to have "substance", otherwise, not "frivolous" before the court accepts the filing. Second, are lawsuits in the public domain immediately when filed, or does it have to be released to the public. If immediately public, why did it take so long for these "reporters" to find it. Third, doesn't the party being sued have to be notified when the lawsuit is filed? If so, did Lance know? After all, that was 8 months ago. Or is Lance just as surprised as us?

I can't wait for the details... this is very weird.

I'm a law student, but I can attempt to answer a few things:

First of all, it's bizarre that this hasn't been made public until several months later. If the suit was filed in the federal district court in Texas, then, at the very least the docket is publicly available on the PACER system. I don't know what the availability of these things is in the Texas state court in Austin, but it's probably not quite as open and freely available as the federal system.

In terms of frivolity, the rules are generally pretty liberal for when a suit survives for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The federal rule is whether the facts alleged are plausible and, if true, that they would give a right. It's an incredibly easy standard to meet, and the facts alleged here are clearly enough to give the jewelry store a right to sue and be granted relief. What that means is that the suit will go, there will be discovery, and plenty of attempts to dismiss on the merits (summary judgment motions - alleging that there's not enough evidence for a jury to reasonably find for the jewelry store).

In terms of notice, yes, Lance was required to be served (although he and his lawyers could have waived service, which, in the federal system, gives more time to respond to the complaint... again, no idea on the Texas rules). He absolutely knows and knew about this lawsuit months ago.

I'm sure that someone will go to the courts, find a copy of the complaint and the filings and post them online relatively soon. Until somebody actually gets their hands on the court filings, we can't really assess what's going on. Unless Lance settles with the jewelry store, he is going to be deposed under oath, and the jewelry store is going to use that to leverage a settlement to prevent it from getting into the NCAA. The problem here is that Duke's interests and Lance's interests don't necessarily line up. The jewelry store will try and force a high settlement, with a confidentiality agreement to not talk to the NCAA, hoping that Lance will take it to protect Duke and not have to go under oath. However, Lance's best interests might be to fight this if he believes that he can win, because it will keep him from losing a lot of money. I don't know what the right answer is for him without knowing the specific facts. I have to imagine that the jewelry store will, at the very least, try and depose some of the players and coaching staff from the 09-10 Duke team to put pressure on Lance. The goal for the jewelry store, like most who file a lawsuit, is probably not to go to trial but instead to force a settlement.

EDIT: With that being said, the allegations being made are only allegations, made without being required to have any substantiation whatsoever. Saying that these allegations are true is absurd given how little we know.

[loran16]

The key here is it was a loan. Lance is being sued to get that money BACK, which means Lance didn't GET any impermissible benefits. If the NCAA can't determine whether classes admittedly fraudulent by the university are actual violations, then it certainly can't pick and choose which loans made to students are "permissible" and which are "impermissible." In other words, the NCAA can't call a loan impermissible because it was illogical - (especially if this was a 15 day loan).

The bigger question is how Lance got the 30K. It's totally possible this was from a legitimate source of money, but that, unlike the line of credit, has the possibility of being an impermissible benefit, because it actually was a benefit.

[Chicago 1995]

The availability of the loan, even if he'd paid it off, in and of itself, is an impermissible benefit for student athletes.

We might not like the rule & it might not make sense to us (although I think the rule makes sense - absent it banks run by boosters could give "loans" with generous terms to student athletes; also student athletes running up debt like this can make them more susceptible to organized crime) but it is the rule. It's a well known rule that Duke knew about and presumably educated its athletes about in our compliance training.

Having the 30K is one issue, but even if that's legit, the loan is a separate problem to be addressed, no matter how we try to look at it.

[gumbomoop]

Scenario A: Player UNWISELY buys jewelery that he is unable to pay for

Scenario B: An academic institution creates a fraudulent major in which they funneled student-athletes into. This major included no show classes, questionable grades, and an overwhelming number of basketball players.

Strictly speaking, the actual substantive point of my comment here belongs in the UNC scandal thread. But before disagreeing with CBD's observation in "Scenario B," I'll first observe that because the Lance Thomas mystery has understandably led to concerns that somehow Duke might be sanctioned while UNC might somehow escape, I fear we're on the verge of some sort of corollary to Jderf's Law.


As a DBR discussion grows longer, the probability of a debate between UNC and Duke's current teams/rosters approaches 1.

The corollary would involve fervent debate re which program is the cleanest, which gets off, which causes Cleveland State to be penalized, which NC banner is most in danger, etc. Probably several corollaries.

Anyhow, as to CBD's Scenario B: although I have posted several times in the NC scandal thread about the fraud committed by the ex-chairman, I insist that the claim that UNC's AFAM major was "created [as] a fraudulent major" to help athletes maintain eligibility is an assertion that cannot be supported by any evidence whatsoever. The AFAM major [now re-named] wasn't fraudulent at its creation, and it isn't fraudulent now, either at UNC or at Duke.

Another corollary: As a DBR discussion grows longer, the probability of a debate over the quality of similar majors at Duke and UNC approaches 1.

[loran16]

The availability of the loan, even if he'd paid it off, in and of itself, is an impermissible benefit for student athletes.

We might not like the rule & it might not make sense to us (although I think the rule makes sense - absent it banks run by boosters could give "loans" with generous terms to student athletes; also student athletes running up debt like this can make them more susceptible to organized crime) but it is the rule. It's a well known rule that Duke knew about and presumably educated its athletes about in our compliance training.

Having the 30K is one issue, but even if that's legit, the loan is a separate problem to be addressed, no matter how we try to look at it.

This is not true. The NCAA cannot make a judgment call on what loans are good and what loans are bad. It's beyond its capabilities to figure it out. While the NCAA can certainly try and handle gifts and de facto gifts (loans where there's no intention to try and get the donee to pay up the money), there is no way in hell it, or any body of pseudo government can look at each loan to an athlete and determine if it's legitimate.

To put it another way: If i decided to lend Lance Thomas 1M, to be paid in 5 days, the NCAA couldn't do jack, because I'm taking a (stupid) risk. And that's all the NCAA can tell.

[mkline09]

This is not true. The NCAA cannot make a judgment call on what loans are good and what loans are bad. It's beyond its capabilities to figure it out. While the NCAA can certainly try and handle gifts and de facto gifts (loans where there's no intention to try and get the donee to pay up the money), there is no way in hell it, or any body of pseudo government can look at each loan to an athlete and determine if it's legitimate.

To put it another way: If i decided to lend Lance Thomas 1M, to be paid in 5 days, the NCAA couldn't do jack, because I'm taking a (stupid) risk. And that's all the NCAA can tell.

While I agree with you, that would mean that the NCAA has any rhyme or reason for the decisions it makes. It has set a precedent of stepping outside of its jurisdiction with the Penn State case. And I really don't have the slightest clue as to if they will try to rule in the Lance Thomas case even if it falls outside their power to do so. The academic scandal at UNC seems to fall right into their wheel house and for now they aren't touching it. If Lance did something wrong then he should be held accountable for it and unfortunately that might affect Duke. Unlike other institutions that hope to sweep all the bad stuff under the rug, I'd rather the situation be resolved in a fair manner one way or the other. Obviously I want this to be a misunderstanding and not cost Lance or Duke in the end. But when we are talking about the NCAA, I don't think any of us can know what they will end up doing.

[cowetarock]

The only way I can make any sense out of this deal is that the $30,000 at least covered the dealer's costs and enough profit to make the deal worthwhile whether the note was ever collected or not.The markups in the jewelry trade are notorious.

[spifi]

The only way I can make any sense out of this deal is that the $30,000 at least covered the dealer's costs and enough profit to make the deal worthwhile whether the note was ever collected or not.The markups in the jewelry trade are notorious.

Very true. Lots of people are saying that the 15 day thing means it wasn't about "future earnings", but that's not *necessarily* true. If there was a "wink" agreement that "we'll just put 15 days down because that's our policy for most people, but for YOU..." or something like that, then Duke could be in trouble. Basically, if the NCAA has any reason to believe credit was extended because of his status as a Duke basketball player who might go pro, and the key there is even *might* go pro, then it could be a problem. Whether fans like it or agree with it or not, that's the way they treat it and there is a LOT of precedent for it. A ton. It's simply too easy to make "loans" to players that aren't really even "loans" in the end and be *giving* them stuff while they are still in college under that pretense. So the NCAA simply can't allow it. And they've busted people on this kind of thing before.

So how could it have gotten to THREE YEARS later? Well, if you look at when the lawsuit was filed (January of this year) and when the transaction occurred (late Dec, 2009), that's really 25 months. So basically two years. And if it *was* a wink-nod agreement to not pursue him for it until he was "getting paid", then that wouldn't have been for five or six months later. So now a year and a half is what they'd have been after him for. Not entirely unreasonable at all to go that long before filing a lawsuit.

What still doesn't add up to this being THAT kind of bad is the part about other players and thus staff knowing about this. Just seems like no way this happens without someone finding out about it. And then no way a guy like Lance doesn't pay this stuff off before it gets public if it truly was an impermissible benefit.

[Kedsy]

The availability of the loan, even if he'd paid it off, in and of itself, is an impermissible benefit for student athletes.


This is not true. The NCAA cannot make a judgment call on what loans are good and what loans are bad.

I haven't studied the NCAA regulations very closely, but I don't think all loans are impermissible benefits. My understanding is loans are impermissible if they come from representatives of the school or on behalf of the school or from fans/boosters/alumni (or, in the NCAA's words, a "Representative of the Institution's Athletics Interest"). In that case, whether the loan to Lance was impermissible would depend on whether the New York jeweler was connected to Duke athletics in some way. I haven't read everything there is to read about this case, but I haven't heard that the jeweler was a Duke booster (if I'm wrong about that, I apologize).

In Gary Parrish's article, he says "NCAA rules prohibit student-athletes from receiving benefits not available to all students," but again in my scant research I've only found this rule applying to benefits provided by university representatives/fans/boosters/alumni/etc. So I'm not sure Parrish is right.

Obviously more information could change this, but without knowing more I think Loran16 is probably right and the issue is where Lance got the money and not the loan.



To put it another way: If i decided to lend Lance Thomas 1M, to be paid in 5 days, the NCAA couldn't do jack, because I'm taking a (stupid) risk. And that's all the NCAA can tell.

Here, I don't think I agree. I don't know who loran16 really is, but I'm assuming he's a Duke fan, and thus the loan described here would probably be impermissible. Presumably if Wheat made the loan to Lance, it might be OK... ;)

[GLTBD]

Does anyone know when Duke University became aware of the lawsuit? Is it safe to assume Lance knew about the lawsuit in January, since that is when it was filed?

[cowetarock]

Very true. Lots of people are saying that the 15 day thing means it wasn't about "future earnings", but that's not *necessarily* true. If there was a "wink" agreement that "we'll just put 15 days down because that's our policy for most people, but for YOU..." or something like that, then Duke could be in trouble. Basically, if the NCAA has any reason to believe credit was extended because of his status as a Duke basketball player who might go pro, and the key there is even *might* go pro, then it could be a problem. Whether fans like it or agree with it or not, that's the way they treat it and there is a LOT of precedent for it. A ton. It's simply too easy to make "loans" to players that aren't really even "loans" in the end and be *giving* them stuff while they are still in college under that pretense. So the NCAA simply can't allow it. And they've busted people on this kind of thing before.

So how could it have gotten to THREE YEARS later? Well, if you look at when the lawsuit was filed (January of this year) and when the transaction occurred (late Dec, 2009), that's really 25 months. So basically two years. And if it *was* a wink-nod agreement to not pursue him for it until he was "getting paid", then that wouldn't have been for five or six months later. So now a year and a half is what they'd have been after him for. Not entirely unreasonable at all to go that long before filing a lawsuit.

What still doesn't add up to this being THAT kind of bad is the part about other players and thus staff knowing about this. Just seems like no way this happens without someone finding out about it. And then no way a guy like Lance doesn't pay this stuff off before it gets public if it truly was an impermissible benefit.

My point about the $30,000 covering the dealer's cost and some profit is that anyone with $30,000 could walk in and get the same deal and thus the so called "loan" does not amount to a matter of NCAA interest. If Lance makes a bad purchase that anyone can make how is that favoritism? The issue would be the source of the $30,000.

[spifi]

My point about the $30,000 covering the dealer's cost and some profit is that anyone with $30,000 could walk in and get the same deal and thus the so called "loan" does not amount to a matter of NCAA interest. If Lance makes a bad purchase that anyone can make how is that favoritism? The issue would be the source of the $30,000.

If there's ANY proof that they sell regularly for 70% off and he was just SO STUPID as to not get that same deal but instead pay MSRP, then you *might* have a point. Somehow I HIGHLY doubt that's the case, however. I mean unless this jeweler is just about 100% scam and hoped to doctor some paperwork and get him to settle to keep this quiet because it happened while he was a student and there would be an investigation blah blah blah. Seems pretty unlikely they'd ACTUALLY file a lawsuit if they had done something totally illegal, though. Good way to end up in jail.

And note that a pretty smart guy and Duke graduate and former K player, Jay Williams, is concerned:



Jay Williams ‏@RealJayWilliams

In 08 the NCAA stripped Memphis of its’ #Final4 bc of D-Rose’s ineligibility. The 2010 Duke team could b in the same boat bc of Lance Thomas

[budwom]

If there's ANY proof that they sell regularly for 70% off and he was just SO STUPID as to not get that same deal but instead pay MSRP, then you *might* have a point. Somehow I HIGHLY doubt that's the case, however. I mean unless this jeweler is just about 100% scam and hoped to doctor some paperwork and get him to settle to keep this quiet because it happened while he was a student and there would be an investigation blah blah blah. Seems pretty unlikely they'd ACTUALLY file a lawsuit if they had done something totally illegal, though. Good way to end up in jail.

And note that a pretty smart guy and Duke graduate and former K player, Jay Williams, is concerned:

I think cowetarock is quite correct. You don't need "proof" that they sell regularly for 70% off. Jewelry has ridiculously high margins, especially (nitwit athlete) jewelry. I'd be absolutely stunned if that stuff had a true cost
of more than $25k.

[stillcrazie]

Student athletes are known for playing high stakes card games. He could easily have won a chunk of this money this way. I have no idea what the rules are for student athletes and gambling. I know that a friend of mine witnessed one of these games being played.

[jimsumner]

Student athletes are known for playing high stakes card games. He could easily have won a chunk of this money this way. I have no idea what the rules are for student athletes and gambling. I know that a friend of mine witnessed one of these games being played.

A bit speculative, perhaps. Just maybe, a little bit.

[budwom]

A bit speculative, perhaps. Just maybe, a little bit.

Quite. And what if he had lost this imaginary game and owed someone $30k? Tough to defend and rebound with two broken kneecaps.

[spifi]

I think cowetarock is quite correct. You don't need "proof" that they sell regularly for 70% off. Jewelry has ridiculously high margins, especially (nitwit athlete) jewelry. I'd be absolutely stunned if that stuff had a true cost
of more than $25k.

It is so unlikely that this jeweler would sell that same jewelry for 70% off AND Lance paid full price anyway that I can't believe we are having this discussion.

It's likely there's some rational and "legal" explanation for this (well, I'm not sure I'd put the odds above 50%, but 35% anyway), but the above ain't it.

[stillcrazie]

A bit speculative, perhaps. Just maybe, a little bit.

Agreed. As is the discussion about his mother's job. Look, these guys are good guys, but they are not angels. Just hoping like everyone else that this does not blow up into a major issue.

[jimsumner]

Let's play America's favorite board game, Occam's Razor.

Where did Lance Thomas get $30,000 edition.

Possibilities.

1.He was winning great gobs of money in card games and somehow this never got back to the coaching staff.

2.He was winning great gobs of money in card games, it did get back to the coaching staff and they didn't mind.

3.An agent with dubious morals looked at the guy with the 5-point-per-game-scoring-average and said to himself "this guy is my gravy train. Better not let him get away."

4.It's true, it's true. There really is a pot of cold at the end of the rainbow.

5.North Carolina Education Lottery.

6.He got the money through a family that has some financial resources.

I'll go with number six until and unless I actually know something to the contrary. And I'm not holding my breath.

Even the Screaming Howler Monkees are shaking their heads at this thread. Is it to much to ask that we wait for some actual facts?

Last time I take a day trip the beach. :)

[loran16]

I haven't studied the NCAA regulations very closely, but I don't think all loans are impermissible benefits. My understanding is loans are impermissible if they come from representatives of the school or on behalf of the school or from fans/boosters/alumni (or, in the NCAA's words, a "Representative of the Institution's Athletics Interest"). In that case, whether the loan to Lance was impermissible would depend on whether the New York jeweler was connected to Duke athletics in some way. I haven't read everything there is to read about this case, but I haven't heard that the jeweler was a Duke booster (if I'm wrong about that, I apologize).

This I agree with, to an extent, see next quote.



In Gary Parrish's article, he says "NCAA rules prohibit student-athletes from receiving benefits not available to all students," but again in my scant research I've only found this rule applying to benefits provided by university representatives/fans/boosters/alumni/etc. So I'm not sure Parrish is right.

Obviously more information could change this, but without knowing more I think Loran16 is probably right and the issue is where Lance got the money and not the loan.

Yeah, the not receiving benefits available to all students has to be about people affiliated with the school. A booster who is a banker can give a player a loan if he'd give that to a person of the same situation who wasn't a player (this is basically the same as rules for judicial officers by the way).
[/QUOTE]



Here, I don't think I agree. I don't know who loran16 really is, but I'm assuming he's a Duke fan, and thus the loan described here would probably be impermissible. Presumably if Wheat made the loan to Lance, it might be OK... ;)

Heh, true enough....

[wgl1228]

Why didn't Thomas just settle and pay up is another question? He would have known this was going to go public and the implications. Maybe there is a legitimate answer and that Lance feels he shouldn't owe this money.

[dcdevil2009]

Yeah, the not receiving benefits available to all students has to be about people affiliated with the school. A booster who is a banker can give a player a loan if he'd give that to a person of the same situation who wasn't a player (this is basically the same as rules for judicial officers by the way).

That's not entirely true. A loan doesn't have to be from an affiliate of the school to be impermissible. Agents and runners aren't affiliates of the school, but would still be impermissible if based on the athlete's expected future earnings as a pro athlete. Remember, that's how the USC/Reggie Bush scandal happened, an agent/potential agent "loaned" money for a house and then sued for repayment when he turned pro.

The difference between school affiliation and impermissible benefits, I believe, are what sort of sanctions can be imposed. If it were an agent, the player is ineligible and the school has to vacate the results of any game in which that player played. On the other hand, if the school or an affiliate provided the benefits, then the same thing involving vacated wins applies, but the NCAA can also punish the school for violations.

[budwom]

It is so unlikely that this jeweler would sell that same jewelry for 70% off AND Lance paid full price anyway that I can't believe we are having this discussion.

It's likely there's some rational and "legal" explanation for this (well, I'm not sure I'd put the odds above 50%, but 35% anyway), but the above ain't it.

Not sure I get what you're saying. It's not that Lance paid $100k for something others typically pay $30k for. Rather it's that this (nonsensical) custom jewelry has ultra high margins, and while
the jeweler's price to lance was $100k, the actual cost to the jeweler was something far, far less, more along the lines of $25k. So he didn't let lance out the door and suffer a big loss.
He let him out the door with at least a modest profit, with a legal promise to make it a very big profit. I don't think anyone said this jeweler "would sell that same jewelry for 70% off." I sure didn't.

[cowetarock]

Not sure I get what you're saying. It's not that Lance paid $100k for something others typically pay $30k for. Rather it's that this (nonsensical) custom jewelry has ultra high margins, and while
the jeweler's price to lance was $100k, the actual cost to the jeweler was something far, far less, more along the lines of $25k. So he didn't let lance out the door and suffer a big loss.
He let him out the door with at least a modest profit, with a legal promise to make it a very big profit. I don't think anyone said this jeweler "would sell that same jewelry for 70% off." I sure didn't.
My point has nothing to do with discount sales.The dealer would make the same arrangement with anyone regardless of credit history. Anyone includes people who have never been within a thousand miles of Duke.

[loran16]

That's not entirely true. A loan doesn't have to be from an affiliate of the school to be impermissible. Agents and runners aren't affiliates of the school, but would still be impermissible if based on the athlete's expected future earnings as a pro athlete. Remember, that's how the USC/Reggie Bush scandal happened, an agent/potential agent "loaned" money for a house and then sued for repayment when he turned pro.

The difference between school affiliation and impermissible benefits, I believe, are what sort of sanctions can be imposed. If it were an agent, the player is ineligible and the school has to vacate the results of any game in which that player played. On the other hand, if the school or an affiliate provided the benefits, then the same thing involving vacated wins applies, but the NCAA can also punish the school for violations.

No, you're missing the point here. Yes, a loan from an agent would be impermissible. But a loan from a store or a bank would not be, because the NCAA would find it impossible to differentiate between what they consider valid loans and those that are impermissible. It's not in the NCAA's capabilities (this is AGAIN the same reason why the NCAA isn't punishing UNC).

[budwom]

My point has nothing to do with discount sales.The dealer would make the same arrangement with anyone regardless of credit history. Anyone includes people who have never been within a thousand miles of Duke.

I trust you noticed I agreed with you (and still do) 100%. Your original post was entirely accurate and concise. (It has nothing to do with discount sales).
The point I was making to the subsequent poster is that "Custom" jewelry, especially from this particular company (check out their web site) has ridiculously high margins. I suspect Lance would be mortified to have it appraised by a legitimate appraiser (and not to stray into conjecture, but it wouldn't surprise me to find out that's exactly what happened...)

[Chicago 1995]

A couple of things:

1. While I haven't seen the filing date of the suit, with the "remainder due in 15 days" after the 12.23.09 purchase, the money would have been due in Jan of 10. Suit filed in Jan of 12. Might be a statute of limitations issue that lead to the filing in Jan of this year. Don't know NJ statute of limitations off the top of my head.

2. The suit might have been filed, but not served, and done simply as a show of force to get Lance to pay up. Happens not uncommonly in commercial litigation contexts.

3. If the suit has been served, either Lance has answered at this point, or the jewelry store has been granting extensions for the time to answer. Having not looked at the docket, I've got no idea if Lance has answered.

4. My understanding of the NCAA rules is that an athlete cannot borrow money on a promise of future earnings, except to purchase insurance. I appreciate loran16's vehemence, but Lance's actions here raise that specter.

[cowetarock]

I trust you noticed I agreed with you (and still do) 100%. Your original post was entirely accurate and concise. (It has nothing to do with discount sales).
The point I was making to the subsequent poster is that "Custom" jewelry, especially from this particular company (check out their web site) has ridiculously high margins. I suspect Lance would be mortified to have it appraised by a legitimate appraiser (and not to stray into conjecture, but it wouldn't surprise me to find out that's exactly what happened...)

I have not seen the dealer's web page but I can imagine. In fact like you I could but will not lay out a case for what happened.If Lance can account for the source of the money and I believe he can this matter should be resolved.

[dukelifer]

A couple of things:

1. While I haven't seen the filing date of the suit, with the "remainder due in 15 days" after the 12.23.09 purchase, the money would have been due in Jan of 10. Suit filed in Jan of 12. Might be a statute of limitations issue that lead to the filing in Jan of this year. Don't know NJ statute of limitations off the top of my head.

2. The suit might have been filed, but not served, and done simply as a show of force to get Lance to pay up. Happens not uncommonly in commercial litigation contexts.

3. If the suit has been served, either Lance has answered at this point, or the jewelry store has been granting extensions for the time to answer. Having not looked at the docket, I've got no idea if Lance has answered.

4. My understanding of the NCAA rules is that an athlete cannot borrow money on a promise of future earnings, except to purchase insurance. I appreciate loran16's vehemence, but Lance's actions here raise that specter.

I am not sure I understand 4. Borrow from whom? Could any student borrow based on future earning? If so, why not a student-athlete? Does the amount matter? Can lance ask for fifty dollars and say "hey I am good for it"? Does that presume future earnings? Can you borrow money if the borrower does not bring up future earnings but the lender assumes future earnings? If this is a rule- it seems a bit hard to determine the basis for the loan unless there is a contract that states the "future earnings" explicitly.

[Kedsy]

4. My understanding of the NCAA rules is that an athlete cannot borrow money on a promise of future earnings, except to purchase insurance. I appreciate loran16's vehemence, but Lance's actions here raise that specter.

I suppose someone could make that argument, but it seems a bit of a stretch. As you point out, the "loan" was supposedly due in January 2010, while Lance was still a college student. How could a loan that was supposed to be repaid in full four months before graduation be based on a promise of future earnings?

[spifi]

I am not sure I understand 4. Borrow from whom? Could any student borrow based on future earning? If so, why not a student-athlete? Does the amount matter? Can lance ask for fifty dollars and say "hey I am good for it"? Does that presume future earnings? Can you borrow money if the borrower does not bring up future earnings but the lender assumes future earnings? If this is a rule- it seems a bit hard to determine the basis for the loan unless there is a contract that states the "future earnings" explicitly.

I painted the scenario once already, but let me try again...

Scholarship players are prohibited from loans against future earnings so they can't essentially TURN PRO before they leave school (with the insurance exception, which I believe actually was finally added at Dave Odom's request for Tim Duncan, and it was a good idea). Otherwise agents or shoe companies or whoever could essentially "sign" athletes LONG before they start their professional careers. This essentially *is* a case where scholarship athletes aren't allowed to do something that a normal student might actually be able to do (although obviously rare).

The "can another student get it" test is about other ways to skirt the system. Like tattoo parlors giving players free tattoos because the player is going to tell everyone where they got it. Or free food at restaurants because it's good for business to have athletes hanging around there. Heck, there are even limits on the percentage amount of tips that athletes are allowed to take if they deliver food for a living that do NOT apply to normal students and for obvious reasons (hey kid, get a job for one hour per week at the local pizza delivery place and I'll tip you $500 each time you deliver to my house, which will be once per week). Think about it and it starts to make sense.

As for the loan being *supposed* to be paid before Lance left school, again, if that was truly legit then there's a good argument there for why this probably *isn't* a "future earnings" kind of thing. But if it was instead a "wink-wink, we'll put it down as a 15 day loan, but we won't be bugging you until draft day", then it's a problem.

Finally, if the jeweler's claim is correct that Lance agreed to pay $97k in total but let him walk out with it on a $30k down payment that the jeweler probably made money THAT DAY and the rest was more profit. Doesn't matter in the least to ANY part of the issue with Duke and Lance, however. If the balance, whether it was pure profit or not, was loaned against future earnings, Duke is in a little trouble (at least). It's completely irrelevant how much of that was profit versus cost basis.

[oldnavy]

I suppose someone could make that argument, but it seems a bit of a stretch. As you point out, the "loan" was supposedly due in January 2010, while Lance was still a college student. How could a loan that was supposed to be repaid in full four months before graduation be based on a promise of future earnings?

Bingo. Everyone needs to stop and think about this. Lance Thomas in December of 2009 had about as much future earning potential as most of the senior class at Duke Unv. He was not projected on any NBA draft sites that I recall and if he was I am sure he wasn't high enough to assume any guaranteed money. Plus the "terms" were 15 days. If he were to go to the NBA and sign a contract it wouldn't have happened in 15 days so that just doesn't add up as far as potential earnings.

So anyone trying to prove that the "loan" was made based on his potential earnings in the NBA would look foolish. There is nothing that would back up that position in a court of law or in the court of common sense.

I think the entire think is a crock. If any of this is true, I would put money on the down payment came from a relative and if it did, why would he agree to pay off close to $70K in two weeks????

I always like to ask the question "who has something to gain?" Lance doesn't have anything to gain by letting $70K ruin his reputation, hurt his school, teamates, and coaching staff. Common sense would tell you that he would either pay this off in a lump sum or set up a repayment plan with the jeweler is he truly did owe him....

I'm officially throwing my BS flag now. I am betting that this is a shake down, who's with me?

[Chicago 1995]

I am not sure I understand 4. Borrow from whom? Could any student borrow based on future earning? If so, why not a student-athlete? Does the amount matter? Can lance ask for fifty dollars and say "hey I am good for it"? Does that presume future earnings? Can you borrow money if the borrower does not bring up future earnings but the lender assumes future earnings? If this is a rule- it seems a bit hard to determine the basis for the loan unless there is a contract that states the "future earnings" explicitly.


I didn't write the rules. Only reporting my understanding of them.

I'd point out though that generally what is allowable for other students is not allowable for student athletes. An alum of, for example, a fraternity could pay for a number of students trip ti the beach. That can't happen for student athletes. I get the loan rule doesn't make sense to a ton of people here, but it's the rule. Other students can borrow based on future earnings -- you've got a job lined up with Goldman or some big law firm, that can be used to get credit. I don't know that it happens that often, but it does happen. That's not okay for a student athlete.

I'd note the argument above that the term of the "loan" here -- 15 days -- does make it kind of odd to argue it was based on Lance's future earning potential, assuming there wasn't a side agreement or something.

[oldnavy]

I painted the scenario once already, but let me try again...

Scholarship players are prohibited from loans against future earnings so they can't essentially TURN PRO before they leave school (with the insurance exception, which I believe actually was finally added at Dave Odom's request for Tim Duncan, and it was a good idea). Otherwise agents or shoe companies or whoever could essentially "sign" athletes LONG before they start their professional careers. This essentially *is* a case where scholarship athletes aren't allowed to do something that a normal student might actually be able to do (although obviously rare).

The "can another student get it" test is about other ways to skirt the system. Like tattoo parlors giving players free tattoos because the player is going to tell everyone where they got it. Or free food at restaurants because it's good for business to have athletes hanging around there. Heck, there are even limits on the percentage amount of tips that athletes are allowed to take if they deliver food for a living that do NOT apply to normal students and for obvious reasons (hey kid, get a job for one hour per week at the local pizza delivery place and I'll tip you $500 each time you deliver to my house, which will be once per week). Think about it and it starts to make sense.

As for the loan being *supposed* to be paid before Lance left school, again, if that was truly legit then there's a good argument there for why this probably *isn't* a "future earnings" kind of thing. But if it was instead a "wink-wink, we'll put it down as a 15 day loan, but we won't be bugging you until draft day", then it's a problem.

Finally, if the jeweler's claim is correct that Lance agreed to pay $97k in total but let him walk out with it on a $30k down payment that the jeweler probably made money THAT DAY and the rest was more profit. Doesn't matter in the least to ANY part of the issue with Duke and Lance, however. If the balance, whether it was pure profit or not, was loaned against future earnings, Duke is in a little trouble (at least). It's completely irrelevant how much of that was profit versus cost basis.

Who on earth expected Lance Thomas to get drafted on draft day. Your argument makes sense for a lot of players that have played at Duke, but not for Lance Thomas. Heck, just about everyone on this very Duke Blue site was surprised at how well he did in the NBDL... You are stretching a bit too far with the "wink, wink" scenario imo. In fact after helping Duke win the NCAA he wasn't even drafted, how can anyone say that they thought he would be cashing NBA checks in December 09???

[madscavenger]

The ACC isn't looking too fragrent lately what with the Miami scandal, the Carolina football penalties, and now Syracuse coming on board. If the premier programs are stripped of 3 National Championships as well, the conference will have a cross to bear for some time.

[spifi]

Who on earth expected Lance Thomas to get drafted on draft day. Your argument makes sense for a lot of players that have played at Duke, but not for Lance Thomas. Heck, just about everyone on this very Duke Blue site was surprised at how well he did in the NBDL... You are stretching a bit too far with the "wink, wink" scenario imo. In fact after helping Duke win the NCAA he wasn't even drafted, how can anyone say that they thought he would be cashing NBA checks in December 09???

Cool your jets there...I'm not saying I think that's what happened. I'm just saying it's about as plausible as a lot of other scenarios that are being thrown around, and more possible than many.

I think it's fairly safe to assume that Lance Thomas did in fact buy a lot of jewelry, did in fact take delivery of it, did in fact drop $30k, and did sign a note saying he'd pay the balance of the $97k in 15 days. I really don't think there would still be a lawsuit if those basic facts weren't true. Even if the suit were still somehow alive, I think we would have seen some kind of official statement by now from someone on Lance's side of this if the whole thing was a crazy fabrication.

Outside of that, there's a big smoking gun as to how he would have gotten $30k to drop on jewelry and further how he would have had another $67k within two weeks, if that were indeed the deal. I mean if you have that kind of dough, you spend it. And if you are a jewelry store EXPECTING that kind of dough, I agree with others...I think you hold the jewels until you get the balance, particularly if it's THAT kind of short timeframe. So the timeframe part of it is suspect in *some* way. How Lance had this kind of coin to drop on jewelry is another.

And for folks speculating on gambling, it *is* within NCAA rules for athletes to gamble LEGALLY as long as they do not bet on their sport. So student athletes of proper age can walk into a casino and play as much blackjack or whatever as they can afford. It's strongly discouraged, but they can do it. And many do. Obviously being a NC school he'd either have to be buying lottery tickets, going to Cherokee, or doing it on trips to places with legal casinos. Sorry, I'm just not seeing that as his method of having that kind of cash... And if it were funds he obtained through illegal gambling, as long as Duke didn't know about it I doubt it would be ANY kind of big deal for Duke. But I doubt that's the source, either.

[mgtr]

I am with Oldnavy - nothing of what we know seems to make sense, so a shakedown sounds like a pretty good explanation.

[oldnavy]

Cool your jets there...I'm not saying I think that's what happened. I'm just saying it's about as plausible as a lot of other scenarios that are being thrown around, and more possible than many.

I think it's fairly safe to assume that Lance Thomas did in fact buy a lot of jewelry, did in fact take delivery of it, did in fact drop $30k, and did sign a note saying he'd pay the balance of the $97k in 15 days. I really don't think there would still be a lawsuit if those basic facts weren't true. Even if the suit were still somehow alive, I think we would have seen some kind of official statement by now from someone on Lance's side of this if the whole thing was a crazy fabrication.

Outside of that, there's a big smoking gun as to how he would have gotten $30k to drop on jewelry and further how he would have had another $67k within two weeks, if that were indeed the deal. I mean if you have that kind of dough, you spend it. And if you are a jewelry store EXPECTING that kind of dough, I agree with others...I think you hold the jewels until you get the balance, particularly if it's THAT kind of short timeframe. So the timeframe part of it is suspect in *some* way. How Lance had this kind of coin to drop on jewelry is another.

And for folks speculating on gambling, it *is* within NCAA rules for athletes to gamble LEGALLY as long as they do not bet on their sport. So student athletes of proper age can walk into a casino and play as much blackjack or whatever as they can afford. It's strongly discouraged, but they can do it. And many do. Obviously being a NC school he'd either have to be buying lottery tickets, going to Cherokee, or doing it on trips to places with legal casinos. Sorry, I'm just not seeing that as his method of having that kind of cash... And if it were funds he obtained through illegal gambling, as long as Duke didn't know about it I doubt it would be ANY kind of big deal for Duke. But I doubt that's the source, either.

I agree with the question about how he would come up with the balance in 15 days. That is why I think that this is bogus. Unless Lance was leading a secret life without anyone around him knowing about it. First, the time factor. Perhaps he did go to Atlantic City during the holiday break and win a jackpot. But, why would a reputable or even wise jeweler loan him that kind of money with those terms??? It makes no sense from the jewelers stand point. Why would you take that chance? Why not say, Lance bring the rest of the money in two weeks and you can have the bling? What would be the advantage for the business man? Nothing, it is nothing but a risk, with no upside. Go to any reputable business and ask if you can buy $100K worth of bling with $30K, no job, no prospect of a job, with the promise of paying in 15 days. You or I would get tossed out on our ear. Lance was not and is not a big time athlete. Sure he played for Duke and is making a living in the NBA for now, but he was not/is not the kind of name you as a business man risk losing $70K on. I could possibly understand it for Carmelo Anthony... you would drop his name like this jeweler has done to build your rep and pull in other customers who want to shop where Melo shops. You really think dropping Lance Thomas' name would be worth a $70K loan forfeit?? I don't and I'd be surprised if you could find anyone who does.

I do disagree that the it is even plausable to think that Lance would be using potential NBA earnings as collateral on any purchase at all in December of 2009. He had a better chance of using that argument when he was in HS than December of his senior year at Duke. And, I think anyone who would try to make that argument that Lance would be good for it come draft day would be laughed out of court. There was no reason whatsoever to believe that in 2009. Your argument in general makes perfect sense, but it makes no sense for Lance Thomas even now that he is a pro. Please don't take this as an attack on you. It is not that at all, you make great points that I agree with with regards to how this may play out with a big name athlete. I just don't think that anyone would have considered Lance as a big time pro prospect.

[Kedsy]

But, why would a reputable or even wise jeweler loan him that kind of money with those terms??? It makes no sense from the jewelers stand point. Why would you take that chance?

If you're the jeweler, obviously the $30k non-refundable deposit, with the goods deliverable upon receipt of the balance, would be first choice. But that option might have scared the buyer away.

If you're trying to play a chump, the alleged scenario ($30k down for goods not worth $30k, with the balance due whenever) would be preferable to allowing the chump to think about his impulse purchase before forking over the cash. If your mark is wavering on the purchase, it could be a way to seal the deal (e.g., "hey, kid, I get that you don't have the full price in your pocket, but no problem. Give me what you have and you can pay me the rest in a couple weeks").

I have no idea if that's even close to what happened, but if it did, I think it would make sense from the jeweler's standpoint.

Doesn't explain how Lance managed to have $30k in his pocket, though.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

I could not care less about Lance Thomas's taste in jewelry. And the NCAA should have no standing on regulating a college kids stupidity, they have precious little time to deal with their own stupidity.

All these types of NCAA compliance issues have a simple solution. Get rid of the NCAA.

Give up the ghost of amateurism in college and spin off all revenue producing sports from the schools into a business entity. Let the schools focus on education, a novel approach, I know.

Schools can license their brand for compensation to these entities.... finally pay the kids, (leagal adults) fairly....and demand that they attend class and make progress towards a degree to stay eligible.

Dissolve the NCAA and send them all packing. Schools can negotiate their own revenue deals with T.V., etc..and set their own academic standards

I'm sick of EVERY fan base and their "holier than thou attitudes" when it comes to compliance stories like this and the dealings with the NCAA, it will never end.

I just want to watch talented kids play ball.

[spifi]

If you're the jeweler, obviously the $30k non-refundable deposit, with the goods deliverable upon receipt of the balance, would be first choice. But that option might have scared the buyer away.

If you're trying to play a chump, the alleged scenario ($30k down for goods not worth $30k, with the balance due whenever) would be preferable to allowing the chump to think about his impulse purchase before forking over the cash. If your mark is wavering on the purchase, it could be a way to seal the deal (e.g., "hey, kid, I get that you don't have the full price in your pocket, but no problem. Give me what you have and you can pay me the rest in a couple weeks").

I have no idea if that's even close to what happened, but if it did, I think it would make sense from the jeweler's standpoint.

Doesn't explain how Lance managed to have $30k in his pocket, though.

The most likely scenario, to me, is the above. With the addition that Lance probably found out he got played on the true value and may have even TRIED to return the stuff, only to find some fine print and an I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this. on the other end making that impossible. So then it turned into a dispute that he's been trying to resolve without getting taken any further (and I say "taken" not really to imply he shouldn't pay what he agreed to pay, whether the value was inflated or not, I really don't know) but it's gotten to this point. THAT would explain why he can't really say much in public about it, because his position may be on the tenuous side anyway. I highly doubt a jeweler, especially one looking to do business in the pro athlete arena, would be filing a truly frivolous lawsuit against someone even *this* "well known." And if Lance signed on the dotted line to pay the balance, it matters very little what the TRUE value of what he bought is. He agreed to pay it...

But none of that explains away where the $30k came from to begin with, nor where the other $67k would have come from. The silence on THIS part could still be related to his tenuous position in the suit, or it could be something more nefarious.

[spifi]

I could not care less about Lance Thomas's taste in jewelry. And the NCAA should have no standing on regulating a college kids stupidity, they have precious little time to deal with their own stupidity.

All these types of NCAA compliance issues have a simple solution. Get rid of the NCAA.

Give up the ghost of amateurism in college and spin off all revenue producing sports from the schools into a business entity. Let the schools focus on education, a novel approach, I know.

Schools can license their brand for compensation to these entities.... finally pay the kids, (leagal adults) fairly....and demand that they attend class and make progress towards a degree to stay eligible.

Dissolve the NCAA and send them all packing. Schools can negotiate their own revenue deals with T.V., etc..and set their own academic standards

I'm sick of EVERY fan base and their "holier than thou attitudes" when it comes to compliance stories like this and the dealings with the NCAA, it will never end.

I just want to watch talented kids play ball.

Then watch the NBA. I, for one, watch college athletics because I do want to see COLLEGE KIDS play ball. Even if they're taking the easiest major at a given school. As long as it's a real major that the school is willing to offer to any student and that non-athletes bother to take, that's my bar. I don't watch much NBA, if any. Just don't care. It's a different game for the most part, and that's fine. "College" basketball would change a LOT, too, if you privatize it. For starters, we'd no longer even have 300+ teams. We'd have 40. Small "markets" would lose because they'd get pushed out to a lower league for the most part. Even traditionally "big" powers from tiny schools would eventually lose, I think.

The NCAA has plenty of problems, certainly, but making it go away isn't the answer, IMHO.

[sagegrouse]

As I am beginning to wrap my feeble mind around these evasive facts, let me offer my own experience with custom jewelry. On the few occasions I dabbled -- the first time was an engagement ring -- I paid 1/3 upon approval of the design and 2/3 upon the completion (and acceptance). The last time was for an anniversary ring, which was to be a surprise. Ms. SG didn't like it -- it was two massive and heavy -- so she picked out something else, which was elegant and much smaller. Thing is, with less gold and fewer jewels, it cost a lot less. In fact, it cost one-third as much, which was the amount of the down payment I had already made. I thought the jeweler, who I liked a lot, was going to cry.

Anyway, paying one-third down or so might be a normal practice in custom jewelry -- but obviously, the buyer should retain the right of approval.

sagegrouse

'No, the piece mentioned was not in the league of the amounts in dispute here'

"Another poster suggested that Lance owes the Duke fan base an explanation and should go public with his story. Uh, no. His lawyer is keeping him under wraps until the LT team has a strategy and a counter attack, and I am not sure that Duke figures prominently in the strategy"

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Then watch the NBA. I, for one, watch college athletics because I do want to see COLLEGE KIDS play ball. , IMHO.

I guess you didn't catch my point.

I just want to watch college kids play ball too. What I don't want to see anymore are these never ending soap opera's where kids are being punished, and for nothing more than the NCAA trying to protect their revenue stream. I don't get a sense any of it is meant to look out for a kids best best interests.

Nothing more from me on this, I'm out. Just had to say it...

[uh_no]

Cool your jets there...I'm not saying I think that's what happened. I'm just saying it's about as plausible as a lot of other scenarios that are being thrown around, and more possible than many.

I think it's fairly safe to assume that Lance Thomas did in fact buy a lot of jewelry, did in fact take delivery of it, did in fact drop $30k, and did sign a note saying he'd pay the balance of the $97k in 15 days. I really don't think there would still be a lawsuit if those basic facts weren't true. Even if the suit were still somehow alive, I think we would have seen some kind of official statement by now from someone on Lance's side of this if the whole thing was a crazy fabrication.

Outside of that, there's a big smoking gun as to how he would have gotten $30k to drop on jewelry and further how he would have had another $67k within two weeks, if that were indeed the deal. I mean if you have that kind of dough, you spend it. And if you are a jewelry store EXPECTING that kind of dough, I agree with others...I think you hold the jewels until you get the balance, particularly if it's THAT kind of short timeframe. So the timeframe part of it is suspect in *some* way. How Lance had this kind of coin to drop on jewelry is another.

And for folks speculating on gambling, it *is* within NCAA rules for athletes to gamble LEGALLY as long as they do not bet on their sport. So student athletes of proper age can walk into a casino and play as much blackjack or whatever as they can afford. It's strongly discouraged, but they can do it. And many do. Obviously being a NC school he'd either have to be buying lottery tickets, going to Cherokee, or doing it on trips to places with legal casinos. Sorry, I'm just not seeing that as his method of having that kind of cash... And if it were funds he obtained through illegal gambling, as long as Duke didn't know about it I doubt it would be ANY kind of big deal for Duke. But I doubt that's the source, either.

I think there are widely differing opinions of what is safe to assume. The only thing that's safe to assume at this point is that someone has filed suit that LT owes them a sizable sum of cash. For all we know, this could be a ploy to scare LT in to giving the jeweler money which isn't owed at all! The documents could be forged, the guy could be nuts, there could be a miscommunication....

If you'd like to assume that a situation which doesn't make any sense at face value is true, that's fine, but I don't think it's widely accepted that the events as they are reported by the lawsuit necessarily happened exactly as stated in the reports of said lawsuit.

We all know what happens when something is incorrectly "safely assumed"...and it isn't pretty

[Ian]

A 15 day time span to pay off the balance cannot be considered a "loan".

Because by that standard any college athlete who uses a credit card is guilty of receiving a loan, because technically Visa is lending you money with 30 days to pay it off.

[billy]

All these types of NCAA compliance issues have a simple solution. Get rid of the NCAA.

Dissolve the NCAA and send them all packing. Schools can negotiate their own revenue deals with T.V., etc..and set their own academic standards

I tried to spork you, Wheat, but I guess I gave my last one to you b/c I was told I needed to spread some around first. I wholeheartedly agree. The rules really seem to be written for a different time-period. A better way to proceed would be a true consortium of universities who decide on the rules and who get to control the flow of monies derived from athletics. Does anyone know how much the NCAA "makes" and where, exactly, that money goes? Is it all paid out to the member colleges/universities or does the NCAA keep a substantial amount?

[Faustus]

One thing I do remember from back when the heads of NCAA at the time (1990s?) decided that keeping their central office outside of Kansas City wasn't rewarding enough for them, they announced they were open to offers from all potential host cities, and then with little attempt to hide their effrontery, added a list of possible gifts they felt would be appropriate for them to receive as extra incentives in their decision (Indianapolis eventually won the auction). I lost much of my faith in the NCAA at that point.

But I believe most of their annual income supposedly derives from the men's basketball tournament (hence all the ads CBS runs during them to get their own investment back).

[JasonEvans]

Here is a thought -- if the jeweler feels he has been wronged and is owed money, one way he might try to convince Lance to give him the money is to threaten to embarrass Duke. What's more, there is nothing to stop the jeweler from making up a story that he tells the NCAA that could get Duke in a ton of trouble. If this gets down to a "Lance said, Jeweler said" situation regarding why the loan was given and where Lance got the money and other details like that, it could get very difficult for Duke.

Just sayin...

-Jason "that said, I think there is a lot that makes no sense here and I am willing to give Lance the benefit of the doubt at this point" Evans

[kmspeaks]

Despite the (correct) calls to wait for all the facts, the fine "journalists" at Yahoo Sports have already declared Lance Thomas ineligible and the NCAA has no integrity if Duke is not stripped of its 2010 title.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaab--lance-thomas-lawsuit-could-test-integrity-of-ncaa-.html

[sagegrouse]

Here is a thought -- if the jeweler feels he has been wronged and is owed money, one way he might try to convince Lance to give him the money is to threaten to embarrass Duke. What's more, there is nothing to stop the jeweler from making up a story that he tells the NCAA that could get Duke in a ton of trouble. If this gets down to a "Lance said, Jeweler said" situation regarding why the loan was given and where Lance got the money and other details like that, it could get very difficult for Duke.

Just sayin...

-Jason "that said, I think there is a lot that makes no sense here and I am willing to give Lance the benefit of the doubt at this point" Evans

Jason, I think anything is possible, but I disagree with the characterization of the trasaction as a "loan," even accepting the suit at face value. He had a retail purchase agreement with a hefty up-front payment prior to the creation of custom jewelry. According to the suit, he never paid the remaining value. Did he ever receive the jewelry? Regardless, this isn't a loan, as I understand the term.

sagegrouse

[mo.st.dukie]

Despite the (correct) calls to wait for all the facts, the fine "journalists" at Yahoo Sports have already declared Lance Thomas ineligible and the NCAA has no integrity if Duke is not stripped of its 2010 title.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaab--lance-thomas-lawsuit-could-test-integrity-of-ncaa-.html

There are going to be plenty of people out there who are going to view it that way for the rest of time regardless of how things turn out so we might as well get used to it. People were already discrediting our 2010 title because of the "easy road" or "the top teams lost early" or whatever other BS they throw out there. Because of what Duke and Coach K have come to represent, this issue is going to be held over the program by all types of people for a long, long time unless if the jeweler is found to be fabricating the whole story.

[uh_no]

Despite the (correct) calls to wait for all the facts, the fine "journalists" at Yahoo Sports have already declared Lance Thomas ineligible and the NCAA has no integrity if Duke is not stripped of its 2010 title.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaab--lance-thomas-lawsuit-could-test-integrity-of-ncaa-.html


So was Thomas ineligible? We'll see. The best defense Duke appears to have might be the purchase order that specifies Thomas owed the balance within 15 days. If so, the jeweler obviously wasn't waiting on him to earn NBA money because he would've still been in college at that time. Perhaps a $30,000 lump sum is enough of a good-faith gesture to trust the final two-thirds would soon arrive.

This fact is not as easy to shrug off as the author makes it seem....as he points out, though, there are still plenty of facts to hammer out

[dcdevil2009]

Is it possible that the complaint alleges the wrong dates? Lance got called up to the league in December 2011. 15 days later would be January 2012, when the suit was filed. It wouldn't be the first time a suit used the wrong dates.

[g-money]

I could not care less about Lance Thomas's taste in jewelry. And the NCAA should have no standing on regulating a college kids stupidity, they have precious little time to deal with their own stupidity.

All these types of NCAA compliance issues have a simple solution. Get rid of the NCAA.

Give up the ghost of amateurism in college and spin off all revenue producing sports from the schools into a business entity. Let the schools focus on education, a novel approach, I know.

Schools can license their brand for compensation to these entities.... finally pay the kids, (legal adults) fairly....and demand that they attend class and make progress towards a degree to stay eligible.

Dissolve the NCAA and send them all packing. Schools can negotiate their own revenue deals with T.V., etc..and set their own academic standards

I'm sick of EVERY fan base and their "holier than thou attitudes" when it comes to compliance stories like this and the dealings with the NCAA, it will never end.

I just want to watch talented kids play ball.

Wheat, generally I find your posts a bit inflammatory, as might be expected from a Duke fan reading the musings of a Carolina fan.

But here I think you are pretty much spot on. When it comes to football and basketball, the appropriate analogy for the NCAA is a dam bursting at the seams. The amount of water pressure (i.e., $$$) on one side is just too high for the dam to hold.

I tend to agree that it's time for another approach. Your proposal for a restructuring could work, although as long as the sports programs are affiliated with Universities, I think there would still need to be a minimum academic standard. If only our University presidents would acknowledge the elephant in the room...

[g-money]

Is it possible that the complaint alleges the wrong dates? Lance got called up to the league in December 2011. 15 days later would be January 2012, when the suit was filed. It wouldn't be the first time a suit used the wrong dates.

Good catch, especially given that the calendar would have just rolled over. It's an easy time to confuse the year.

Until proven otherwise, this is the pet theory I will happily ascribe to on the Lance Thomas jewelry catastrophe. Thank you very much dcdevil!

[Brian913]

Anybody could walk into this jeweler and walk out with jewelry on a 15 day approval period - provided you put down 1/3.
There aren't any credit checks, income checks or anything else. The money you put up front is more than the items are worth.

The problem for those who don't read the contact is that if you try to return the junk within the 15 day period - they keep the "deposit." More than one person has been caught in this type of scam.

http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2011-03/60474695.pdf

That's a link to the suit this company filed against Dez Bryant. The last couple of pages are the form contract - which I assume is the same one Lance signed.

[Brian913]

Anybody could walk into this jeweler and walk out with jewelry on a 15 day approval period - provided you put down 1/3.
There aren't any credit checks, income checks or anything else. The money you put up front is more than the items are worth.

The problem for those who don't read the contact is that if you try to return the junk within the 15 day period - they keep the "deposit." More than one person has been caught in this type of scam.

http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2011-03/60474695.pdf

That's a link to the suit this company filed against Dez Bryant. The last couple of pages are the form contract - which I assume is the same one Lance signed.

I have to retract the scam and junk comments. The problem is really with the people who don't read the contracts they sign. I see it much too often. And I should have prefaced the first line with the comment that I don't know about this jeweler, but these are common practices in the business.

[Ian]

Yeah if you read the contract clearly there was no loan. It was a 15 day review period at the end of you which can return the merchandise without paying (except they keep the deposit). Thomas probably took the jewelry back and they wouldn't give him his money back, and he in turn kept the jewelry.

The only thing at issue is where he got the 30K to begin with.

[Jim3k]

A 15 day time span to pay off the balance cannot be considered a "loan".

Because by that standard any college athlete who uses a credit card is guilty of receiving a loan, because technically Visa is lending you money with 30 days to pay it off.

It is an extension of credit, and therefore a loan. And a credit card customer is getting a loan as well, even if no interest is due in either case.

[dukejim1]

It is an extension of credit, and therefore a loan. And a credit card customer is getting a loan as well, even if no interest is due in either case.

But all students are offered credit cards, are all students offered this amount of credit on a cash transaction?

[MIKESJ73]

Wouldn't it be possible that he never paid the downpayment? I have seen car salesmen sell a 20K car by telling the finance company the customer put 10K down on a 30K car to get a better rate. Same thing with houses, a 200K house was contracted as if the purchaser paid 50K down on a 250K house. The downpayments were never made but they are listed in the details of the transaction in order to legitimize the terms of the deal. I think that is why the economy is in the mess its in...

[dukelifer]

I painted the scenario once already, but let me try again...

Scholarship players are prohibited from loans against future earnings so they can't essentially TURN PRO before they leave school (with the insurance exception, which I believe actually was finally added at Dave Odom's request for Tim Duncan, and it was a good idea). Otherwise agents or shoe companies or whoever could essentially "sign" athletes LONG before they start their professional careers. This essentially *is* a case where scholarship athletes aren't allowed to do something that a normal student might actually be able to do (although obviously rare).

The "can another student get it" test is about other ways to skirt the system. Like tattoo parlors giving players free tattoos because the player is going to tell everyone where they got it. Or free food at restaurants because it's good for business to have athletes hanging around there. Heck, there are even limits on the percentage amount of tips that athletes are allowed to take if they deliver food for a living that do NOT apply to normal students and for obvious reasons (hey kid, get a job for one hour per week at the local pizza delivery place and I'll tip you $500 each time you deliver to my house, which will be once per week). Think about it and it starts to make sense.

As for the loan being *supposed* to be paid before Lance left school, again, if that was truly legit then there's a good argument there for why this probably *isn't* a "future earnings" kind of thing. But if it was instead a "wink-wink, we'll put it down as a 15 day loan, but we won't be bugging you until draft day", then it's a problem.

Finally, if the jeweler's claim is correct that Lance agreed to pay $97k in total but let him walk out with it on a $30k down payment that the jeweler probably made money THAT DAY and the rest was more profit. Doesn't matter in the least to ANY part of the issue with Duke and Lance, however. If the balance, whether it was pure profit or not, was loaned against future earnings, Duke is in a little trouble (at least). It's completely irrelevant how much of that was profit versus cost basis.

It would seem then that student athletes in a sport where athletes can make money (e.g. basketball, football, track, baseball, tennis, golf, etc) would not be allowed to get a loan under any circumstance since it would never be clear if the loaner gave money because they assumed future earnings. But the NCAA bylaw 16.01.3, states that receiving a benefit “is not a violation if it is demonstrated that the same general benefit is available to the institution’s students, their relatives, and friends determined on a basis unrelated to athletics ability.” So it seems that the only way that an athlete could ever receive anything ( a gift, a free lunch) is if the one giving had no idea that athlete was indeed an athlete. This seems very unlikely given the fact that the NCAA makes a ton of money making sure athletes are known and get celebrity whether they want it or not.

[mgtr]

Well, I like the dam bursting analogy. There is just so much money piled up "behind the dam" that some leaks out. If we indeed still have "amateur athletics," this could well be the last generation of it. So I guess there would be two divisions of basketball -- sort of year-round AAU teams, with no affiliation to higher ed and no NCAA involvement, and sort of NCAA Division III programs, with no money pumped in. Now, a lot of people would argue against this plan, certainly including the NCAA and, I would imagine, the NAACP. I can't imagine that you could get there in one step, but I don't see how you could get there incrementally, either.

[oldnavy]

Wouldn't it be possible that he never paid the downpayment? I have seen car salesmen sell a 20K car by telling the finance company the customer put 10K down on a 30K car to get a better rate. Same thing with houses, a 200K house was contracted as if the purchaser paid 50K down on a 250K house. The downpayments were never made but they are listed in the details of the transaction in order to legitimize the terms of the deal. I think that is why the economy is in the mess its in...

It is possible, it is also possible that LT never received the jewels. I didn't catch it at first, but there is no mention that he actually received the jewels. It says he purchased the jewels. He could have just put down some money or collateral worth $30K and said he was coming back to pay the rest and pick up the jewels in 15 days.

That would explain why there is no mention of the jeweler wanting the goods back, only the money promised.... wouldn't it be logical to ask for the merchandise back before going to the trouble of filing a law suit? If LT did have the jewels, he could have returned them and forfeited the deposit leaving the jeweler with a $30K "gift". It might also explain why no one at Duke would have noticed his new bling and asked about it. It may also explain why the law suit was filed when it was. LT now has a NBA salary, and perhaps the jeweler had writting him off until now.

Still way too many unanswered questions out there, but I am sticking to my claim that this is all a big shake down attempt.

For all those worried about the money, I guess it is a good question, but maybe LT signed over his car, or his mom or a relative gave him the money. Who knows, but I doubt that it either came from a booster or from and agent. Think about this, Lance was not a recruit or even a "big time" player for Duke so where is the motivation for the money to come from a booster or anyone connected with the program? He was not a potential first or even second round pro pick, nor was he thought to have the talent to make a NBA roster, so the "agent" angle is out. I am not that worried about the money part of this, because I cannot see (logically) why anyone would front LT the dough unless they were a relative or close friend.

I would be a lot more concerned about this if it were Kyrie Irving, or Austin Rivers named in the suit... they actually were (correctly) Pro prospects with huge potential earnings. I just can't see where Lances status at that point in time would make him a target for agents or others trying to cash in on his potential NBA earnings.

Heck, maybe Lance has know this jeweler for years and it is just a deal gone wrong, point is we just don't know at this point what really has happened.

[Indoor66]

Wouldn't it be possible that he never paid the downpayment? I have seen car salesmen sell a 20K car by telling the finance company the customer put 10K down on a 30K car to get a better rate. Same thing with houses, a 200K house was contracted as if the purchaser paid 50K down on a 250K house. The downpayments were never made but they are listed in the details of the transaction in order to legitimize the terms of the deal. I think that is why the economy is in the mess its in...

That is called fraud and is punishable by 5 years in the slammer.

[rocketeli]

Although this thread, as noted by prior posters, contains a lot of speculation and wishful thinking, it actually has helped clarify to me what may have happened. Let the speculation begin!
My scenario goes something like this:

Firstly, I know that when I was at Duke a long time ago some of the basketball team members were notorious for "buying" walkmans and boom boxes before a road trip (told you it was a long time ago) and then returning them and getting their money back a day or two later. Boom! Free music. This kind of behavior isn't limited to basketball players of course, and is why stores, especially those whose customers then to be less well off and have more incentive to to this, often have "restocking" fees or no-return policies.

Lance's family or some of them are apparently fairly well-to-do, and it is not unlikely that somebody(ies) gave the graduating senior 30K for a car or to start in life as a reward for all his hard work etc.

So now its winter break and Lance is in NYC for a few days and wants to impress his hometown buddies. He goes to a jeweler and buys the jewelry (it's "custom made" for the store, not Lance BTW) and not reading the contract, and probably not getting/hearing the explanation from the salesperson, he puts 30k down, thinking he'll wear it around town for a few days and then "return" it. Sweet! The store doesn't care, because the 30k has already more than covered the cost to them of the goods and everything else they get is gravy. Imagine his surprise when he tries to implement phase 2! He learns he can't get his 30K back, even if he returns the jewelry. Mortified, what does he do? A cursory knowledge of human nature would suggest he slinks out of the store, muttering something about paying the rest. He can easily imagine what his friends/coaches/teammates/mother would say if they found out, so he crams the jewelry into the back of a drawer and says nothing to nobody.

Later, he gets dunning letters and calls. By now he has either decided he was ripped off, or he is reacting as many do when confronted with a bill they simply can't pay (and it's quite plausible that even with a couple of short term NBA contracts he doesn't have 67K to drop on ugly bling), and he ignores them. I once moved to California for a while and come back to my usual state and old address to find that I had forgotten about a small credit card bill. I can tell you that creditors will send increasingly desperate letters for up to two years trying to get you to pay. The bank eventually wrote off the 62 dollars I owned them (I paid them anyway when I found out about it) but for 67K the timing is right (from about Feb 2010, when they realized he wasn't going to pay, to Jan 2012 when they went to court) to file. They may also have realized he did have an NBA contract at that point and thus was worth the time and money to go after.

Total speculation? Of course. But to me this makes more sense than any scenario based on Lance's earning potential at that time, and if it were a case of boosterism, the last thing the store would do would sue and create this kind of publicity.

[dalmatians98]

I think in the end this will turn out to just another retail contract dispute. Given the language in the jeweler's contract as linked to earlier, if in fact Lance signed such a contract, he will end up settling with the jeweler and move on. Suits aren't good for business, especially if, as this jeweler did, you appear to act as your own "finance company". I agree with the person who pointed out above that almost certainly the $30K paid up front covered the jeweler, and the remaining 2/3 of the cost was gravy. This presumably provides the jeweler with room to negotiate if necessary should the matter end up in the hands of the attorneys.

The source of the $30K may well be innocent, as others have speculated. It could have come as a gift from Lance's mother. It might have been part of a cashed in life insurance policy. We may find out, we may not. Suffice to say I've seen other young men over the years who suddenly found themselves in possession of relatively large sums of money do some pretty stupid things on impulse. And there are always merchants out there ready to take advantage of the unsophisticated young man about town.

I agree that it makes no sense to think that Lance Thomas, who was not going to be a high draft pick - if picked at all -- would be offered anything by anyone intent on cementing a relationship based on a doubtful professional basketball career.

[#1Duke]

As far as the $30,000.00 is concerned, if it were a gift, insurance policy, whatever there will be a paper trail. $30,000.00 is a fair amount of money and that kind of money leaves a trail.

[MCFinARL]

It is an extension of credit, and therefore a loan. And a credit card customer is getting a loan as well, even if no interest is due in either case.

Yes--but given that it is part of the terms of a standard contract, it's probably not significant for NCAA purposes whether it is called a "loan" or not. If this is the standard contract the jeweler uses for "15-day-trial" sales, then it becomes a question of whether Lance Thomas fit within the jeweler's normal criteria for authorizing such a contract purchase. If other posters are right that the jeweler's cost may already have been recouped in the down payment, then it would be a no-lose situation for the jeweler to make the sale to anyone who could produce that down payment, and Lance's status as an athlete would have been completely irrelevant. So we would be back to mostly focusing on where the $30,000 came from.

[dtownclown]

Well here are my thoughts on the whole issue

First off, there is definitely something going on here. That is not to say that I think Lance Thomas did anything wrong, but either the claim is bogus, or there was some improper benefit, or the suit is being misrepresented.

First the 30k down payment is an eye-raiser. That might be true because usually when a college basketball player drops 30k on anything, it's suspicious. Maybe that is a stereotype, but it's how most people feel. That is not to say that his family didn't come up with the money, but I suspect that we will hear the details on the down payment sooner rather than later. But seriously 30k on jewelry is really, really ridiculous (100k is even worse). If he is dropping that on much on jewelry, what else did he buy? Those sort of questions will be investigated along with the down payment, and it could get a lot worse. Look at the UNC scandal, one piece of foul play often leads into a deeper probe which finds more and more damning evidence. I'm not saying there is more to find here, but it could and it probably will because the team being looked at by the MEDIA is Duke (I think the NCAA is way too inept to find anything, but let's see what other fan bases will find).

The part about getting a 60k loan is also scary. First no college student ever should get a loan for 15 days of 60k. I mean I got credit cards with ridiculous limits, but that was with NO OUTSTANDING BALANCE. I can't imagine ANY company giving an unemployed student a loan for that amount (much less one that was due in 15 days) without some sort of promise of future earnings. I graduated after the economy went down the toilet making a 6 figure salary, but I couldn't get any loans when I moved to Seattle because I didn't have two months worth of pay stubs. I kind of feel that after 2009 it has become harder to take out stupid loans. Seriously, if you heard about the loan details without knowing the context of who it was, you would think this was from the mob rather than a jewelry store. People have posted that law students could get a loan for that amount based on the fact that they would be good for it, but that is exactly the argument that would damn duke. If the company thought Thomas's position on the team made him any more likely to pay the loan back, it's an improper benefit. While it may not seem fair, those are the rules. To be honest, I feel that this is a good rule. I would rather see students paid money, than taking out loans. It's too risky for the students involved. Imagine if Lance didn't make the NBA (which was very likely), he would have a huge debt that he would unlikely be able to pay of I also can't understand the 15 day due date. I would really like to hear the logic here. My guess is that it meant that payments needed to start 15 days from the purchase rather than the outstanding balance.

Personally, I think that the jewelry company sold Lance Thomas the goods (which cost probably 15k at most) for 30k down (probably made a profit out of this), with the assumption that he MAY be able to pay the rest back if he made the NBA. It's a win-win for them, they make a profit with an off shot of making more if Lance makes the NBA. It's not a coincidence that this lawsuit was opened now. Thomas only recently signed with an NBA team after being in the development league. Now he has the money and the company is going after him. This is the only scenario that makes sense to me, but like I said, the suit could be bogus, more details could be emerged that clear this up, and it may be that there will never be any facts and only speculation will ever happen (The thing is the NCAA is not a court of law and who knows what burden of proof they have).

Is it possible that Lance had a co-signer and the company didn't go after the co-signer, because only Lance would have the money after signing with an NBA team?

To be honest the whole system is broken. I don't think it's fair for the NCAA to make so much money off of student athletes and never pay them back (I may be in the minority here). What is the worst is that the school (who may know nothing about the issue gets punished, rather than the student). Let's treat student atheletes like an employee at a corperation. If an employee did something illegal, he would be prosecuted and fired with the company also being punished. Why is this not true of college players? Rose should have lost some money or NBA eligibility, otherwise one bad egg can ruin a program and other kids futures who haven't even stepped onto a campus yet. That is my personal opinion and not the rules however.

[DukieInKansas]

Has anyone seen any information on whether there is proof that it was really Lance Thomas making the purchase?

[sagegrouse]

Well here are my thoughts on the whole issue

First off, there is definitely something going on here. That is not to say that I think Lance Thomas did anything wrong, but either the claim is bogus, or there was some improper benefit, or the suit is being misrepresented.

First the 30k down payment is an eye-raiser. ...............

The part about getting a 60k loan is also scary. First no college student ever should get a loan for 15 days of 60k.....

Personally, I think that the jewelry company sold Lance Thomas the goods (which cost probably 15k at most) for 30k down (probably made a profit out of this), with the assumption that he MAY be able to pay the rest back if he made the NBA. It's a win-win for them, they make a profit with an off shot of making more if Lance makes the NBA.
Is it possible that Lance had a co-signer and the company didn't go after the co-signer, because only Lance would have the money after signing with an NBA team?''''



dtownclown:

I worry that you are buying the jewelry company's story hook, line and sinker.

I am highly skeptical of almost everything alleged. I do believe that Lance himself walked into the Raffaello store (owned by Russian emigres) in the NY Diamond District and got fleeced big time. (I think an identity theft situation would have been cleared up by now.)

I am skeptical about everything else: the $30K supposedly paid, the $70K "debt," the value of the goods in question, the approval by LT of the stuff made by these guys, the current location and control of such items, and whether Lance ever had possession of them.

The "loan," if tied to a purchase, doesn't seem to be an NCAA-type concern. NCAA interest has been high-profile college players with huge pro potential who borrow money to improve their lifestyle based on their future earnings ability. And, yes, I think there is a big difference between a BMW bought on favorable terms and junky jewelry whose value is disputed. Yes, I suppose, I may agree with Jim3K that such credit may technically be classed as a "loan," but I don't think it's the same thing as borrowing money from agents, family friends, or even banks for living expenses. And Lance hardly qualified as a "player with huge pro potential."

sagegrouse
'I tried to straighten out Jim3K in House J during the '60s, but I admit I failed'

[Jim3k]

sagegrouse
'I tried to straighten out Jim3K in House J during the '60s, but I admit I failed'

How true, how true.... :cool:

[but somehow, we are both on the same track now....]

[gep]

Is it possible that the complaint alleges the wrong dates? Lance got called up to the league in December 2011. 15 days later would be January 2012, when the suit was filed. It wouldn't be the first time a suit used the wrong dates.

What about the fact that the "loan" was due 15 days *after* he got called up to the league and signed a contract. If he never makes it, the store makes a small profit. If he makes it, the store stands to make a bunch.

[dtownclown]

dtownclown:

I worry that you are buying the jewelry company's story hook, line and sinker.

I am highly skeptical of almost everything alleged. I do believe that Lance himself walked into the Raffaello store (owned by Russian emigres) in the NY Diamond District and got fleeced big time. (I think an identity theft situation would have been cleared up by now.)

I am skeptical about everything else: the $30K supposedly paid, the $70K "debt," the value of the goods in question, the approval by LT of the stuff made by these guys, the current location and control of such items, and whether Lance ever had possession of them.

The "loan," if tied to a purchase, doesn't seem to be an NCAA-type concern. NCAA interest has been high-profile college players with huge pro potential who borrow money to improve their lifestyle based on their future earnings ability. And, yes, I think there is a big difference between a BMW bought on favorable terms and junky jewelry whose value is disputed. Yes, I suppose, I may agree with Jim3K that such credit may technically be classed as a "loan," but I don't think it's the same thing as borrowing money from agents, family friends, or even banks for living expenses. And Lance hardly qualified as a "player with huge pro potential."

sagegrouse
'I tried to straighten out Jim3K in House J during the '60s, but I admit I failed'

I also agree that the whole thing smells fishy. I was trying to call that out but maybe it wasn't clear enough.

"either the claim is bogus, or there was some improper benefit, or the suit is being misrepresented."

But the fact that it is so unbelievable that a college kid got into this situation is the problem if everything turns out to be true. It's just hard to make a case that a regular college kid could get himself into this situation (both the downpayment and whatever the agreement was for the remainder of the payment). Unfortunately, from what little we know, the credit line will be considered a loan. That is exactly what it is. I really think that what is being reported now isn't the whole story.

[Kedsy]

What about the fact that the "loan" was due 15 days *after* he got called up to the league and signed a contract. If he never makes it, the store makes a small profit. If he makes it, the store stands to make a bunch.

According to what I've read, the "loan" was due while Lance was still at Duke, not after he got called up to the League. If the jewelry sale was something that happened in 2011, we wouldn't be talking about it.


First off, there is definitely something going on here. That is not to say that I think Lance Thomas did anything wrong, but either the claim is bogus, or there was some improper benefit, or the suit is being misrepresented.

I think there are a whole lot of options that aren't any of these. Someone earlier in the thread linked to a contract these jewelers used (in at least one case other than Lance's) that calls for 30% down, and the balance due after a trial period. At the end of the trial period, the buyer had the option of giving back the jewelry and forfeiting the deposit or paying the balance.

If Lance signed such an agreement, the claim would not appear to be bogus and the suit wouldn't appear to be misrepresented. If those terms were available to anybody who could come up with the deposit, then it wouldn't appear to be an improper benefit. I'm sure I could come up with lots of other examples that didn't fall into any of your three buckets, but frankly the above sounds to me like the most likely scenario. The real question is, and always has been, where'd Lance Thomas get $30,000 while still a college student? I don't know the answer to that, but my guess is there are at least as many answers that wouldn't be a violation as there are that would.

[spifi]

I think there are a whole lot of options that aren't any of these. Someone earlier in the thread linked to a contract these jewelers used (in at least one case other than Lance's) that calls for 30% down, and the balance due after a trial period. At the end of the trial period, the buyer had the option of giving back the jewelry and forfeiting the deposit or paying the balance.

If Lance signed such an agreement, the claim would not appear to be bogus and the suit wouldn't appear to be misrepresented. If those terms were available to anybody who could come up with the deposit, then it wouldn't appear to be an improper benefit. I'm sure I could come up with lots of other examples that didn't fall into any of your three buckets, but frankly the above sounds to me like the most likely scenario. The real question is, and always has been, where'd Lance Thomas get $30,000 while still a college student? I don't know the answer to that, but my guess is there are at least as many answers that wouldn't be a violation as there are that would.

I tend to agree with the above, with the exception that it is still possible that the contract from the Dez Bryant deal was their standard contract for college athletes who come in and not the "general public". That is seeming more and more unlikely, but it's possible. It would certainly be good if it's for the general public.

The other thing I'd point out is that the longer this is dangling out there with no formal response from the Lance Thomas camp, the more likely it's something bad (the source of the $30k if nothing else). I mean if he got fleeced and decided not to pay up (which does seem to be the most likely scenario at this point) and that $30k really did come from some legitimate source, it would be pretty easy to put at least THAT part of this to bed. Instead we've had tweets from Jay Bilas and Jay Williams about it as well as articles from most of the "big time" investigative sports type journalists (yes, yes...I know most of those folks are the same folks who go ape-crazy about any little thing that happens just for the web hits, but still...), and no response yet. That's scary.

[lotusland]

I'm not going to speculate about what happened I'll just wait for the truth come out. If Lance bought or contracted to buy $100K worth of bling he is guilty of poor judgement at very least regardless of how much his mother earns. I hope this is some sort of weird misunderstanding that I cannot even fathom.

[Native]

Forgive me if this has already been posted, but the Chronicle (http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/duke-basketballs-lance-thomas-sued-over-jewelry-pa) has updated their story with a few extra tidbits:


“You guys are blowing the whole thing out of proportion,” said Gabriel Jacobs, a co-owner of the jewelry store, before declining to comment and referring further inquiries to jeweler’s attorney, Mike Bowers.

Still waiting for the facts to come out.

[bluedevil007]

I tend to agree with the above, with the exception that it is still possible that the contract from the Dez Bryant deal was their standard contract for college athletes who come in and not the "general public". That is seeming more and more unlikely, but it's possible. It would certainly be good if it's for the general public.

The other thing I'd point out is that the longer this is dangling out there with no formal response from the Lance Thomas camp, the more likely it's something bad (the source of the $30k if nothing else). I mean if he got fleeced and decided not to pay up (which does seem to be the most likely scenario at this point) and that $30k really did come from some legitimate source, it would be pretty easy to put at least THAT part of this to bed. Instead we've had tweets from Jay Bilas and Jay Williams about it as well as articles from most of the "big time" investigative sports type journalists (yes, yes...I know most of those folks are the same folks who go ape-crazy about any little thing that happens just for the web hits, but still...), and no response yet. That's scary.

This is what scares me as well. We need some response by someone in the know. Even if the response is something akin to "I can't comment because of pending litigation, but rest assured the truth will come out." Or just a "all is not what it seems." I'm not saying he owes it to anyone to comment, but I can't help but be a little worried the more we go with nothing said.

[ForkFondler]

Here's me thinking there is some UNC-Cheat money behind all this. In what way, I have not yet divined. Lance probably did get sucked into something really stupid. It's a big evil world, after all. But why is this all revealed Now? Jewelers are Always looking for a big markup.

[mo.st.dukie]

The other thing I'd point out is that the longer this is dangling out there with no formal response from the Lance Thomas camp, the more likely it's something bad (the source of the $30k if nothing else). I mean if he got fleeced and decided not to pay up (which does seem to be the most likely scenario at this point) and that $30k really did come from some legitimate source, it would be pretty easy to put at least THAT part of this to bed. Instead we've had tweets from Jay Bilas and Jay Williams about it as well as articles from most of the "big time" investigative sports type journalists (yes, yes...I know most of those folks are the same folks who go ape-crazy about any little thing that happens just for the web hits, but still...), and no response yet. That's scary.

The lawsuit was filed in January. Lance has certainly known about it since then and Duke, Coach K, and the NCAA have more than likely known about for longer than all of us have and longer than the media has. I'd imagine that if it truly was something bad it would've already been dealt with in some way during the 8 months from the filing of the lawsuit and the media going crazy with the story. And I know it seems like an eternity but this story broke just two days ago. Should we really expect Lance or anybody to really make any comments in response to the media explosion in just one weekend? Obviously Coach K couldn't really say anything, he was a little busy over the weekend.

[DukeWarhead]

The lawsuit was filed in January. Lance has certainly known about it since then and Duke, Coach K, and the NCAA have more than likely known about for longer than all of us have and longer than the media has. I'd imagine that if it truly was something bad it would've already been dealt with in some way during the 8 months from the filing of the lawsuit and the media going crazy with the story. And I know it seems like an eternity but this story broke just two days ago. Should we really expect Lance or anybody to really make any comments in response to the media explosion in just one weekend? Obviously Coach K couldn't really say anything, he was a little busy over the weekend.

Me - Grasping for silver lining, or reading tea leaves that aren't really there:
Semi O. commits this weekend, even with all this Lance news and talk of NCAA punishment being offered out there. His family asks a bunch of questions and appearantly, K gives answers that gives him confidence enough to commit on the spot and not even "wait and see" what happens. Must mean that K is confident about the situation and relayed that to Semi and the folks. I mean, they must have asked, right??? And I can't imagine a "well, it could be bad, but we'll just have to see" answer would have resulted in an instant committment. Right????
....or, I'm grasping. Reaching. Trying to see what I want to see....

[Kedsy]

This is what scares me as well. We need some response by someone in the know. Even if the response is something akin to "I can't comment because of pending litigation, but rest assured the truth will come out." Or just a "all is not what it seems." I'm not saying he owes it to anyone to comment, but I can't help but be a little worried the more we go with nothing said.

Really? I think if the money came from a permissible source, the proper response by Duke would be no response, at least at this stage. And Lance has no incentive to comment, either.

[MCFinARL]

Me - Grasping for silver lining, or reading tea leaves that aren't really there:
Semi O. commits this weekend, even with all this Lance news and talk of NCAA punishment being offered out there. His family asks a bunch of questions and appearantly, K gives answers that gives him confidence enough to commit on the spot and not even "wait and see" what happens. Must mean that K is confident about the situation and relayed that to Semi and the folks. I mean, they must have asked, right??? And I can't imagine a "well, it could be bad, but we'll just have to see" answer would have resulted in an instant committment. Right????
....or, I'm grasping. Reaching. Trying to see what I want to see....

Well, they might have had questions. But really, it shouldn't be a big concern for incoming recruits, because most likely nothing about this situation should have any prospective impact on Duke--unless Lance got the $30K from someone connected to Duke, or he got money in violation of NCAA rules and Duke knew about it--and there is absolutely no evidence so far to suggest that either of those is the case. If Lance did violate NCAA rules and was thus ineligible, but no one in the Duke program knew or should have known about it, any penalties would likely affect the status of games he played in, but not the status of the program going forward. At least I think that's the case, would be happy for those more knowledgeable to correct me if I am wrong.

[hq2]

Well, they might have had questions. But really, it shouldn't be a big concern for incoming recruits, because most likely nothing about this situation should have any prospective impact on Duke--unless Lance got the $30K from someone connected to Duke, or he got money in violation of NCAA rules and Duke knew about it--and there is absolutely no evidence so far to suggest that either of those is the case. If Lance did violate NCAA rules and was thus ineligible, but no one in the Duke program knew or should have known about it, any penalties would likely affect the status of games he played in, but not the status of the program going forward. At least I think that's the case, would be happy for those more knowledgeable to correct me if I am wrong.

Well, it's been about three days since the story broke, and still no explanation of where he got the money from. That's not a good sign; means that various
people (and lawyers, likely) are sitting around arguing about what to say. Feeling worse about where this is going as more time goes by.

[killerleft]

Well, it's been about three days since the story broke, and still no explanation of where he got the money from. That's not a good sign; means that various
people (and lawyers, likely) are sitting around arguing about what to say. Feeling worse about where this is going as more time goes by.

You could be right. Or could be that Lance's lawyer, and perhaps Duke's, are putting the finishing touches on bringing down a flim-flam artist. Who knows? Certainly not us!

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Andy Katz (http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/63679/3-point-shot-10) ESPN.

[sagegrouse]

Andy Katz (http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/63679/3-point-shot-10) ESPN.

Piece of news:

"1. Duke's staff didn't know about Lance Thomas' jewelry purchases or $30,000 cash payment in 2010, according to multiple school staffers."

He also pointed out that, while Duke may be guiltless, LT could still be ruled retrospectively ineligible if circumstances warranted.

Thanks, Wheat. How's the fishing?

sagegrouse

[RepoMan]

I suspect this is about 95% likely pure BS. Jeweler has been demanding payment for years. LT easily could have paid and avoided lawsuit if he and his legal advisors thought there was risk. And, they would have known that even if risk was low, the publicity would be high. So, that fact that, notwithstanding the foregoing, they refused to make payment and avoid lawsuit, speaks volumes.

[spifi]

Well, they might have had questions. But really, it shouldn't be a big concern for incoming recruits, because most likely nothing about this situation should have any prospective impact on Duke--unless Lance got the $30K from someone connected to Duke, or he got money in violation of NCAA rules and Duke knew about it--and there is absolutely no evidence so far to suggest that either of those is the case. If Lance did violate NCAA rules and was thus ineligible, but no one in the Duke program knew or should have known about it, any penalties would likely affect the status of games he played in, but not the status of the program going forward. At least I think that's the case, would be happy for those more knowledgeable to correct me if I am wrong.

Exactly. It's unlikely that even if LT did something badly wrong that the staff knew about it (or could be proven to have known about it). So the "worst case scenario" there could still be VERY bad in terms of vacating most of the season and a championship, but shouldn't be anything penalized in the future. So current recruits wouldn't really be affected.

And yes, there are still a lot of possible explanations that could make this all a non-issue entirely as far as Duke is concerned. I'm still in the camp that no news is bad news, however. The "being silent while taking down a flim-flam artist" storyline is compelling, but I am having a tough time believing that a jeweler, no matter how shady their business practices are, would go all the way to filing an actual lawsuit if they had done anything they could be "taken down" for. These guys have been around a WHILE from all reports, and while it seems likely they are very shady, it just doesn't seem likely they'd be criminal themselves. Criminals just don't put things into the legal system and take chances attracting THAT kind of scrutiny. At least not criminals who have been successfully doing it for a while.

[spifi]

Andy Katz (http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/63679/3-point-shot-10) ESPN.

Assuming Andy got lots of people to talk candidly from the Duke side, it sure sounds as though folks here saying "Duke knew about this for months" aren't accurate. From everything I've seen on this, including the above, this is all new news to Duke as of a few days ago.

[sagegrouse]

Piece of news:

"1. Duke's staff didn't know about Lance Thomas' jewelry purchases or $30,000 cash payment in 2010, according to multiple school staffers."

He also pointed out that, while Duke may be guiltless, LT could still be ruled retrospectively ineligible if circumstances warranted.

Thanks, Wheat. How's the fishing?

sagegrouse


I suspect this is about 95% likely pure BS. Jeweler has been demanding payment for years. LT easily could have paid and avoided lawsuit if he and his legal advisors thought there was risk. And, they would have known that even if risk was low, the publicity would be high. So, that fact that, notwithstanding the foregoing, they refused to make payment and avoid lawsuit, speaks volumes.


Exactly. It's unlikely that even if LT did something badly wrong that the staff knew about it (or could be proven to have known about it). So the "worst case scenario" there could still be VERY bad in terms of vacating most of the season and a championship, but shouldn't be anything penalized in the future. So current recruits wouldn't really be affected.

And yes, there are still a lot of possible explanations that could make this all a non-issue entirely as far as Duke is concerned. I'm still in the camp that no news is bad news, however. The "being silent while taking down a flim-flam artist" storyline is compelling, but I am having a tough time believing that a jeweler, no matter how shady their business practices are, would go all the way to filing an actual lawsuit if they had done anything they could be "taken down" for. These guys have been around a WHILE from all reports, and while it seems likely they are very shady, it just doesn't seem likely they'd be criminal themselves. Criminals just don't put things into the legal system and take chances attracting THAT kind of scrutiny. At least not criminals who have been successfully doing it for a while.


Assuming Andy got lots of people to talk candidly from the Duke side, it sure sounds as though folks here saying "Duke knew about this for months" aren't accurate. From everything I've seen on this, including the above, this is all new news to Duke as of a few days ago.

Here's the case that Duke faces no risk:

1. Duke knows ab-so-lute-ly nothing, nada, zippo, zilch about Lance's supposed jewelry purchase, $30,000, debt, or lawsuit.

2. LT simply refers any NCAA inquiry to his lawyers. He doesn't have to talk to the NCAA, and I can't see why he would.

3. No one else comes forward with material facts or further allegations.

The NCAA has nothing -- no case, no facts, no institutional involvement, and no violations of anything.

End of investigation -- game, set and match.

sagegrouse
'"Stupidity" or "poor taste" is not in the NCAA rulebook'
'Moreover, if Martha Stewart had listened to me vis a vis talking to the feds, she would have never had to redecorate the "big house"'

[pfrduke]

'Moreover, if Martha Stewart had listened to me vis a vis talking to the feds, she would have never had to redecorate the "big house"'

I had a classmate who did a public defenders' clinic - the very first thing they taught him on the very first day: "Nobody talks, everybody walks."

[Matches]

Here's the case that Duke faces no risk:

1. Duke knows ab-so-lute-ly nothing, nada, zippo, zilch about Lance's supposed jewelry purchase, $30,000, debt, or lawsuit.

2. LT simply refers any NCAA inquiry to his lawyers. He doesn't have to talk to the NCAA, and I can't see why he would.

3. No one else comes forward with material facts or further allegations.

The NCAA has nothing -- no case, no facts, no institutional involvement, and no violations of anything.

End of investigation -- game, set and match.



Not exactly. The lawsuit filed by the jeweler is a matter of public record, as will be any responsive pleadings filed by LT. If the suit moves forward, discovery will be generated and it's likely LT will be deposed. If it goes to trial LT is likely to be a witness at trial.

All of those possibilities generate evidence on which the NCAA could take action. LT has no obligation to talk to the NCAA but he has obligations to comply with the Court's process.

[Indoor66]

This is what scares me as well. We need some response by someone in the know. Even if the response is something akin to "I can't comment because of pending litigation, but rest assured the truth will come out." Or just a "all is not what it seems." I'm not saying he owes it to anyone to comment, but I can't help but be a little worried the more we go with nothing said.


That pesky discovery. What ever happened to Trial by Ambush, like the old days?

[killerleft]

Andy Katz (http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/63679/3-point-shot-10) ESPN.

Thanks for the link, Wheat. Sounds like Andy knows exactly what I know, which is very little. The denials of knowledge from Duke are good, I suppose. But being blind-sided means Lance didn't give anyone a heads-up. That could mean a lot, good or bad.

[Matches]

Well, it's been about three days since the story broke, and still no explanation of where he got the money from. That's not a good sign; means that various
people (and lawyers, likely) are sitting around arguing about what to say. Feeling worse about where this is going as more time goes by.

We're not owed an explanation. ("We" being the public.) Obviously we're all curious but neither LT nor his lawyers are required to make any public statements about this.

[Matches]

Thanks for the link, Wheat. Sounds like Andy knows exactly what I know, which is very little. The denials of knowledge from Duke are good, I suppose. But being blind-sided means Lance didn't give anyone a heads-up. That could mean a lot, good or bad.

Just b/c the suit was filed in January doesn't mean LT knew about it. Have any of the various news articles about this actually said LT was *served* with the suit?

[roywhite]

After following the rape hoax scandal involving Duke lacrosse players, and the Sandusky Penn State scandal, I have come to HATE, HATE, HATE

baseless speculation about events and details that are unknown, from fans and also from sports media.

I'll limit my "wisdom" on this case to patience in hearing the details first.

[sagegrouse]

Not exactly. The lawsuit filed by the jeweler is a matter of public record, as will be any responsive pleadings filed by LT. If the suit moves forward, discovery will be generated and it's likely LT will be deposed. If it goes to trial LT is likely to be a witness at trial.

All of those possibilities generate evidence on which the NCAA could take action. LT has no obligation to talk to the NCAA but he has obligations to comply with the Court's process.

I don't disagree with your hypothetical. I gave the case that, as things stand now, the NCAA has nothing to pursue, and Lance has no obligation to talk to the NCAA folks. If LT testifies or gives a deposition that is harmful to him and Duke, that is a different case.

Looking at l"Affaire Lance through my Duke blue glasses (Hay-Sus! I just thought about the other Lance), I believe this case will be settled. The amount in dispute is less than the cost of a trial IMHO (where the H is usually silent).

Now it is always possible that UNC, Kentucky and other miscreants would be happy to help Raffaello and Co. with legal expenses.

sagegrouse

[ncexnyc]

After following the rape hoax scandal involving Duke lacrosse players, and the Sandusky Penn State scandal, I have come to HATE, HATE, HATE

baseless speculation about events and details that are unknown, from fans and also from sports media.

I'll limit my "wisdom" on this case to patience in hearing the details first.

With so many smart people on this board, it took us until the tenth page to come up with this outstanding piece of advice.

I'm with Roy, when we get ALL the facts then it will be time to comment.

[Matches]

Looking at l"Affaire Lance through my Duke blue glasses (Hay-Sus! I just thought about the other Lance), I believe this case will be settled. The amount in dispute is less than the cost of a trial IMHO (where the H is usually silent).

Now it is always possible that UNC, Kentucky and other miscreants would be happy to help Raffaello and Co. with legal expenses.



I'd be stunned if the firm representing the jeweler isn't working on a contingency fee. Doubtful they'll need help with legal expenses. Also, based on what little we know (and if the AP has the actual Complaint, I wish they'd go ahead and make it public), it's a relatively simply breach of contract claim. The cost of trying something like that would be far less than $60,000, esp. if there's a signed contract.

You may very well be right, though, that the matter will settle. Most civil lawsuits do.

[wilko]

100K for jewelry ... jewelry.. (allegedly)

I just cant get my head around ANYONE wanting/needing THAT much jewelry to adorn themselves with.
I have one watch and a wedding ring. I cant conceive of needing/having more to keep up with.

If I had 100k to spend frivolously Id spend it something along the lines of:
Captain America #1
Hulk #1
All Star Comics #8
Detective #27

These books appreciate EVERY year.
That would make me much happier than jewelry

[moonpie23]

you'd be surprised what youngsters in the public eye will spend on what and how much...

[CDu]

you'd be surprised what youngsters in the public eye will spend on what and how much...

Agreed (in a way). Really, nothing should surprise people about kids. Kids (as a collective) tend to make bad decisions.

[plimnko]

you'd be surprised what youngsters in the public eye will spend on what and how much...

i've been stewing on this over the weekend and somethings, several things, don't seem right to me. perhaps the perspective of others will help clarify or at least help me make some sense from all of this. 1) i agree... why would he want/need $100k worth of jewelry? did anyone ever see him wearing the jewelry? i remember him wearing earrings, but you can get them for a lot less than $100k. 2) who would extend $70k of credit to an unemployed, no means of support college kid with let's face it, no immediate nba future... even with a $30k down payment? 3) does the timing of all this seem strange to anyone else? why would you wait 2 years to collect on a 15 day line of credit? is it possible someone screwed up the dates? i could see him going a little crazy once he started getting those 10 day contracts and a glimmer of hope of making it on an nba team, but that would be after he graduated in 2010. those are just a few of the things that make this seem a little off to me or is my bias not allowing me to see the real picture?

[gus]

With so many smart people on this board, it took us until the tenth page to come up with this outstanding piece of advice.

I'm with Roy, when we get ALL the facts then it will be time to comment.

People having been saying that since the second page of the thread. Several people (including one on the first page) pointed out there was no evidence yet, only a lawsuit. Lauderville referenced the lacrosse matter in the 26th post in this amalgamated thread. Killerleft even said "I'm waiting on something real before being concerned" very early on.

So, no, it didn't take until the tenth page. People who don't want to speculate aren't going to keep posting non-speculation though.

[flyingdutchdevil]

i've been stewing on this over the weekend and somethings, several things, don't seem right to me. perhaps the perspective of others will help clarify or at least help me make some sense from all of this. 1) i agree... why would he want/need $100k worth of jewelry? did anyone ever see him wearing the jewelry? i remember him wearing earrings, but you can get them for a lot less than $100k. 2) who would extend $70k of credit to an unemployed, no means of support college kid with let's face it, no immediate nba future... even with a $30k down payment? 3) does the timing of all this seem strange to anyone else? why would you wait 2 years to collect on a 15 day line of credit? is it possible someone screwed up the dates? i could see him going a little crazy once he started getting those 10 day contracts and a glimmer of hope of making it on an nba team, but that would be after he graduated in 2010. those are just a few of the things that make this seem a little off to me or is my bias not allowing me to see the real picture?

I am not trying to be pompous here at all, but I wanted to lay a few facts about jewelry. Jewelry is one of the most interesting industries, as it can really be as expensive or as cheap as you want. When I heard that LT had spent $100k on jewelry, I wasn't that surprised (I was surprised at the timing of the purchase). $100k on 4-5 pieces isn't that much. A pair of diamond earrings with 1.7 carats with great clarity, cut, and color will easily go for over $30k, and more like $40k or $50k depending on the 4 Cs. A Rolex or a Patek Philip (without diamonds) can go for $12-$20k easy, and with diamonds the watch can easily go to $80,000. Spending $100k on jewelry - if you love jewelry - is like a 6-year old kid spending $10 in a candy store. The amount of jewelry, or the price for that matter, isn't outrageous.

Your issue regarding #2 is certainly of more interest, but let's just argue that extending credit without credentials is nothing new to this world (see 2008 Economic Crisis). With a Duke degree, a coach that says who can play in the NBA, and a starting spot on the most well-known basketball team, I'd say that the creditors could have done a lot worse than LT in terms of risk profile.

Your issue with #3 is the most interesting, and I'm sure we'll get the facts sooner than later. I too am curious about this, but I am not one to debate / argue on the legal system.

[JasonEvans]

Just b/c the suit was filed in January doesn't mean LT knew about it. Have any of the various news articles about this actually said LT was *served* with the suit?

I don't think anyone has been clear about this point, but The Chronicle's article (http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/duke-basketballs-lance-thomas-sued-over-jewelry-pa)over the weekend quoted Lance's agent as being surprised by all this and indicating that they may have only very recently found out about it.


Thomas’ agent, John Spencer, said he first became aware of the situation this week and directed further inquiries to Thomas’ lawyer on the case, Joe Crews, who could not be reached for comment. Both lawyers are based out of Texas because Thomas was playing for the Austin Toros of the NBA Development League at the time the lawsuit was filed in January.

“I think we were all caught off guard,” Spencer said.

I believe one reason we have not heard a response from Lance or his lawyers is that they are still sifting through all the details of this and figuring out what their response needs to be. From what the agent said, it appears somewhat likely that Lance did not find out about this lawsuit until very recently.

-Jason "here is a good article from Mike DeCourcy (http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/story/2012-09-10/lance-thomas-duke-lawsuit-ncaa-2010-national-championship) that seems pretty reasonable, urges everyone not to jump to conclusions, and pokes a bit of fun at Lance's taste in jewelry" Evans

[spifi]

I don't disagree with your hypothetical. I gave the case that, as things stand now, the NCAA has nothing to pursue, and Lance has no obligation to talk to the NCAA folks. If LT testifies or gives a deposition that is harmful to him and Duke, that is a different case.

Looking at l"Affaire Lance through my Duke blue glasses (Hay-Sus! I just thought about the other Lance), I believe this case will be settled. The amount in dispute is less than the cost of a trial IMHO (where the H is usually silent).

Now it is always possible that UNC, Kentucky and other miscreants would be happy to help Raffaello and Co. with legal expenses.

Nothing to pursue? A senior in college dropping $30k on jewelry and signing on the dotted line to pay another $70k in 15 days is most certainly "something to pursue."

Now, if the suit were settled out of court and neither party is talking and no witnesses step forward, there's certainly no evidence for them to do anything with. But to say there's "nothing to see here, move along, move along" seems a bit unlike the NCAA.

[Brian913]

Your issue regarding #2 is certainly of more interest, but let's just argue that extending credit without credentials is nothing new to this world (see 2008 Economic Crisis). With a Duke degree, a coach that says who can play in the NBA, and a starting spot on the most well-known basketball team, I'd say that the creditors could have done a lot worse than LT in terms of risk profile.


I would expect that anyone could get the same deal - put down a third and walk out with the jewelry. It's a pre-printed form contract, not a special deal.

[DevilYouthCoach]

My imagination leads me to suggest the following: A NY jeweler offers Lance a 70 percent discount on a pile of jewelry, which Lance calls on his mom to buy for friends, relatives, herself. Once Lance starts getting pro deals and salary, the jeweler bills him for the "discount" claiming that it was a loan, and thereafter, sues him as well. It doesn't cost much to file a lawsuit and most are settled out of court. Lance knows this is a scam and declines to pay. The newspapers get wind of it and so on and so on. This makes sense to me, given what I think I know about Lance and Duke b-ball.

[hood7]

At this point, we don't even know if they have the correct Lance Thomas. We don't know if the jeweller added a comma and a couple zeros to the 'sales contract'. We don't know anything other than a suit has been filed and it alleges Lance owes a jeweller money. Everything else is speculations galore.

[sagegrouse]

Nothing to pursue? A senior in college dropping $30k on jewelry and signing on the dotted line to pay another $70k in 15 days is most certainly "something to pursue."

Now, if the suit were settled out of court and neither party is talking and no witnesses step forward, there's certainly no evidence for them to do anything with. But to say there's "nothing to see here, move along, move along" seems a bit unlike the NCAA.

"As things stand now," the Sage of Grouse wrote, grousily. The NCAA and Duke have talked -- Duke knows nothing about the jewelry, the $30 thou, the loan, or anything else. Unless LT is willing to speak with investigators at the NCAA, which -- legal eagles, jump in any time -- his lawyers would surely prevent -- there is nothing for the NCAA to "pursue."

Meanwhile, LT's agent says he only learned about it a few days ago. Since agents frequently serve broader business interests of the client, I would be willing to guess that the lawsuit was a complete surprise to LT. But, I dunno.

If the NCAA is curious about the $30K, what could it do? No one except Duke is obliged to speak with the NCAA.

It sounds like a tempest in a teapot, but the pot has surely been boiling at DBR! If the events slowly fade away, unaccompanied by any NCAA findings, then so be it. It will surely be the stuff of Duke myths along with Laettner's stomp and Maggette's cash. It would be unsatisfying to the loyal fans reading DBR, but I can live with "no runs, no hits, no errors."

sagegrouse

[NSDukeFan]

Really? I think if the money came from a permissible source, the proper response by Duke would be no response, at least at this stage. And Lance has no incentive to comment, either.
Doesn't he want to clear things up for us here at DBR?

We're not owed an explanation. ("We" being the public.) Obviously we're all curious but neither LT nor his lawyers are required to make any public statements about this.
As BD80 brought this movie up awhile ago in another thread, can I add?
You want answers?
I think I'm entitled to them.
You want answers?
I want the truth.
DBR can't handle the truth! Son we live in a world that has diamonds. And those diamonds are dug up by companies that have guns. Who's gonna do it? You, Matches. You Sagegrouse? The diamond sellers have a responsibility greater than you can possilbly fathom. You weep for Lance Thomas and curse the diamond sellers. You have that luxury (and Lance apparently wanted those luxury goods.) You have the luxury of not knowing what I know, that Lance's purchase, while tragic, probably made profits. And the diamond miners with poor working conditions while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, probably make huge profits. ...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, kids want crazy things. Kids need to do crazy things.
We use words like cut, clarity, colour, ... we use these words as a backbone to making huge profits. You use them to pretend you are getting something to impress someone. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to someone who can't tell the difference between a diamond and a cubic zirconium, then questions the price that he or she pays for it. I'd rather you just say thank you and go on your way. Otherwise I'd suggest you pick up a degree in gemology (you can get them as an independent studies course at UNC) and open a jewelry store. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.

Nothing to pursue? A senior in college dropping $30k on jewelry and signing on the dotted line to pay another $70k in 15 days is most certainly "something to pursue."

Now, if the suit were settled out of court and neither party is talking and no witnesses step forward, there's certainly no evidence for them to do anything with. But to say there's "nothing to see here, move along, move along" seems a bit unlike the NCAA.
You have obviously not been following the UNC academic/athletic fraud "nothing to see here" case.

[tommy]

I don't think anyone has been clear about this point, but The Chronicle's article (http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/duke-basketballs-lance-thomas-sued-over-jewelry-pa)over the weekend quoted Lance's agent as being surprised by all this and indicating that they may have only very recently found out about it.



I believe one reason we have not heard a response from Lance or his lawyers is that they are still sifting through all the details of this and figuring out what their response needs to be. From what the agent said, it appears somewhat likely that Lance did not find out about this lawsuit until very recently.

-Jason "here is a good article from Mike DeCourcy (http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/story/2012-09-10/lance-thomas-duke-lawsuit-ncaa-2010-national-championship) that seems pretty reasonable, urges everyone not to jump to conclusions, and pokes a bit of fun at Lance's taste in jewelry" Evans

But that's not the way it works. As another poster wrote earlier in this thread, whenever a lawsuit is filed, the party filing it must serve the party being sued with notice of the suit having been filed. The party being sued then has to file what in most states is called an "answer" and then the case proceeds from there. It's not like somebody files a lawsuit and the other side doesn't know about it, like it's a secret or something. There are time limits within which the answer must be filed, or sometimes there are motions to, say, strike -- meaning throw out -- the suit prior to an answer being filed, but court action takes place.

What surprises me is that -- apparently -- no court action has taken place in the eight months since this case was filed. There should've been court appearances, motions, discovery, perhaps mediation or settlement discussions, and/or many other procedural steps, all beginning long ago. What has the judge been doing with this case? Why hasn't it been moving forward like any other case? That's what I'd really like to know.

But the agent saying essentially that "this is the first we've heard of it" strikes me as, in all likelihood, horse hockey.

[Matches]

What surprises me is that -- apparently -- no court action has taken place in the eight months since this case was filed. There should've been court appearances, motions, discovery, perhaps mediation or settlement discussions, and/or many other procedural steps, all beginning long ago. What has the judge been doing with this case? Why hasn't it been moving forward like any other case? That's what I'd really like to know.



It's really not all that uncommon for a Complaint to be filed but not immediately served. There are a variety of reasons that might happen, esp. if the filing was done simply to toll the Statute of Limitations.

The most inquiry I'd expect in 6-8 months if no service is perfected is that the case might end up on a Court's Cleanup Calendar - basically an administrative calendar where a Judge would inquire as to the progress of the suit. Motions, Answers, discovery - all that generally takes place after service is perfected. If Lance hasn't been served, or only recently got served, none of that would have occurred yet.

[Indoor66]

But that's not the way it works. As another poster wrote earlier in this thread, whenever a lawsuit is filed, the party filing it must serve the party being sued with notice of the suit having been filed. The party being sued then has to file what in most states is called an "answer" and then the case proceeds from there. It's not like somebody files a lawsuit and the other side doesn't know about it, like it's a secret or something. There are time limits within which the answer must be filed, or sometimes there are motions to, say, strike -- meaning throw out -- the suit prior to an answer being filed, but court action takes place.

What surprises me is that -- apparently -- no court action has taken place in the eight months since this case was filed. There should've been court appearances, motions, discovery, perhaps mediation or settlement discussions, and/or many other procedural steps, all beginning long ago. What has the judge been doing with this case? Why hasn't it been moving forward like any other case? That's what I'd really like to know.

But the agent saying essentially that "this is the first we've heard of it" strikes me as, in all likelihood, horse hockey.

Maybe Service of Process was never completed during the eight months. Lance may not have been "found" in Texas. Maybe a failure to prosecute. A lot of possibilities.

[tommy]

It's really not all that uncommon for a Complaint to be filed but not immediately served. There are a variety of reasons that might happen, esp. if the filing was done simply to toll the Statute of Limitations.

The most inquiry I'd expect in 6-8 months if no service is perfected is that the case might end up on a Court's Cleanup Calendar - basically an administrative calendar where a Judge would inquire as to the progress of the suit. Motions, Answers, discovery - all that generally takes place after service is perfected. If Lance hasn't been served, or only recently got served, none of that would have occurred yet.

I know quite a few judges, and they would not be happy with a situation like you describe. I am certain they would want to hear a damn good reason why the defendant -- a public figure -- has not been served in over eight months. It's not like he's hard to find. If there's no reason, then all the plaintiff's attorney is doing is clogging up the court and its dwindling resources in these extremely tight budgetary times. What would likely happen is the judge would give the plaintiff's attorney a short time -- very short, like 15 or 30 days -- to either serve the defendant and get this thing moving already, or the case gets thrown out for lack of good faith prosecution of it.

[Kedsy]

Maybe Service of Process was never completed during the eight months. Lance may not have been "found" in Texas.

If Lance didn't live and couldn't be found in Texas, how could a Texas state court have jurisdiction (since the jeweler isn't from Texas)? Also, I don't know Texas law, but the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have a time limit within which defendant must be served. I think it's 120 days under the Federal Rules.

[OldPhiKap]

If Lance didn't live and couldn't be found in Texas, how could a Texas state court have jurisdiction (since the jeweler isn't from Texas)? Also, I don't know Texas law, but the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have a time limit within which defendant must be served. I think it's 120 days under the Federal Rules.

120 days in Federal Court, unless good cause shown. FRCP 4(m).

Not sure about Texas State court, often a "reasonableness" standard applies in state courts. I assume any dismissal would be without prejudice and with right to refile.

[Matches]

I know quite a few judges, and they would not be happy with a situation like you describe. I am certain they would want to hear a damn good reason why the defendant -- a public figure -- has not been served in over eight months. It's not like he's hard to find. If there's no reason, then all the plaintiff's attorney is doing is clogging up the court and its dwindling resources in these extremely tight budgetary times. What would likely happen is the judge would give the plaintiff's attorney a short time -- very short, like 15 or 30 days -- to either serve the defendant and get this thing moving already, or the case gets thrown out for lack of good faith prosecution of it.

Not questioning the folks you know, but I've been a litigator for 14 years and that's not been my experience at all. About the worst I've seen is a stern "let's get this moving, counselor" from the Court.

Service on an out-of-state defendant isn't an easy thing, particularly when the defendant moves around a lot. I don't know what if any efforts have been made to serve him, but I've seen longer delays without it raising too much of the Court's ire.

Also: Lance was subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas while he was playing for the Toros. That's when the suit was filed, apparently.

[plimnko]

Not questioning the folks you know, but I've been a litigator for 14 years and that's not been my experience at all. About the worst I've seen is a stern "let's get this moving, counselor" from the Court.

Service on an out-of-state defendant isn't an easy thing, particularly when the defendant moves around a lot. I don't know what if any efforts have been made to serve him, but I've seen longer delays without it raising too much of the Court's ire.

Also: Lance was subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas while he was playing for the Toros. That's when the suit was filed, apparently.

matches,
i know less than zero about the way courts operate or serve someone. is it odd for a lawsuit to be filed years after a supposed 15 day loan was not paid? i would assume action would have been taken sooner. i appreciate any insight into how the law works in these matters.

[Matches]

matches,
i know less than zero about the way courts operate or serve someone. is it odd for a lawsuit to be filed years after a supposed 15 day loan was not paid? i would assume action would have been taken sooner. i appreciate any insight into how the law works in these matters.

I don't know what limitations period is applicable, but it's not uncommon for suits to be filed right at the last minute. No idea if that's what happened here.

[spifi]

The amazing staff at the News and Disturber are on it:

http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/09/10/2332465/ncaa-faces-time-pressure-if-they.html

It's pretty normal for two years to pass before you'd take this thing to a lawsuit. It's also pretty normal for this kind of time to pass during the suit without anything really happening. It's not surprising that Lance's agent didn't' know anything about this (why would Lance tell his agent about something like this?). It would be surprising if Lance hadn't been served by now, however.

And another business day passes with no info from Lance's side. I'm telling you guys, this is smelling fishy.

[Duvall]

And another business day passes with no info from Lance's side. I'm telling you guys, this is smelling fishy.

Thanks for your concern.

[Brian913]

I know quite a few judges, and they would not be happy with a situation like you describe. I am certain they would want to hear a damn good reason why the defendant -- a public figure -- has not been served in over eight months. It's not like he's hard to find. If there's no reason, then all the plaintiff's attorney is doing is clogging up the court and its dwindling resources in these extremely tight budgetary times. What would likely happen is the judge would give the plaintiff's attorney a short time -- very short, like 15 or 30 days -- to either serve the defendant and get this thing moving already, or the case gets thrown out for lack of good faith prosecution of it.

Lance was only in Texas a few days after the suit was filed. Unless they specifically paid a process server to make service at a specific time and place it would have been difficult to get service on him.

[Kedsy]

And another business day passes with no info from Lance's side. I'm telling you guys, this is smelling fishy.

What incentive do you think Lance has to talk about this? I think none. And from what little we know, it appears Duke doesn't have too much information about it, so it wouldn't make sense for Duke to say anything, either. But perhaps my sense of smell just isn't as sensitive as yours.

[lotusland]

Not questioning the folks you know, but I've been a litigator for 14 years and that's not been my experience at all. About the worst I've seen is a stern "let's get this moving, counselor" from the Court.

Service on an out-of-state defendant isn't an easy thing, particularly when the defendant moves around a lot. I don't know what if any efforts have been made to serve him, but I've seen longer delays without it raising too much of the Court's ire.

Also: Lance was subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas while he was playing for the Toros. That's when the suit was filed, apparently.

"This is the Court of Chancery, which has its decaying houses and its blighted lands in every shire, which has its worn-out lunatic in every madhouse and its dead in every churchyard, which has its ruined suitor with his slipshod heels and threadbare dress borrowing and begging through the round of every man’s acquaintance, which gives to monied might the means abundantly of wearying out the right, which so exhausts finances, patience, courage, hope, so overthrows the brain and breaks the heart, that there is not an honourable man among its practitioners who would not give — who does not often give — the warning, “Suffer any wrong that can be done you rather than come here!”

[OldPhiKap]

What incentive do you think Lance has to talk about this? I think none. And from what little we know, it appears Duke doesn't have too much information about it, so it wouldn't make sense for Duke to say anything, either. But perhaps my sense of smell just isn't as sensitive as yours.

1. I tell my client to keep his mouth shut, whether the case has merit or is the largest pile of bull droppings ever. It is my job to speak through the pleadings, end of story. That simple. This is an ironclad rule in my profession.

2. Hard to judge much about this until the answer is filed. The process needs to play out. Defendant has a period of time after service to investigate and file a response, and we usually wait until the last day to file it.

3. Having said all of that, this is a filing which causes me a fair amount of concern. But I defend plenty of cases with damaging allegations backed by mythical facts. Patience is not a great trait of the internet generation, but that is what is called for in this situation.


FWIW. OPK, Esq.

[camion]

1. I tell my client to keep his mouth shut, whether the case has merit or is the largest pile of bull droppings ever. It is my job to speak through the pleadings, end of story. That simple. This is an ironclad rule in my profession.

2. Hard to judge much about this until the answer is filed. The process needs to play out. Defendant has a period of time after service to investigate and file a response, and we usually wait until the last day to file it.

3. Having said all of that, this is a filing which causes me a fair amount of concern. But I defend plenty of cases with damaging allegations backed by mythical facts. Patience is not a great trait of the internet generation, but that is what is called for in this situation.


FWIW. OPK, Esq.

You're asking us to wait for the facts? I believe the technical term for what you're advocating is "unreasonable suppression of speculation." Message boards couldn't survive if we did that. :p

[wilko]

TRUTH - There is a lot unknown here - let it play out...

However haters are gonna hate...
Should any folks in pastels (or other team colors) want to release some pent up tension over this..

This is the best retort that I had seen on twitter:

"Lance Thomas down payment was legit. He taught a class on African American studies at UNC that summer and was paid 30000 ;)"

[Jderf]

"Lance Thomas down payment was legit. He taught a class on African American studies at UNC that summer and was paid 30000 ;)"

I like it. And you can't say that was an improper benefit just for athletes, because just about anyone could teach an AFAM course at UNC.

[Ichabod Drain]

TRUTH - There is a lot unknown here - let it play out...

However haters are gonna hate...
Should any folks in pastels (or other team colors) want to release some pent up tension over this..

This is the best retort that I had seen on twitter:

"Lance Thomas down payment was legit. He taught a class on African American studies at UNC that summer and was paid 30000 ;)"

I heard he worked for a year as Tami Hansbroughs travel agent.

[RepoMan]

The point on timing is that there is very little chance the lawsuit was filed out of the blue. The jeweler almost certainly would have tried to shake down LT pre-suit. LT evidently told them to pound sand when he got their demand. So, they sued. All of which still suggests to me that LT and his advisers were not all that worried about this. But it's all guesswork of course.

[miramar]

I am very troubled about the purchase of expensive jewelry and also about the alleged nonpayment of the outstanding balance, but I expect that the NCAA will start by following the money, much as in the All the President's Men movie.

$30,000 is a whole lot of cash for a young person, but I trust that the money didn't come from a booster because Duke is better than that, that it didn't come from an unscrupulous agent since Lance Thomas didn't have the talent or potential of a Chris Webber, and that it didn't come from his parents because not even the wealthiest families hand out large amounts of cash nowadays. Needless to say, I'm also sure that it didn't come from point shaving or high-stakes gambling.

I don't think that Lance is obliged to explain to the NCAA how he came up with the money, but whether or not we get a complete explanation, I hope that Lance settles the debt and learns from what could be some very serious mistakes.

[Dev11]

that it didn't come from his parents because not even the wealthiest families hand out large amounts of cash nowadays.

I wouldn't be surprised if this was actually the case. I know kids who went to Duke on athletic scholarships, which allowed their parents to free up the money they had saved for college, and as a thank-you (and because the parents were well-off), the kids were allowed to use good chunks of that money. I don't know Lance's financial situation pre-college, but it's certainly plausible that he got a nice reward for getting that big Duke scholarship (which at this point is over $200,000 for the four years).

Now, as far as what to spend that cash on, I have no idea.

Let's let it play out and see what we hear. A lot of this doesn't make sense at the moment.

[oldnavy]

I don't want this to sound ridiculous, but is $30K really that much money?? I mean he could have opened 3 credit cards with $10K limits and maxed them out. That would be total irresponsible financially speaking, but very plausible.

I remember my son being swamped with credit card offers during his senior year.

I am sticking with my last statement on this, and that is there are WAY to many unanswered questions about this to bring out the panic monkey. Even where the $30K came from is not that concerning to me. I may be whistling past the graveyard, but I just can't get worked up about this...yet.

[gus]

I don't want this to sound ridiculous, but is $30K really that much money?? I mean he could have opened 3 credit cards with $10K limits and maxed them out. That would be total irresponsible financially speaking, but very plausible.

I remember my son being swamped with credit card offers during his senior year.

I am sticking with my last statement on this, and that is there are WAY to many unanswered questions about this to bring out the panic monkey. Even where the $30K came from is not that concerning to me. I may be whistling past the graveyard, but I just can't get worked up about this...yet.

If I didn't have to pay for living costs, food and tuition while I was in college, I think I would have accumulated 30k in 2009 dollars by the time I was a senior.

[CDu]

I wouldn't be surprised if this was actually the case. I know kids who went to Duke on athletic scholarships, which allowed their parents to free up the money they had saved for college, and as a thank-you (and because the parents were well-off), the kids were allowed to use good chunks of that money. I don't know Lance's financial situation pre-college, but it's certainly plausible that he got a nice reward for getting that big Duke scholarship (which at this point is over $200,000 for the four years).

Now, as far as what to spend that cash on, I have no idea.

Let's let it play out and see what we hear. A lot of this doesn't make sense at the moment.

While the cost of a Duke education is $200,000+, I would be surprised if his parents had saved anywhere close to $200,000 for his education. My parents certainly didn't, and I'd suspect that the vast majority of scholarship students at Duke (athlete or otherwise) didn't have anywhere close to six figures saved up for college. If Thomas's family did, then good for them.

[CDu]

I don't want this to sound ridiculous, but is $30K really that much money?? I mean he could have opened 3 credit cards with $10K limits and maxed them out. That would be total irresponsible financially speaking, but very plausible.

I remember my son being swamped with credit card offers during his senior year.

I am sticking with my last statement on this, and that is there are WAY to many unanswered questions about this to bring out the panic monkey. Even where the $30K came from is not that concerning to me. I may be whistling past the graveyard, but I just can't get worked up about this...yet.

There is no way a college student with presumably minimal credit history and no salary would be able to legally get his own credit card for $10K. I believe that my first credit card, as a 21 year old, had a $250 limit. I had to open a joint account with my mom to get a $5,000 credit limit. And once I had a job, that credit limit was bumped up to $7,500. Unless Thomas got his parents to open 3 credit accounts under his and their names, this isn't remotely plausible.

So yes. For a 21-year old college student, $30K is a LOT of money.

[CDu]

If I didn't have to pay for living costs, food and tuition while I was in college, I think I would have accumulated 30k in 2009 dollars by the time I was a senior.

Only if someone had that money to give to you (which is possible). But remember: it's not just that he allegedly had $30K. It's that he allegedly had enough disposable income to spend $30K on jewelry (allegedly being the operative word here, of course). One would assume that he wouldn't spend every dime he had on jewelry.

[Matches]

Lance had celebrated his 21st birthday in April of that year. He was a few months away from graduating from college. The purchase took place right at Christmas-time.

None of us knows Lance's financial situation. $30,000 is a lot of money, but some people have trusts or annuities set up that pay them when they reach the age of majority. Some relatives give expensive gifts on 21st birthdays and college graduations.

There are any number of perfectly legitimate reasons Lance could have had money. There are also some not-so legitimate possibilities. But no one has enough information to make that judgment at the moment - let's presume the best until someone comes forward with evidence of the worst.

[ohiodukefan]

His mom was a manager at a Ford plant. Those jobs could pay close to 6 figures. Maybe his mom had set uo a college fund for him years and years ago. Since Lance got a full ride scholarhip from Duke, maybe his mom gave him his college fund when he turned 21 and it could have well been over $30,000. Just a thought..............

[wilko]

Lance had celebrated his 21st birthday in April of that year. He was a few months away from graduating from college. The purchase took place right at Christmas-time.

None of us knows Lance's financial situation. $30,000 is a lot of money, but some people have trusts or annuities set up that pay them when they reach the age of majority. Some relatives give expensive gifts on 21st birthdays and college graduations.

There are any number of perfectly legitimate reasons Lance could have had money.

I was thinking "Sugar-mama". What college boy wouldn't want one of those? I sure would have when I was a college boy! The difference between me and Lance is that he coulda GOT one... me; not so much.

[CDu]

Lance had celebrated his 21st birthday in April of that year. He was a few months away from graduating from college. The purchase took place right at Christmas-time.

None of us knows Lance's financial situation. $30,000 is a lot of money, but some people have trusts or annuities set up that pay them when they reach the age of majority. Some relatives give expensive gifts on 21st birthdays and college graduations.

There are any number of perfectly legitimate reasons Lance could have had money. There are also some not-so legitimate possibilities. But no one has enough information to make that judgment at the moment - let's presume the best until someone comes forward with evidence of the worst.

I totally agree. I wasn't in any way implying that Thomas committed any foul play. It is absolutely possible that Thomas got the $30K legitimately. It is absolutely possible that Thomas got the money in a dirty manner. It's also absolutely possible that Thomas never spent $30K on the jewelry in the first place. I was just clarifying a few things based on reasonable probability (especially with regard to the credit card possibility).

[oldnavy]

I totally agree. I wasn't in any way implying that Thomas committed any foul play. It is absolutely possible that Thomas got the $30K legitimately. It is absolutely possible that Thomas got the money in a dirty manner. It's also absolutely possible that Thomas never spent $30K on the jewelry in the first place. I was just clarifying a few things based on reasonable probability (especially with regard to the credit card possibility).

Thanks for the education. We never opened the offers made to my son, so I was just making an assumption based on the offers that I get. Just a wild thought....

[BD80]

... Hard to judge much about this until the answer is filed. ...

Has anyone even seen the complaint? In the Dez Bryant complaint linked above, 75% of the jewelry allegedly purchased was "on account" - based on invoices only, no written acknowledgement of receipt by Bryant - at least the exhibits showed no acknowledgement of receipt - a significant issue in such a transaction.

Silence is best.

For those determined to speculate - there are scenarios that do not lead to Armaggedon: Lance does buy some things for $30k, discusses a few other pieces that the jeweler assumes to be a "custom order" "on account." The jeweler repeatedly tries to get Lance to buy the additional pieces, claiming they were made just for Lance (they match what he previously bought). Lance says no thanks. The pieces don't sell, the jeweler resorts to threats, and eventually sues for $70k even though the stuff is still in the jeweler's possession and only worth $15k. What should Lance be saying? Nothing.

[gus]

Only if someone had that money to give to you (which is possible). But remember: it's not just that he allegedly had $30K. It's that he allegedly had enough disposable income to spend $30K on jewelry (allegedly being the operative word here, of course). One would assume that he wouldn't spend every dime he had on jewelry.

I somehow forgot that scholarship athletes are not allowed to have jobs. (that restriction is just during the school year, right?). Only being able to work a few weeks a year would have made it quite a bit harder.

[-bdbd]

Has anyone even seen the complaint? In the Dez Bryant complaint linked above, 75% of the jewelry allegedly purchased was "on account" - based on invoices only, no written acknowledgement of receipt by Bryant - at least the exhibits showed no acknowledgement of receipt - a significant issue in such a transaction.

Silence is best.

For those determined to speculate - there are scenarios that do not lead to Armaggedon: Lance does buy some things for $30k, discusses a few other pieces that the jeweler assumes to be a "custom order" "on account." The jeweler repeatedly tries to get Lance to buy the additional pieces, claiming they were made just for Lance (they match what he previously bought). Lance says no thanks. The pieces don't sell, the jeweler resorts to threats, and eventually sues for $70k even though the stuff is still in the jeweler's possession and only worth $15k. What should Lance be saying? Nothing.

Yes, as Nifong taught us, wait until all the facts are in. I am downright angry that many in the media are taking the lawsuit description of the details, and the comments of their lawyer, and running with them as "fact." Big mistake.

Another scenario could be that LT's mom co-signed for the purchase, or for the financing, etc. Certainly she could have easily been the source of the original $30K. Who knows??

But one thing that really doesn't smell right to me: Clearly this lawyer is going out of his way to embarrass LT, and Duke along with him (why else the "hypothetical" comments about it possibly being an NCAA violation??!). My guess is that this was done to push LT or some other Duke benefactor into paying the $70K just to make it all go away. But here's what doesn't smell right in particular: They waited 2.5 years to file this suit. WHAT WENT ON IN THOSE INTERVENING 33 MONTHS? Did they not approach LT for the money? Did they not threaten a suit? If so, since he obviously has the money now, WHY DID LT CHOOSE TO LET IT GO TO A SUIT? Clearly not all of the facts are known, and in all likelihood LT has a good reason not to fork over that dough... Who knows, maybe BD80's scenario is in play...
:rolleyes:

[moonpie23]

depending on the local laws, the age of the debt doesn't matter....i had a co-pay of $50 from an orlando hospital i had to take my son to on a disney trip come back to haunt me after 7 years...we paid the co-pay while in the emergency room, but they had no record of it....they sent it to some lowlife collection company who held it for 7 years and then sent it back as "unfound - uncollectible"......when the hospital got it back they just called me on the phone (cause i still had the same home number.....

[Olympic Fan]

I somehow forgot that scholarship athletes are not allowed to have jobs. (that restriction is just during the school year, right?). Only being able to work a few weeks a year would have made it quite a bit harder.

The restriction against athletes having jobs during the season was lifted almost a decade ago. Realictically, very few football and/or basketball players can handle in-season jobs. But there is no rule against it.

Most basketball players can and do work during the summer.

[TruBlu]

I was thinking "Sugar-mama". What college boy wouldn't want one of those? I sure would have when I was a college boy! The difference between me and Lance is that he coulda GOT one... me; not so much.

Let's hope it isn't the same type of "Sugar-mama" that Clyde the Glide Austin had at N. C. State. IIRC, Clyde drove two brand new cars, which were purchased for him by his "Sugar-mama" girlfriend who worked as an (apparently) very well paid bank teller.

[Brian913]

There is no way a college student with presumably minimal credit history and no salary would be able to legally get his own credit card for $10K. I believe that my first credit card, as a 21 year old, had a $250 limit. I had to open a joint account with my mom to get a $5,000 credit limit. And once I had a job, that credit limit was bumped up to $7,500. Unless Thomas got his parents to open 3 credit accounts under his and their names, this isn't remotely plausible.

So yes. For a 21-year old college student, $30K is a LOT of money.

Until the Feds nationalized the student loan business last year, a student could get a non-government student loan for up to the cost of attendence every year, with just a signature. That includes athletes. Easily could add up to much more than $30K

[Duvall]

Until the Feds nationalized the student loan business last year, a student could get a non-government student loan for up to the cost of attendence every year, with just a signature. That includes athletes. Easily could add up to much more than $30K

Uh, wouldn't that be fraud? I guess that would be better for Duke from an NCAA perspective, but it's hardly a reassuring theory.

[Brian913]

Uh, wouldn't that be fraud? I guess that would be better for Duke from an NCAA perspective, but it's hardly a reassuring theory.

How would that be fraud? You can spend the money anyway you want - pay tuition, buy a car, go to a casino.

[Duvall]

How would that be fraud? You can spend the money anyway you want - pay tuition, buy a car, go to a casino.

I suppose it would depend on the terms of the loan, but taking a loan from a program designed to offer money to pay educational expenses when you don't actually *have* educational expenses seems somewhat questionable.

[DukeSean]

The restriction against athletes having jobs during the season was lifted almost a decade ago. Realictically, very few football and/or basketball players can handle in-season jobs. But there is no rule against it.

Most basketball players can and do work during the summer.

I remember reading the article on Gbinije working in the coffee shop on East, so yes basketball players can work while on scholarship. I don't remember if the article stated whether or not he worked during the season, however.

[jimsumner]

Until the Feds nationalized the student loan business last year, a student could get a non-government student loan for up to the cost of attendence every year, with just a signature. That includes athletes. Easily could add up to much more than $30K

Again, folks, we're making totally unsubstantiated, totally unsupported conjectures. Lance Thomas did not grow up on the mean streets. Why assume that he came up with that money through any mechanism other than family resources?

[Brian913]

Again, folks, we're making totally unsubstantiated, totally unsupported conjectures. Lance Thomas did not grow up on the mean streets. Why assume that he came up with that money through any mechanism other than family resources?

Who is assuming that he grew up on the "mean streets?" Lots of people used to get private loans - for a lot of different reasons.

[Brian913]

I suppose it would depend on the terms of the loan, but taking a loan from a program designed to offer money to pay educational expenses when you don't actually *have* educational expenses seems somewhat questionable.

If nothing else there is a large gap between the value of a scholarship and the cost of attendence.

Do you also think it's fraud that athletes coming from low income families get Pell grants?

[Duvall]

If nothing else there is a large gap between the value of a scholarship and the cost of attendence.

And if the loan is being used to bridge that gap, there wouldn't be a problem. That's not what you are talking about, though.

[Newton_14]

Until we get all of the facts (which may never happen) speculating on where Lance obtained the down payment money, is just that. Speculation. The situation will play out, mostly behind the scene. At some point the NCAA will release a statement regarding what their investigation found. Hopefully they will state that their investigation found no violation of NCAA rules, which will be all I care about.

[ncexnyc]

It's a shame that the majority of the top ten current threads deal with some unsavory issues. The basketball season can't get here soon enough.

[Brian913]

And if the loan is being used to bridge that gap, there wouldn't be a problem. That's not what you are talking about, though.

So you get a loan to cover the difference, and use it for the things you want - how is there anything wrong with that?

[Cameron]

Thanks for the education. We never opened the offers made to my son, so I was just making an assumption based on the offers that I get. Just a wild thought....

I don't think your thought is all that wild, actually. I opened my first credit card, which had a $2,500 spending limit, through my bank when I was 18. After utterly important purchases that included everything from obligatory Ping putters to car sound systems that rivaled the decibel levels of a tractor pull and never missing a monthly payment, by the time I had turned 21 my increasingly good credit had earned me a card that was worth over $8,500. That's not even taking into consideration the other three additional cards that I opened up during that period of time, all featuring varying lines of available credit ranging from $2,500 to $8,500. So, all told, I probably had close to $20,000 worth of available credit while a senior in college, if not more.

While I certainly never came close to finding out how much I could spend (I opened one or two of the cards simply as balance transfer opportunities for lower APR rates), I do know from experience that, if you open a couple of credit cards early on in college, put some serious cash on them (as I did on multiple Caribbean getaways and binges in Vegas) and then work hard to pay them off while maintaining a good credit score, you can very easily have tens of thousands of dollars in credit at the tips of your fingers.

Rule number one would be to not do this. If you do, however, rule number two would be to have a fundamental understanding that you are in fact not Mike Jackson. I followed neither of those rules.

It's certainly possible that Lance not only had a long line of credit available, but also a nice amount of money saved in the bank dating back to his childhood. That, combined with his belief that he would become a pro and be able to pay everything back no problem, might have led to a perfect spending spree. This is obviously all speculation.

[ForkFondler]

Here is what I consider to be the main facts here:

1. Lance got sucked in by a shady jeweler.
2. There is no Duke motive.
3. UNC still deserves 99+% of the scorn.

[DevilYouthCoach]

Here is what I consider to be the main facts here:

1. Lance got sucked in by a shady jeweler.
2. There is no Duke motive.
3. UNC still deserves 99+% of the scorn.



I agree. Most postings seem to assume that the jeweler is legit and that the lawsuit is legit. I am assuming exactly the opposite. Shysters in New York are pretty common. I lived there for a decade and chuckled at a lot of the ruses that were played constantly. Ever watch a three card monte artist? The jewelry business is not too different.