NCAA finds no violations in Lance Thomas jewelry investigation.

[Duvall]

Case closed. (http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/2013/04/30/ncaa-finds-no-violations-lance-thomas-jewelry-investigation)

[loran16]

That's one way of putting it. The other, which others will accurately point out, is:


Lance and the Jeweler didn't talk to the NCAA. Case didn't go to a (public) trial. NCAA had no basis for any violations.

Let's leave it at that. Nothing to be happy about here - the whole situation sucks, let's just hope we don't hear anything about such a thing and a Duke player again.

[Duvall]

Nothing to be happy about here

I'm quite happy to see that the NCAA wasn't mau-maued into some pointless punishment by lazy writers feeding red meat to half-witted readers.

[loran16]

I'm quite happy to see that the NCAA wasn't mau-maued into some pointless punishment by lazy writers feeding red meat to half-witted readers.

The NCAA couldn't do anything. Especially with the Miami thing in the headlines - though they had no leverage to get info on Lance. That said, I'm not sure why you should be happy.

[Chicago 1995]

I'm quite happy to see that the NCAA wasn't mau-maued into some pointless punishment by lazy writers feeding red meat to half-witted readers.

It's been discussed and debated here to death, but there's an argument that while Duke did nothing wrong, Lance took an impermissable beneft from the jeweler with the financing deal (and I realize that's an open question) and was thus ineligble. It's pretty standard for the NCAA to punish programs who unknowingly played an ineligble player, from Memphis and Derrick Rose to UMass and Marcus Camby or Arizona and Jason Terry. Lots of examples of that kind of strict liability finding by the NCAA. Had we been punished, it wouldn't have been any more or less pointless than those punishments.

[cf-62]

That's one way of putting it. The other, which others will accurately point out, is:



Let's leave it at that. Nothing to be happy about here - the whole situation sucks, let's just hope we don't hear anything about such a thing and a Duke player again.

Regardless of the ACTUAL facts, any NCAA investigation that could impact eligibility -- and thus, a championship -- should be respected as such --- AND you should be happy that the investigation is closed.

You can be unhappy that he did something dumb - and dumber - all you want. But be happy that OFFICIALLLY, there is no question of eligibility.

[Duvall]

It's been discussed and debated here to death, but there's an argument that while Duke did nothing wrong, Lance took an impermissable beneft from the jeweler with the financing deal (and I realize that's an open question) and was thus ineligble. It's pretty standard for the NCAA to punish programs who unknowingly played an ineligble player, from Memphis and Derrick Rose to UMass and Marcus Camby or Arizona and Jason Terry. Lots of examples of that kind of strict liability finding by the NCAA. Had we been punished, it wouldn't have been any more or less pointless than those punishments.

Except that in those cases, there was evidence that the players had taken impermissible benefits. Here, there is nothing.

[Chicago 1995]

Except that in those cases, there was evidence that the players had taken impermissible benefits. Here, there is nothing.

There's $70K of unexplained financing. Maybe that's the norm for high end custom jewelry, and they'll give credit like that to anyone. But without that explanation, there is evidence of an impermissable benefit. That it's impermissable can be rebutted. But it hasn't been here. The letter of the NCAA law, from what I remember when this all broke, was pretty clear that a loan based on future earning potential for an athlete is an impermissable benefit.

[UrinalCake]

I'm glad this seems to be behind us finally, but a little worried about what sort of precedent this might set:

- Booster for Big University pays player $XXX to attend their school
- Booster and player agree not to talk about it
- NCAA has no authority.

It kind of seems like as long as no one finds out until after the player has left the school, there's nothing the NCAA can do. Am I missing something?

Also, what Lance was accused of doing (receiving a loan based on presumed ability to repay in the future) is a far, far less serious act IMO than what Rose did (having someone take his SAT's for him) or Camby (receiving cash outright). I don't remember what Terry did.

[Duvall]

There's $70K of unexplained financing. Maybe that's the norm for high end custom jewelry, and they'll give credit like that to anyone. But without that explanation, there is evidence of an impermissable benefit.

How did you make the leap from "unexplained" to "evidence"? That's a conclusion based on, well, nothing.

[Duvall]

I'm glad this seems to be behind us finally, but a little worried about what sort of precedent this might set:

- Booster for Big University pays player $XXX to attend their school
- Booster and player agree not to talk about it
- NCAA has no authority.

It kind of seems like as long as no one finds out until after the player has left the school, there's nothing the NCAA can do. Am I missing something?

Yeah, all the cases in which that exact scenario already happened. It's the inevitable result of an enforcement agency without subpoena power.

[Chicago 1995]

Also, what Lance was accused of doing (receiving a loan based on presumed ability to repay in the future) is a far, far less serious act IMO than what Rose did (having someone take his SAT's for him) or Camby (receiving cash outright). I don't remember what Terry did.

I don't think there's much difference between getting a financing on a piece of property and getting cash as Camby (and I think Terry) did.

I do agree that there's a difference between Rose did and what Lance may have done (or what Camby and Terry did).

[Chicago 1995]

How did you make the leap from "unexplained" to "evidence"? That's a conclusion based on, well, nothing.

There's the jewelry that he actually had and the photos of him wearing some of the jewelry. And there's the contract that was attached to the suit that shows that he put $30K down and got $67.8K in financing. That's evidence.

[Duvall]

There's the jewelry that he actually had and the photos of him wearing some of the jewelry. And there's the contract that was attached to the suit that shows that he put $30K down and got $67.8K in financing. That's evidence.

That's evidence of a purchase. It is manifestly not evidence that any aspect of the purchase violated an NCAA rule.

[crimsonandblue]

I'm glad this seems to be behind us finally, but a little worried about what sort of precedent this might set:

- Booster for Big University pays player $XXX to attend their school
- Booster and player agree not to talk about it
- NCAA has no authority.

It kind of seems like as long as no one finds out until after the player has left the school, there's nothing the NCAA can do. Am I missing something?

Also, what Lance was accused of doing (receiving a loan based on presumed ability to repay in the future) is a far, far less serious act IMO than what Rose did (having someone take his SAT's for him) or Camby (receiving cash outright). I don't remember what Terry did.

Not sure about the Rose situation. If it was just Rose falsifying records to get into school, I'm not sure where that falls on the "moral dilemma" scale versus trading on your athletic status for an impermissible benefit (financing, cash, whatever). Personally, I'd say Rose's personal actions were less troubling to me, but YMMV.

But, if Memphis actively promoted Rose falsifying records, I'd agree that school culpability is certainly higher than anything Duke would have been responsible for (which very well may have been -zippo-).

[Chicago 1995]

That's evidence of a purchase. It is manifestly not evidence that any aspect of the purchase violated an NCAA rule.

A loan that large for an athlete? What basis, other than future earnings, could the loan be based upon?

The rulles here are dumb. That the NCAA is wasting time and spilling ink over investigations like this is silly, given that no one has begun to claim Duke knew anything about it or did anything to aid Lance here. Duke's an innocent if any violation at all happened. There are real scandals out there. There's the one 8 miles down the road. There's the still uninvestigated claim that Anthony Davis got $250,000 to go to UK. There's Miami.

But these are the rules, and this doesn't appear to comport with the rules. Absent an explanation, there's a strong argument it is a violation.

[Duvall]

A loan that large for an athlete? What basis, other than future earnings, could the loan be based upon?

Aside from the $30,000 deposit?

As I recall, the "loan" was for 90 days. That's not a line of credit, that's a payment plan.

[sagegrouse]

There's $70K of unexplained financing. Maybe that's the norm for high end custom jewelry, and they'll give credit like that to anyone. But without that explanation, there is evidence of an impermissable benefit. That it's impermissable can be rebutted. But it hasn't been here. The letter of the NCAA law, from what I remember when this all broke, was pretty clear that a loan based on future earning potential for an athlete is an impermissable benefit.


How did you make the leap from "unexplained" to "evidence"? That's a conclusion based on, well, nothing.

So, Chicago, lessee... I think you have left us with a mess of pottage. There's the "$70K," a number in dispute, it appears. There's "financing," which is your term, not mine (or anyone else's). There's "evidence," which appears to be just conjecture on your part. There's "benefit," which is what? That he was allowed to walk out of the door with some junk jewelry, after paying real money? There's "impermissible," which is another term you made up that appears to have no basis. Is a stupid purchase against NCAA rules? And you assert that, while it can be "rebutted," "it hasn't been here." Do you mean, because you made up some charges, then Lance and Duke are guilty because the the great unwashed DBR masses don't take up your challenge to rebut charges that you made up?

And aside from your service to Duke basketball, what else have you accomplished today?

This whole incident looks like a dispute between a customer and a retailer, having nothing to do with basketball, Duke, the NCAA, or anything else. It also appears that whatever money changed hands was Lance's.

sagegrouse

[MCFinARL]

So, Chicago, lessee... I think you have left us with a mess of pottage. There's the "$70K," a number in dispute, it appears. There's "financing," which is your term, not mine (or anyone else's). There's "evidence," which appears to be just conjecture on your part. There's "benefit," which is what? That he was allowed to walk out of the door with some junk jewelry, after paying real money? There's "impermissible," which is another term you made up that appears to have no basis. Is a stupid purchase against NCAA rules? And you assert that, while it can be "rebutted," "it hasn't been here." Do you mean, because you made up some charges, then Lance and Duke are guilty because the the great unwashed DBR masses don't take up your challenge to rebut charges that you made up?

And aside from your service to Duke basketball, what else have you accomplished today?

This whole incident looks like a dispute between a customer and a retailer, having nothing to do with basketball, Duke, the NCAA, or anything else. It also appears that whatever money changed hands was Lance's.

sagegrouse

Bravo!

[miramar]

The letter of the NCAA law, from what I remember when this all broke, was pretty clear that a loan based on future earning potential for an athlete is an impermissable benefit.

Since Lance was averaging only five PPG at the time and nobody expected him to make the NBA, the loan did not appear to be based on future earnings for an athlete.

I wish that Lance had spent his $30K on something else, but I can see why the NCAA would drop the case, especially since the two sides settled their differences. I'm also glad that they didn't assume that silence equals guilt, as they threatened to do with Miami. I know that they are a private organization, but the NCAA should have equitable procedures.

[Chicago 1995]

So, Chicago, lessee... I think you have left us with a mess of pottage. There's the "$70K," a number in dispute, it appears. There's "financing," which is your term, not mine (or anyone else's). There's "evidence," which appears to be just conjecture on your part. There's "benefit," which is what? That he was allowed to walk out of the door with some junk jewelry, after paying real money? There's "impermissible," which is another term you made up that appears to have no basis. Is a stupid purchase against NCAA rules? And you assert that, while it can be "rebutted," "it hasn't been here." Do you mean, becasue you made up some charges, then Lance and Duke are guilty because the the great unwashed DBR masses don't take up your challenge to rebut charges that you made up?

And aside from your service to Duke basketball, what else have you accomplished today?

This whole incident looks like a dispute between a customer and a retailer, having nothing to do with basketball, Duke, the NCAA, or anything else. It also appears that whatever money changed hands was Lance's.

sagegrouse

If this same suit got filed against Reggie Bullock or DeMarcus Cousins or Alex Len would we be as sympathetic? Of course we wouldn't. This board is better than this. It's disappointing. I don't like that this happened. I don't want Duke to be sanctioned. But the denial that there's a good reason to ask questions here is bad form, I think, and that the NCAA decision to go no further because no one cooperated with the investigation doesn't exonerate anyone.

As for the rest of this, I don't think I made much up.

The concern is that Lance got an impermissible benefit (that's a term that's often used in discussing NCAA eligbility cases -- didn't make that up) as a student athlete because he paid $30,000 for $97,800 in jewlery, and was given financing on $67,800 of the rest. That's all from the documents attached to the complaint filed against Lance by the jeweler. Didn't make that up either. There are pictures of Lance with some of the jewelry. Didn't make that up either.

As for using "financing" to describe the transaction, I don't know what else you would call that since he didn't pay it at the time of purchase. Payment plan, loan, financing. Doesn't really matter. NCAA rules are clear athletes can't trade on future earning power to get benefits while student athletes. This is no different from JaDeveon Clowney getting a loan now to by a Ferrari based on him being the #1 pick in the NFL draft. If JaDeveon did that, there would be no question he'd sacrificed his eligbility in taking the loan and the car.

Maybe I was doing it all wrong, but there's no way I could have have gotten a payment plan, loan or financing on $67,800 of anything in December of my senior year at Duke. I think for the average student, that's likely true. Lance got $67,800 dollars of credit on a purchase when he was a college student. That doesn't raise a question as to the circumstances of that financing/loan/extension of credit? What basis other than future earning potential would explain the jeweler extending that financing/loan/credit? And while a Duke student going to work at McKinsey or Goldman Sachs can get a loan based on future earning potential, a student athlete, no matter how unfair, can't.

The rule might well be stupid -- I think most of the NCAA's rules and it's spotty and inconsistent enforcement of those rules is generally stupid -- but the rules are what they are. None of us like them, but that doesn't mean there's not a legitimate concern there's a violation here. And it sure as hell doesn't mean I was making anything up.

[-jk]

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.



If this same suit got filed against Reggie Bullock or DeMarcus Cousins or Alex Len would we be as sympathetic? Of course we wouldn't. This board is better than this. It's disappointing. I don't like that this happened. I don't want Duke to be sanctioned. But the denial that there's a good reason to ask questions here is bad form, I think, and that the NCAA decision to go no further because no one cooperated with the investigation doesn't exonerate anyone.

As for the rest of this, I don't think I made much up.

The concern is that Lance got an impermissible benefit (that's a term that's often used in discussing NCAA eligbility cases -- didn't make that up) as a student athlete because he paid $30,000 for $97,800 in jewlery, and was given financing on $67,800 of the rest. That's all from the documents attached to the complaint filed against Lance by the jeweler. Didn't make that up either. There are pictures of Lance with some of the jewelry. Didn't make that up either.

As for using "financing" to describe the transaction, I don't know what else you would call that since he didn't pay it at the time of purchase. Payment plan, loan, financing. Doesn't really matter. NCAA rules are clear athletes can't trade on future earning power to get benefits while student athletes. This is no different from JaDeveon Clowney getting a loan now to by a Ferrari based on him being the #1 pick in the NFL draft. If JaDeveon did that, there would be no question he'd sacrificed his eligbility in taking the loan and the car.

Maybe I was doing it all wrong, but there's no way I could have have gotten a payment plan, loan or financing on $67,800 of anything in December of my senior year at Duke. I think for the average student, that's likely true. Lance got $67,800 dollars of credit on a purchase when he was a college student. That doesn't raise a question as to the circumstances of that financing/loan/extension of credit? What basis other than future earning potential would explain the jeweler extending that financing/loan/credit? And while a Duke student going to work at McKinsey or Goldman Sachs can get a loan based on future earning potential, a student athlete, no matter how unfair, can't.

The rule might well be stupid -- I think most of the NCAA's rules and it's spotty and inconsistent enforcement of those rules is generally stupid -- but the rules are what they are. None of us like them, but that doesn't mean there's not a legitimate concern there's a violation here. And it sure as hell doesn't mean I was making anything up.

You've been tilting at this windmill for some time. Given the usual markup on jewelry, I'd be surprised if the jeweler would have been out much if Lance hadn't paid, and Lance was in no position to have "future earnings" sufficient to pay a 15 day loan.

Just because someone makes a questionable purchase (the guy's jewelry is god-awful, imho) doesn't mean it was a nefarious purchase.

-jk

[tommy]

If this same suit got filed against Reggie Bullock or DeMarcus Cousins or Alex Len would we be as sympathetic? Of course we wouldn't. This board is better than this. It's disappointing. I don't like that this happened. I don't want Duke to be sanctioned. But the denial that there's a good reason to ask questions here is bad form, I think, and that the NCAA decision to go no further because no one cooperated with the investigation doesn't exonerate anyone.

As for the rest of this, I don't think I made much up.

The concern is that Lance got an impermissible benefit (that's a term that's often used in discussing NCAA eligbility cases -- didn't make that up) as a student athlete because he paid $30,000 for $97,800 in jewlery, and was given financing on $67,800 of the rest. That's all from the documents attached to the complaint filed against Lance by the jeweler. Didn't make that up either. There are pictures of Lance with some of the jewelry. Didn't make that up either.

As for using "financing" to describe the transaction, I don't know what else you would call that since he didn't pay it at the time of purchase. Payment plan, loan, financing. Doesn't really matter. NCAA rules are clear athletes can't trade on future earning power to get benefits while student athletes. This is no different from JaDeveon Clowney getting a loan now to by a Ferrari based on him being the #1 pick in the NFL draft. If JaDeveon did that, there would be no question he'd sacrificed his eligbility in taking the loan and the car.

Maybe I was doing it all wrong, but there's no way I could have have gotten a payment plan, loan or financing on $67,800 of anything in December of my senior year at Duke. I think for the average student, that's likely true. Lance got $67,800 dollars of credit on a purchase when he was a college student. That doesn't raise a question as to the circumstances of that financing/loan/extension of credit? What basis other than future earning potential would explain the jeweler extending that financing/loan/credit? And while a Duke student going to work at McKinsey or Goldman Sachs can get a loan based on future earning potential, a student athlete, no matter how unfair, can't.

The rule might well be stupid -- I think most of the NCAA's rules and it's spotty and inconsistent enforcement of those rules is generally stupid -- but the rules are what they are. None of us like them, but that doesn't mean there's not a legitimate concern there's a violation here. And it sure as hell doesn't mean I was making anything up.

With all due respect, the assumptions underlying your posts are not valid. When one makes an accusation, it is incumbent upon him or her to bring forth evidence that the accused is guilty of the violation with which he is charged. It is not the responsiblity of the person charged to explain himself or his actions or to otherwise prove his innocence of the charge.

You have apparently backed off your initial position that there was "evidence" of wrongdoing by Lance to the much more reasonable position that there was "good reason to ask questions." I agree. There was good reason to ask questions. It sounds like the NCAA asked those questions and didn't get any answers, or didn't get enough in the answers it did receive, to prove that a violation occurred here. Thus, the case was closed.

Who knows what the reason for the loan was? Who knows what Lance's family's financial situation was? Who knows what the jeweler's true motivations were? I don't think any of us know those answers. And without those answers, nobody -- including the NCAA -- can state with any degree of credibility that there were any impermissible benefits accorded to Lance.

When an accuser cannot prove his allegations, responsibility for the dismissal of the case lands at his feet. Contrary to what you apparently believe -- and correct me if I'm wrong as to that -- the accused has no obligation whatsoever to assist in the investigation, and the failure of the accused to assist in the investigation is not evidence of guilt. Repeat: not evidence of guilt. Your statement that "without that explanation (of the reasons for the credit), there is evidence of an impermissable benefit." Not so. That is not evidence. Not in the American system of justice.

[UrinalCake]

Since Lance was averaging only five PPG at the time and nobody expected him to make the NBA, the loan did not appear to be based on future earnings for an athlete.

That and the fact that it was a 15-day loan, so he wouldn't have any NBA money by the time it was due regardless

Chicago, if you had put down a $30k downpayment as a college student, I wouldn't consider it out if the question that a jeweler would give you 15 days to pay the remainder.

[lotusland]

So all we know now is that Lance Lawyered up and the NCAA couldn't prove the money was not permissible. Where the money came from is evidently a secret and secrets are things you don't want people to know. Hate to say it but this ending reminds of UK fans saying that Calipari has never been personally implicated in any rules violations. It's true but but does not inspire admiration. If everything was permissible Lance could prove it if he wanted to. He doesn't have to prove it but he could if he wanted to. So why doesn't Lance want to?

[roywhite]

So all we know now is that Lance Lawyered up and the NCAA couldn't prove the money was not permissible. Where the money came from is evidently a secret and secrets are things you don't want people to know. Hate to say it but this ending reminds of UK fans saying that Calipari has never been personally implicated in any rules violations. It's true but but does not inspire admiration. If everything was permissible Lance could prove it if he wanted to. He doesn't have to prove it but he could if he wanted to. So why doesn't Lance want to?

A secret? more like private business; do we have a right or need to know Lance's private business?
Equivalence to Calipari? Say what??
Why doesn't Lance want to? I don't know; because he values his own privacy, and settled with the jeweler?

Why put a nefarious spin on info we don't know and aren't likely to know?
Haven't our basketball coaches and players earned some trust and benefit of the doubt? I'll truly presume innocence here until and unless there is something solid to the contrary.

[sagegrouse]

If this same suit got filed against Reggie Bullock or DeMarcus Cousins or Alex Len would we be as sympathetic? Of course we wouldn't. This board is better than this. It's disappointing. I don't like that this happened. I don't want Duke to be sanctioned. But the denial that there's a good reason to ask questions here is bad form, I think, and that the NCAA decision to go no further because no one cooperated with the investigation doesn't exonerate anyone.

As for the rest of this, I don't think I made much up.

The concern is that Lance got an impermissible benefit (that's a term that's often used in discussing NCAA eligbility cases -- didn't make that up) as a student athlete because he paid $30,000 for $97,800 in jewlery, and was given financing on $67,800 of the rest. That's all from the documents attached to the complaint filed against Lance by the jeweler. Didn't make that up either. There are pictures of Lance with some of the jewelry. Didn't make that up either.

As for using "financing" to describe the transaction, I don't know what else you would call that since he didn't pay it at the time of purchase. Payment plan, loan, financing. Doesn't really matter. NCAA rules are clear athletes can't trade on future earning power to get benefits while student athletes. This is no different from JaDeveon Clowney getting a loan now to by a Ferrari based on him being the #1 pick in the NFL draft. If JaDeveon did that, there would be no question he'd sacrificed his eligbility in taking the loan and the car.

Maybe I was doing it all wrong, but there's no way I could have have gotten a payment plan, loan or financing on $67,800 of anything in December of my senior year at Duke. I think for the average student, that's likely true. Lance got $67,800 dollars of credit on a purchase when he was a college student. That doesn't raise a question as to the circumstances of that financing/loan/extension of credit? What basis other than future earning potential would explain the jeweler extending that financing/loan/credit? And while a Duke student going to work at McKinsey or Goldman Sachs can get a loan based on future earning potential, a student athlete, no matter how unfair, can't.

The rule might well be stupid -- I think most of the NCAA's rules and it's spotty and inconsistent enforcement of those rules is generally stupid -- but the rules are what they are. None of us like them, but that doesn't mean there's not a legitimate concern there's a violation here. And it sure as hell doesn't mean I was making anything up.

Chicago, you come on here with assertions and insinuations against a highly respected Duke player, a team captain and a leader on the court. It was as bad as anything in the National Enquirer or the NY Post. And you act like it is our responsibility to clear it up. I'll have more on that later. Now, would we react the same if the accusations had been against Bullock or Cousins? Hell, no! But why should that matter? This is a Duke fans' site. And, I for one, will respond to any attack on a Dukie, if I think it is unfair, and have done so many times. I would not do the same for accusations against those other players. (Although, much of Cousins' mayhem has been amply videotaped.)

I prefer to believe that Lance was naive and the jeweler was a crook. I think we all believed and still believe that Lance is an upstanding citizen. The jeweler, if I recall correctly, is a Russian-Ukrainian emigre doing business in the jewelry district of NYC. That stuff he was selling -- "black diamonds" -- is more like black coal than real diamonds. Now, you can believe the opposite: the jeweler was naive and Lance is a crook. Your choice.

My understanding from the earlier thread is that the money was Lance's and came from family gifts. He was an only child in a middle class family who got a free ride to a great university. Not hard to see that Mom or some aunts and uncles may have given Lance some money. And the idea that the Lance should be under suspicion because of the big bucks he was gonna earn in the NBA is a real hoot -- even three years later, when he actually made it to the NBA. If this were a surefire lottery pick, well maybe the thought would cross one's mind.

Then there is the well-reasoned position of Tommy, who points out that the burden, the entire burden, is on the accuser in a case like this. Neither Lance nor Duke has to prove a thing. And, of course, Lance would be operating on the advice of counsel, and he would be a complete fool to ignore such advice. As a result, I doubt seriously that Lance said very much to the NCAA. (The last person I remember who ignored the advice of counsel was Martha Stewart, who did time only because she talked to the people her lawyer advised her not to talk to.)

And then we have JK's point. (BTW, did you all know that Jim3K and I were in -jk's granddaddy's house before he was even born?) The cost basis of the jewelry was probably a lot less than the $30K payment that Lance made. And the quick settlement suggests that Lance didn't have to come up with much additional scratch to put the legal issue to bed.

Anyway, this is my story, and I am sticking to it.

sagegrouse

[ForkFondler]

(the guy's jewelry is god-awful, imho)
-jk

The principle source of embarrassment, imnho.

[307Brown]

That fact that we will likely never hear the full story is frustrating.

However, to even reach the conclusion that there are facts in the story that concern NCAA eligibility issues requires one to make numerous assumptions. I won't bother to include even a partial list here. The closing of the investigation moots the need to cover that ground again. Many of the assumptions have been mentioned in this and other threads.

More currently relevant is the reaction by some here (and by many of our rivals and sport media) to the NCAA closing its investigation, and the belief that the full story was never known by the NCAA because Lance and the jeweler refused to cooperate. This seems like a big assumption. Maybe I missed a link to a source stating as much. But, from what I've seen, the NCAA declined to comment, per its policy. Duke said "The NCAA has found no evidence of a rules violation in this situation based on the information available." This is not the same as saying that information was not made available. Lance and the jeweler reached a confidential settlement, but, for all we know, the confidentiality terms could have permitted Lance and/or the jeweler to cooperate with the NCAA (especially if the NCAA agreed to keep certain details confidential), but otherwise prohibit broad dissemination of the terms of the settlement. Moreover, deeming terms of a settlement as confidential does not necessarily make the facts concerning a jewelry transaction confidential. Lance, the jeweler, Lance's family, etc. could have discussed the circumstances of a jewelery transaction without disclosing the terms of the settlement.

I'm not suggesting that we bury our heads in the sand ignore the possibility that one of our own did something wrong. By all means, ask questions and bring the truth to light as often an possible. But maybe start with "Did Lance cooperate with the NCAA?" instead of "Why didn't Lance cooperate with the NCAA?".

[Bluedog]

There's $70K of unexplained financing.

Yeah, it wasn't really "financing" as it was a 15-day clause. Clearly, that couldn't be based on future earnings as he'd still be in school. It's more like a jeweler wanted him to commit to the purchase so threw in a good sounding deal at the time to give him a few more months to come up with the funds - and, by then, he'd be stuck so would have to find a way. I'm sure jewelers try this tactic all the time to get people to buy more than they should really based on their finances.

[lotusland]

A secret? more like private business; do we have a right or need to know Lance's private business?
Equivalence to Calipari? Say what??
Why doesn't Lance want to? I don't know; because he values his own privacy, and settled with the jeweler?

Why put a nefarious spin on info we don't know and aren't likely to know?
Haven't our basketball coaches and players earned some trust and benefit of the doubt? I'll truly presume innocence here until and unless there is something solid to the contrary.

I don't disagree with anything you said except that I put a nefarious spin on it. I said Lance Doesn't have to come clean but he could if he wanted to put an end to any speculation. Evidently the benefit for keeping it private outweighs benefit of clearing up the matter and removing any doubt about where the money came from. I think we agree on that much I just don't like it. The court of public opinion is not the same as a court of law. Like it or not the jewelry purchase is suspicious for s student athlete who doesn't even have a job. That suspicion effects not only Lance but the program. Evidently his privacy means more to him than any of that. To me that is disappointing.

[Duvall]

I don't disagree with anything you said except that I put a nefarious spin on it. I said Lance Doesn't have to come clean but he could if he wanted to put an end to any speculation.

You know better than that. There is literally nothing Thomas could say that would put an end to speculation - there's too much money to be made from stoking spite and malice towards Duke.

[MattC09]

To clarify, the terms of the purchase were the $30k up front and the outstanding balance was to be paid in 15 days, not 90 days. That's not a loan based on potential future earnings, unless Lance has a heck of a bake sale in those 15 days. He put down $30k up front. I'm not into custom jewelry but it doesn't seem an unreasonable amount to finance over a short period if they put down that much on the purchase.

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

[dukeofcalabash]

I'm glad this seems to be behind us finally, but a little worried about what sort of precedent this might set:

- Booster for Big University pays player $XXX to attend their school
- Booster and player agree not to talk about it
- NCAA has no authority.

It kind of seems like as long as no one finds out until after the player has left the school, there's nothing the NCAA can do. Am I missing something?

Also, what Lance was accused of doing (receiving a loan based on presumed ability to repay in the future) is a far, far less serious act IMO than what Rose did (having someone take his SAT's for him) or Camby (receiving cash outright). I don't remember what Terry did.

Don't worry, even without Lance doing anything illegal there is enough going around in the NCAA to make everyone throw up!

[lotusland]

You know better than that. There is literally nothing Thomas could say that would put an end to speculation - there's too much money to be made from stoking spite and malice towards Duke.

no you are right there is nothing he can say. But he could prove where the money came from beyond a shadow of a doubt if he chose to.

[wilko]

I said it before and I'll say it again.
Lances money was 100% legit. He earned it teaching AFAM Studies classes at UNC

[CameronBlue]

You know better than that. There is literally nothing Thomas could say that would put an end to speculation - there's too much money to be made from stoking spite and malice towards Duke.

Holy Triple Spittake Batman! PUUUULLLLEEEEAAAASSSSEEEEE!! Can we not martyr the name of "Duke" to the cause of all that is good and just in the world? Let's just all convene in Wally Wade and have a mass falling on our swords. For God's sake.

307Brown had it right. There is plenty Lance could say that would put an end to reasonable speculation and agree or not, the assumptions and criticisms expressed in this thread have not been unreasonable IMO. The question is "Did Lance cooperate with the NCAA?" is relevant. If he did, the NCAA--or Duke should say so. Instead we have a statement which includes a troublesome qualifier "based on available information" which sounds like parsed language. Need something more definitive? "The NCAA has determined that the transactions between Lance Armstrong and the jeweler did not constitute a violation of NCAA rules."

[lotusland]

Holy Triple Spittake Batman! PUUUULLLLEEEEAAAASSSSEEEEE!! Can we not martyr the name of "Duke" to the cause of all that is good and just in the world? Let's just all convene in Wally Wade and have a mass falling on our swords. For God's sake.

307Brown had it right. There is plenty Lance could say that would put an end to reasonable speculation and agree or not, the assumptions and criticisms expressed in this thread have not been unreasonable IMO. The question is "Did Lance cooperate with the NCAA?" is relevant. If he did, the NCAA--or Duke should say so. Instead we have a statement which includes a troublesome qualifier "based on available information" which sounds like parsed language. Need something more definitive? "The NCAA has determined that the transactions between Lance Armstrong and the jeweler did not constitute a violation of NCAA rules."

And Lance Thomas' Tour De France Victories were not tainted by doping!

[turnandburn55]

If this same suit got filed against Reggie Bullock or DeMarcus Cousins or Alex Len would we be as sympathetic? Of course we wouldn't..

Fascinating. Just of curiosity, what inspired your decision to use guys who are (or were) projected lottery picks in this analogy rather than guys with no prospect of being drafted (like Lance Thomas)? Because if this suit was filed against a player who averaged 4-5 points per game on a team that had won 3 total tournament games in the last three years... then yes, I'd be pretty skeptical. I'd question the plausibility of an uninterested party lending out a significant chunk of cash to a dude whose future earnings prospects were... highly questionable.

[CameronBlue]

And Lance Thomas' Tour De France Victories were not tainted by doping!

Oh good grief. Why is it that all of DBR's sacred cows are named Lance? It gets confusing. (Not to besmirch our own Lance...in the least.)

[HK Dukie]

Did Lance talk with the NCAA or not?

I thought it was clear last September that he WOULD talk with the NCAA.

Are these articles on CBS and N&O (probably just citing CBS), making a false assumption of non cooperation because they are assuming guilt, or did Lance change his mind and not discuss the matter?

[BigWayne]

This is no different from JaDeveon Clowney getting a loan now to by a Ferrari based on him being the #1 pick in the NFL draft. If JaDeveon did that, there would be no question he'd sacrificed his eligbility in taking the loan and the car.



Many have skewered the rest of your ramblings, but this point just makes me laugh. Clowney is clearly expected to have a significant payday ahead, barring injury, but he has insurance for that. To argue that Lance Thomas' situation at the time of the jewelry purchase was in any way similar to Clowney now is patently absurd. Never mind it was a 15 day deal.

[bob blue devil]

For whatever it is worth, I agree with those who are pointing out that the transparency issue is troubling (assuming Lance did nothing wrong). Sure, Lance has no legal or moral obligation to say/demonstrate anything. The only reason he would say anything is if he cares how the interested world is going to view him, the 2010 team, Duke, Coach K, etc., in light of the existing negative press surrounding this. By saying nothing, Lance is leaving low hanging fruit for people seeking to sully the names of himself, his teammates, coaches and university - these are people/entities with good names worth protecting.

[bob blue devil]

If this same suit got filed against Reggie Bullock or DeMarcus Cousins or Alex Len would we be as sympathetic? Of course we wouldn't..


Fascinating. Just of curiosity, what inspired your decision to use guys who are (or were) projected lottery picks in this analogy rather than guys with no prospect of being drafted (like Lance Thomas)?
Reggie Bullock? Yikes, I hope not for my team.

[OldPhiKap]

If he signed a confidentiality agreement, as is typical in a civil settlement, he is prohibited from discussing the matter. It's just that simple.

This started with a lawsuit, and it ended as a resolved dispute. This is not atypical. The only difference here is that there are fans who feel entitled to know something more because they have a rooting interest for or against Duke. No litigant owes us anything.

Case closed, next case.

[devil84]

Regarding Lance's lawsuit, "That lawsuit was settled out of court in September with both sides agreeing to a confidentiality clause." (source (http://www.heraldsun.com/sports/x383678510/Thomas-investigation-shows-no-evidence-of-violation))

So, just what can Lance come out and say, since the bulk of what everyone wants to hear would be covered in the confidentiality agreement? I'm not a lawyer, but I'm thinking that, legally, there's a lot he cannot say.

For those of you needing to catch up on or review the facts of the case, complete with sources, start with this thread (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?29393-Lance-Thomas-Lawsuit).

[CDu]

Did Lance talk with the NCAA or not?

I thought it was clear last September that he WOULD talk with the NCAA.

Are these articles on CBS and N&O (probably just citing CBS), making a false assumption of non cooperation because they are assuming guilt, or did Lance change his mind and not discuss the matter?

I'm pretty sure Thomas did not talk to the NCAA. He and the jeweler signed a confidentiality agreement, and thus neither would speak out about the matter any further.

Since the NCAA doesn't have subpoena power, they had no way of forcing Thomas or the jeweler to talk. So since the NCAA couldn't get them to talk about it, they have no way to obtain evidence on the matter. Since they have no evidence, they could not find any wrongdoing. End of story.

I suspect that it was a shady situation, and I suspect that it was probably a violation had the facts come out. I hope I'm wrong, but it sounds like a very murky situation (and at the very least was an error in judgement by Thomas). Thankfully for us the final verdict is no penalty.

[roywhite]

I'm pretty sure Thomas did not talk to the NCAA. He and the jeweler signed a confidentiality agreement, and thus neither would speak out about the matter any further.

Since the NCAA doesn't have subpoena power, they had no way of forcing Thomas or the jeweler to talk. So since the NCAA couldn't get them to talk about it, they have no way to obtain evidence on the matter. Since they have no evidence, they had to say they found no wrongdoing.

I suspect that it was a shady situation, and I suspect that it was probably a violation had the facts come out. I hope I'm wrong, but it sounds like a very murky situation (and at the very least was an error in judgement by Thomas). Thankfully for us the final verdict is no penalty.

Sorry, such loose speculation concerning the reputation of the player and program bothers me.

What exactly do you think happened and why do you think it was probably a violation?

[CDu]

Sorry, such loose speculation concerning the reputation of the player and program bothers me.

What exactly do you think happened and why do you think it was probably a violation?

I made no speculation (loose or otherwise) whatsoever about the program. The only reason the program comes into play at all is because, if the NCAA were to find Thomas ineligible, the program would suffer. I don't think the program did anything wrong. Unfortunately, the program is the only entity that can be punished in cases like these. Just like I don't think that the players on this year's OSU or UNC teams did anything wrong, but they are the ones that received the punishment. I just want to make that VERY clear. I don't think Duke did anything wrong. But that's kind of irrelevant.

I don't know the specifics of the transaction between Thomas and the jeweler. It's very possible that the jeweler gave Thomas the loan for reasons unrelated to basketball. If so, no violation. If the loan was because Thomas is a basketball player (and a similar loan would not be given to someone else), it's a violation. I think it's very possible that either is the case. Perhaps "probable" was too strong a word. "Very possible" is a better description. So feel free to change my statement to this:

It is very possible that a violation would have been found had the facts come out. And Thomas was at the very least guilty of bad judgement. The Duke program is entirely clear, but had a stake in the matter in that they'd be the ones at risk of punishment.

[roywhite]

I made no speculation (loose or otherwise) whatsoever about the program. The only reason the program comes into play at all is because, if the NCAA were to find Thomas ineligible, the program would suffer. I don't think the program did anything wrong. Unfortunately, the program is the only entity that can be punished in cases like these. Just like I don't think that the players on this year's OSU or UNC teams did anything wrong, but they are the ones that received the punishment. I just want to make that VERY clear. I don't think Duke did anything wrong. But that's kind of irrelevant.

I don't know the specifics of the transaction between Thomas and the jeweler. It's very possible that the jeweler gave Thomas the loan for reasons unrelated to basketball. If so, no violation. If the loan was because Thomas is a basketball player (and a similar loan would not be given to someone else), it's a violation. I think it's very possible that either is the case. Perhaps "probable" was too strong a word. "Very possible" is a better description. So feel free to change my statement to this:

It is very possible that a violation would have been found had the facts come out. And Thomas was at the very least guilty of bad judgement. The Duke program is entirely clear, but had a stake in the matter in that they'd be the ones at risk of punishment.

I call your comments pure speculation about both the program and the player. And without any solid basis.

You still didn't illustrate what you think actually happened, but talked about ineligibility and penalties.

I'm glad the NCAA is done with this. Sad that some Duke fans still want to reach negative characterizations without having additional facts.

[bob blue devil]

Regarding the confi, I have to assume that if Lance were really motivated he could have gotten some wiggle room in the language. It's doubtful he had no choice.

[loran16]

I call your comments pure speculation about both the program and the player. And without any solid basis.

You still didn't illustrate what you think actually happened, but talked about ineligibility and penalties.

I'm glad the NCAA is done with this. Sad that some Duke fans still want to reach negative characterizations without having additional facts.

He doesn't illustrate, because that WOULD be speculation. Needless to say however, if Lance Thomas had some "legit by NCAA rules" method of getting 100K in credit, he would not have needed to bother not talking or having a confidentiality agreement.

Note again that CDu, like the rest of us, aren't assuming that Duke did anything itself wrong - for example it's entirely possible that Lance got credit by the Jeweler anticipating future earnings as a means to pay it off (which the NCAA forbids) - but even THAT would be a violation.

This is not something to be proud of. This is something to wish it would go away.

[CDu]

I call your comments pure speculation about both the program and the player. And without any solid basis.

You're entitled to your opinion. With regard to my statements about the program, your opinion is wrong. But it's your opinion. And in my revised statement, I don't think my speculation is wild with regard to Thomas either. Again, feel free to have whatever opinion you want.


You still didn't illustrate what you think actually happened, but talked about ineligibility and penalties.

What I think happened is that Thomas got a shady loan deal on jewelry. We don't know the specifics on the extent of the shadiness - just the reported jewelry's worth and the amount Thomas supposedly paid for it. As such, I don't know whether it was a violation or not. If the shadiness of the deal was related to Thomas's status as a basketball player, then it is a violation. If the shadiness of the deal was just due to the jeweler, then likely no violation occurred. Those are all the facts we have. Based solely on those facts, it is unclear whether a violation has occurred. But it is certainly possible that a violation occurred. And the confidentiality agreement only adds to the murkiness of the situation, as we don't know who requested the confidentiality agreement (or why).


I'm glad the NCAA is done with this. Sad that some Duke fans still want to reach negative characterizations without having additional facts.

By the letter of the law, Thomas was not found guilty of any wrongdoing. The NCAA could not collect enough to make a statement regarding whether Thomas committed a violation. That does not mean that I have to assume that all is on the up-and-up. It just means that Thomas isn't due any penalty, and the NCAA won't be doling out infractions.

Duke players aren't infallible. They are human beings. More specifically, they are young human beings, and young human beings are subject to make bad decisions. I think it's pretty clear that Thomas made a bad decision. The extent to which that decision was bad is unclear. But it is certainly possible that the bad decision could have warranted a violation had the facts come out. It is also possible that the facts would have completely cleared Thomas of wrongdoing.

I don't know why folks want to stick their heads in the sand about anything questionable. One can be a Duke fan and still find fault with something Duke (or a Duke player/student) does. Especially when most of us don't know any of the Duke players at a personal level. If my sister is implicated as possibly having committed a crime, I'll at least consider the possibility that she did it. I'll hope to all that is good in this world that she didn't do it, but I'll at least acknowledge the possibility. And that's my sister, who I have known my whole life and love dearly. I don't know Lance Thomas at all beyond the fact that he went to my school and played basketball there for 4 years. Regardless, I'll extend him only slightly less courtesy than I'd extend for my sister. But in neither case would I stick my head in the sand and not consider the possibility of guilt.

[Bluedog]

Note again that CDu, like the rest of us, aren't assuming that Duke did anything itself wrong - for example it's entirely possible that Lance got credit by the Jeweler anticipating future earnings as a means to pay it off (which the NCAA forbids) - but even THAT would be a violation.

That's not possible because the credit was only for 15 days - he had absolutely no future earnings in the next two weeks. Why the jeweler thought it was a good idea to have a smaller down payment with the remaining balance due in two weeks if the individual didn't have the funds from the onset, I have no idea. They're probably an unscrupulous seller and wanted to get the purchaser to commit. They've had other lawsuits with athletes as well. (I agree with your general premise, though).

[COYS]

This is one of those situations when I think that, as fans, we feel like we want more information than we can reasonably expect to receive. Duke fans want to be reassured that Lance legitimately had whatever money he put down for jewelry (there's no reason to think that Lance could have put down a decent amount of money legitimately as his family is far from impoverished . . . also, the terms of the loan are so strange that there is reason to doubt the supposed terms of the agreement . . . Lance may have paid far less for jewelry). Duke haters want to see an above reproach Duke program go down in flames (for all they know, some shady booster funnels money to Duke players so they can buy themselves ridiculous pieces of jewelry).

The bottom line is that no matter what Lance claims and no matter what the jeweler claims, we have nothing but a "he said, she said" situation. Lance could release his bank statements showing he had the money in his account (which, in my opinion, Lance SHOULD NOT feel compelled to do!) and Duke haters will say that the money must have been funneled there in some elaborate scheme by those dirty Duke boosters. Meanwhile, the jewelry company could come right out and say they made the whole thing up and Lance actually bought $300 worth of jewelry (still too much for those ugly pieces) and they just added some extra zeros to the receipt once he made the NBA to try and squeeze him for some cash, and the haters will claim the jeweler was paid off by Duke and the NCAA in some grand conspiracy to continue to make money off of Duke (this, of course, would fit with the Duke gets all the calls meme and Duke gets easy brackets, etc.).

That being said, the facts as we know them do not point to any wrongdoing by Lance (perhaps other than defaulting on a 15 day line of credit) or Duke. For Lance Thomas, a senior who was not even mentioned in the top 100 list of college players to make the NBA not to mention all the international players with whom he was also competing, to be viewed as a smart investment by Jewelers seeking to make a whole bunch of money off of an NBA player makes absolutely zero sense. Add in the fact that the loan involved (assuming the jewelers documentation was 100% accurate) a downpayment of 1/3 of the total cost is perfectly reasonable, and it doesn't seem as if Lance gained any benefit that a "normal" customer wouldn't receive (big name, reputable jewelers provide financing on more valuable pieces that require less than a downpayment of 1/3 of the total cost . . . of course, most people would never want to pay the interest rate!).

That leaves two questions. Where did Lance get the money, originally? And why did the loan require full payment in 15 days? As for the first, barring someone hacking into Lance's bank to gain some records that will likely fail to clear anything up, we will never know nor should we expect to ever know. We do know that Lance's family was certainly in decent enough financial condition to think that Lance having $30,000 to spend isn't too crazy, especially considering he had a full ride to college. Now, whether or not his family was happy with him spending that money on some ugly jewelry is another matter. There is simply nothing to indicate that Lance received that money inappropriately.

As for the second question, it certainly makes the business with the jeweler seem a little shady (why would Lance be able to leave with the jewelry before the end of the 15? The jeweler presumably had no other collateral). However, it also clearly exonerates Lance of receiving a loan that was based on future NBA earnings. Not only was he not a good bet to make significant $$ playing basketball in the near future, he would not have even had a CHANCE to do so before the end of those 15 days.

As has already been posted in the original thread covering this situation, Dez Bryant had an almost identical suit brought against him by the same jewelry company (apparently they have a few locations scattered around). While it is certainly only circumstantial evidence and no conclusions can be drawn, it certainly DOES seem make it more likely that the jeweler has a way of misleading young people into making stupid decisions and possibly signing contracts that they do not fully understand. This is not surprising at all. The underbelly of the loan world is incredibly shady, as people who find themselves with horrible mortgages or credit card debt at a young age often discover the hard way.

Anyway, bottom line is that unless you want to speculate that Lance got the money in an unethical way to begin with, there really is very little to go on. Hey, it sucks that Lance would spend ANY amount of dough on those horrible pieces, but that's about the worst crime anyone can be sure was committed.

[sagegrouse]

I'm pretty sure Thomas did not talk to the NCAA. He and the jeweler signed a confidentiality agreement, and thus neither would speak out about the matter any further.

Since the NCAA doesn't have subpoena power, they had no way of forcing Thomas or the jeweler to talk. So since the NCAA couldn't get them to talk about it, they have no way to obtain evidence on the matter. Since they have no evidence, they could not find any wrongdoing. End of story.

I suspect that it was a shady situation, and I suspect that it was probably a violation had the facts come out. I hope I'm wrong, but it sounds like a very murky situation (and at the very least was an error in judgement by Thomas). Thankfully for us the final verdict is no penalty.


Sorry, such loose speculation concerning the reputation of the player and program bothers me.

What exactly do you think happened and why do you think it was probably a violation?


I made no speculation (loose or otherwise) whatsoever about the program. The only reason the program comes into play at all is because, if the NCAA were to find Thomas ineligible, the program would suffer. I don't think the program did anything wrong. Unfortunately, the program is the only entity that can be punished in cases like these. Just like I don't think that the players on this year's OSU or UNC teams did anything wrong, but they are the ones that received the punishment. I just want to make that VERY clear. I don't think Duke did anything wrong. But that's kind of irrelevant.

I don't know the specifics of the transaction between Thomas and the jeweler. It's very possible that the jeweler gave Thomas the loan for reasons unrelated to basketball. If so, no violation. If the loan was because Thomas is a basketball player (and a similar loan would not be given to someone else), it's a violation. I think it's very possible that either is the case. Perhaps "probable" was too strong a word. "Very possible" is a better description. So feel free to change my statement to this:

It is very possible that a violation would have been found had the facts come out. And Thomas was at the very least guilty of bad judgement. The Duke program is entirely clear, but had a stake in the matter in that they'd be the ones at risk of punishment.


I call your comments pure speculation about both the program and the player. And without any solid basis.

You still didn't illustrate what you think actually happened, but talked about ineligibility and penalties.

I'm glad the NCAA is done with this. Sad that some Duke fans still want to reach negative characterizations without having additional facts.

I won't repeat the comments I directed at a previous post in this thread, CDu.

Here's what bugs me about this thread and, to some extent, DBR:

!. There should NOT be negative characterizations of the actions of any Duke player without the most clearcut facts, and the characterizations should have a due concern for the feelings or opinions of other readers, which are likely to be different. Therefore, when you say, "I suspect there was probably a violation had the facts come out," it drives me and others crazy. First, there is no "violation" unless the NCAA acts, and it has said that the matter is "closed." Second, it is an insinuation, because it is not at all clear what you are charging. But, third and most importantly, you know that others feel differently, so you should have been more careful and politic in your statement (and probably skipped it).

2. There are lots of wild shots being taken on many subjects, which constitute "in your face" kinds of comments. I wish we would stop that and be duly considerate that others will have different views or opinions. Useful gimmicks are (a) to use self-deprecation ("I have no idea what I am talking about, but....) or (b) to put it in the form of a question ("Why isn't it the case that...?") or (c) do everything to give the player or coach the benefit of the doubt ("I know he is trying hard, but ....").

Now, I will freely admit that the discussion in better here than in almost all other "open" fan boards, but the DBR Board could still be better. And, remember, this is a conversation not a platform.

sagegrouse

[loran16]

Duke players aren't infallible. They are human beings. More specifically, they are young human beings, and young human beings are subject to make bad decisions. I think it's pretty clear that Thomas made a bad decision. The extent to which that decision was bad is unclear. But it is certainly possible that the bad decision could have warranted a violation had the facts come out. It is also possible that the facts would have completely cleared Thomas of wrongdoing.

I don't know why folks want to stick their heads in the sand about anything questionable. One can be a Duke fan and still find fault with something Duke (or a Duke player/student) does. Especially when most of us don't know any of the Duke players at a personal level. If my sister is implicated as possibly having committed a crime, I'll at least consider the possibility that she did it. I'll hope to all that is good in this world that she didn't do it, but I'll at least acknowledge the possibility. And that's my sister, who I have known my whole life and love dearly. I don't know Lance Thomas at all beyond the fact that he went to my school and played basketball there for 4 years. Regardless, I'll extend him only slightly less courtesy than I'd extend for my sister. But in neither case would I stick my head in the sand and not consider the possibility of guilt.

This. Again, ask yourself this question: If this situation involved Tyler Hansbrough instead, how would you react? I suspect it's very different.

[CDu]

1. There should NOT be negative characterizations of the actions of any Duke player without the most clearcut facts, and the characterizations should have a due concern for the feelings or opinions of other readers, which are likely to be different. Therefore, when you say, "I suspect there was probably a violation had the facts come out," it drives me and others crazy. First, there is no "violation" unless the NCAA acts, and it has said that the matter is "closed." Second, it is an insinuation, because it is not at all clear what you are charging. But, third and most importantly, you know that others feel differently, so you should have been more careful and politic in your statement (and probably skipped it).

I disagree on two counts:

1. A violation can occur without punishment. One can violate the rules but not be caught. That does not mean a violation hasn't occurred. It just means that either no one found out about it or they couldn't prove it.
2. So I can only voice my opinion on a subject if I think it will be politically correct on this board? That seems inappropriate.

As I said, I retracted the "probably" and changed to "very possibly." I agreed with roywhite that "probably" was going too far and was inappropriate. But I do not agree that "very possibly" is going too far. I will not back off that opinion. And I don't feel I should HAVE to back off that opinion, nor do I think I should have to soften/hide my thoughts about that opinion.


2. There are lots of wild shots being taken on many subjects, which constitute "in your face" kinds of comments. I wish we would stop that and be duly considerate that others will have different views or opinions. Useful gimmicks are (a) to use self-deprecation ("I have no idea what I am talking about, but....) or (b) to put it in the form of a question ("Why isn't it the case that...?") or (c) do everything to give the player or coach the benefit of the doubt ("I know he is trying hard, but ....").

I don't think I've taken any wild shots here. I objected to what I felt was an errant statement by roywhite (with regard to my comments on the program) and I revised what was an errant/inappropriate statement by me. Nothing else was "in your face."

Perhaps you're referring to one of the other threads with this comment. I can certainly think of one in which much more "in your face" comments were made. But that thread is an issue near and dear to lots of folks hearts (on both sides) so I think it's understandable that the conversation can get a bit more testy. Even then, I don't think anything went over the line, and I think both sides of the argument tried very hard to remain restrained on what are obviously passionate opinions about the topic.

[CDu]

This. Again, ask yourself this question: If this situation involved Tyler Hansbrough instead, how would you react? I suspect it's very different.

Exactly. Even if it was Justin Knox (or another non-star player). This is a Duke board, and we are all (except for a handle of posters) Duke fans. That does not mean we should treat individuals whom we don't know any differently just because of the laundry they wear.

If the same facts were presented to me but the name was Justin Knox, I'd have responded the same way. Thomas shouldn't be treated differently just because he wore a Duke uniform.

We cheer for the team, and we cheer for individuals on the team. And on the court (and even off the court) we wish them the best. But when events transpire off the court, we should treat them the same way we'd treat anyone else.

[UrinalCake]

I don't know the specifics of the transaction between Thomas and the jeweler. It's very possible that the jeweler gave Thomas the loan for reasons unrelated to basketball. If so, no violation. If the loan was because Thomas is a basketball player (and a similar loan would not be given to someone else), it's a violation. I think it's very possible that either is the case.

I think this is the heart of the issue - whether his status as an athlete gave him an advantage in obtaining the loan. How he came up with the downpayment money is irrelevant (though it does raise some eyebrows).

If I remember correctly, the jeweler in question is based in New York and caters to a lot of professional athletes. And I also remember reading that they have filed similar lawsuits in the past against other athletes. The pattern is familiar - they extend a loan, allowing the player to overextend himself in some cases, the athlete fails to repay, the jeweler sues, they settle out of court. So it kind of sounds to me like this jeweler likes to prey on athletes or future athletes, and when they can't repay their debts they file a lawsuit knowing that the athlete has a reputation to protect. The fact the jeweler waited so long before filing the lawsuit, rather than doing it on day 16, seems to point to them being the more suspect party in my admittedly biased opinion.

Assuming this to be true, would this count as Lance receiving "special treatment" for being an athlete, even if he was one who didnt have the immediate likelihood of being a multimillionaire? I guess that's king of a murky question.

[Duvall]

Exactly. Even if it was Justin Knox (or another non-star player). This is a Duke board, and we are all (except for a handle of posters) Duke fans. That does not mean we should treat individuals whom we don't know any differently just because of the laundry they wear.

If the same facts were presented to me but the name was Justin Knox, I'd have responded the same way. Thomas shouldn't be treated differently just because he wore a Duke uniform.

We cheer for the team, and we cheer for individuals on the team. And on the court (and even off the court) we wish them the best. But when events transpire off the court, we should treat them the same way we'd treat anyone else.

Which is all well and good, except that there's barely more evidence of Thomas committing a violation than there is of Knox committing a violation (i.e., none). Jumping to conclusions seems inappropriate in either case, regardless of affiliation.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I don't think I quite understand why fans on this board feel that Lance owes anyone (us, the NCAA, etc) an explanation. There is no evidence of wrong-doing further than a really bad decision to wildly overpay for hideous jewelry. 15 days for payment, whether you call it credit or a payment plan, is bad business for a purchaser, assuming it came with a wild interest rate as most would.

Why on earth would Lance come forward with more information with no pending punishments? Do you really expect him to open up his checkbook just to show fans what his account balance during his days at Duke were? Do you think he would be likely to say "oh, yeah, I got caught up in the moment and agree to a bad business decision regarding a jewelry purchase?"

Was this a great idea? Probably not. But as noted numerous times, only a complete fool would have based this 15 day payment arrangement on some sort of distant hopes of a big contract in the NBA - which he would not be eligible for several more months, and wasn't projected to make any rosters for.

I'm more than willing to chalk this up to a really dumb decision for Lance, but for a 22 year old kid, nothing scandalous in the slightest. I am certainly glad no one is sitting around on a message board wondering why I don't explain personal financial mistakes I made at that age.

Go Duke!

[Duvall]

This. Again, ask yourself this question: If this situation involved Tyler Hansbrough instead, how would you react? I suspect it's very different.

All due respect, but that's a cheap shot. You're accusing people hypocrisy based on how *you* think they would react to a hypothetical situation. You could at least cite the people that made sweeping conclusions about UNC based on limited (but existing!) evidence in the Af-Am scandal.

[wilko]

I'm not gonna get bent outta shape over the semantics of this..

If I'm going down the road in my car with the top down... cruise up to 115mph for a stretch and then fall back with the herd... If I don't get a ticket; no speeding violation occurred.

AND I'm still gonna laff at UK, UNC and (insert school here) for the sin of getting pulled.

Some would assert that the Duke mobile has Senator plates and is untouchable.
IF that the perception, accurate or not; I'm OK with it.


Personally as long as we don't have blood on our hands, a bloody weapon in the passenger seat and a dead body in the trunk - We'd be OK. The NCAA needs Duke to look like a model of compliance. This incarnation of the NCAA isn't about to mess up its cash-flow..

The UNC types getting bent over this are looking to vent off some angst over their troubles.
The UK types much the same..

[bob blue devil]

I don't think I quite understand why fans on this board feel that Lance owes anyone (us, the NCAA, etc) an explanation.

I agree that Lance doesn't owe anyone an explanation. However, this is a story, whether we like it or not (thank you 21st century). Lance is (or at least was) in a position to clear-up some of the confusion. I believe he even said at one point that he would do so. At stake (as I noted earlier) is how many (again whether we like it or not) will portray Lance, the 2010 team, coach K, duke, etc., so unless Lance doesn't care about anybody's reputation he has good reason to clear the air.

[lotusland]

I call your comments pure speculation about both the program and the player. And without any solid basis.

You still didn't illustrate what you think actually happened, but talked about ineligibility and penalties.

I'm glad the NCAA is done with this. Sad that some Duke fans still want to reach negative characterizations without having additional facts.

Move along folks, nothing to see here...

[Wander]

I don't know why folks want to stick their heads in the sand about anything questionable.

Exactly. Thanks for your thoughts on this.



If I'm going down the road in my car with the top down... cruise up to 115mph for a stretch and then fall back with the herd... If I don't get a ticket; no speeding violation occurred.


I guess this is the attitude I fundamentally disagree with and find a little dangerous. I honestly care more about whether or not something shady happened than whether or not it gets caught and punished by the NCAA.

Just to be clear, I'm happy the investigation is over and it makes sense to me why Lance isn't talking to us about it, and I agree he doesn't have to. I don't see any reason to jump to a conclusion that something illegal happened either. But I find some of the attitudes here a little troubling, and I would hope that recent athletic scandals at other institutions (in much more serious instances that aren't comparable to this story) have taught us that we should not take the "sticking our heads in the sand" route.

[lotusland]

I don't think I quite understand why fans on this board feel that Lance owes anyone (us, the NCAA, etc) an explanation. There is no evidence of wrong-doing further than a really bad decision to wildly overpay for hideous jewelry. 15 days for payment, whether you call it credit or a payment plan, is bad business for a purchaser, assuming it came with a wild interest rate as most would.

Why on earth would Lance come forward with more information with no pending punishments? Do you really expect him to open up his checkbook just to show fans what his account balance during his days at Duke were? Do you think he would be likely to say "oh, yeah, I got caught up in the moment and agree to a bad business decision regarding a jewelry purchase?"

Was this a great idea? Probably not. But as noted numerous times, only a complete fool would have based this 15 day payment arrangement on some sort of distant hopes of a big contract in the NBA - which he would not be eligible for several more months, and wasn't projected to make any rosters for.

I'm more than willing to chalk this up to a really dumb decision for Lance, but for a 22 year old kid, nothing scandalous in the slightest. I am certainly glad no one is sitting around on a message board wondering why I don't explain personal financial mistakes I made at that age.

Go Duke!

Where did he get the 30K? I would fess up if it were me and I got the money legitimately. I'm sure the coaching staff counsels the players to avoid the "appearance of impropriety". I'm sure they would agree that Lance didn't do so in this instance so there is nothing wrong with Duke fans or anyone else pointing out the appearance of impropriety. If Lance wants to clear it up he can do it at any time. He doesn't owe me an explanation and I don't owe him blind trust. I believe in "Trust but verify". I know and love my kids more than Lance but I don't trust them blindly either because I know they screw up.

[Turtleboy]

I'm not gonna get bent outta shape over the semantics of this..

If I'm going down the road in my car with the top down... cruise up to 115mph for a stretch and then fall back with the herd... If I don't get a ticket; no speeding violation occurred. Let's take that to it's logical conclusion. If you murder someone and don't get caught, and the death was never identified as a murder, did no murder occur? If you steal what ends up being a huge winning ticket in the lottery, but the owner has forgotten he bought it, did no theft occur? That seems to me to be a strange way of looking at things.

[Duvall]

Where did he get the 30K? I would fess up if it were me and I got the money legitimately. I'm sure the coaching staff counsels the players to avoid the "appearance of impropriety". I'm sure they would agree that Lance didn't do so in this instance so there is nothing wrong with Duke fans or anyone else pointing out the appearance of impropriety. If Lance wants to clear it up he can do it at any time. He doesn't owe me an explanation and I don't owe him blind trust. I believe in "Trust but verify". I know and love my kids more than Lance but I don't trust them blindly either because I know they screw up.

Interesting that you would compare an adult that owes you nothing to your children.

[Turtleboy]

Where did he get the 30K? I would fess up if it were me and I got the money legitimately. I'm sure the coaching staff counsels the players to avoid the "appearance of impropriety". I'm sure they would agree that Lance didn't do so in this instance so there is nothing wrong with Duke fans or anyone else pointing out the appearance of impropriety. If Lance wants to clear it up he can do it at any time. He doesn't owe me an explanation and I don't owe him blind trust. I believe in "Trust but verify". I know and love my kids more than Lance but I don't trust them blindly either because I know they screw up.Why does Lance having access to $30,000 constitute the "appearance of impropriety?" There are certainly appropriate avenues for him to acquire the money, as others have pointed out.

I would hate to be in a situation where my every move was open to the scrutiny of anyone who claimed to smell a rat. I have a flat screen TV in my house right now that I absolutely cannot afford, but there it is. Must I abide others' infinite question simply because it's possible I stole it?

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Exactly. Thanks for your thoughts on this.



I guess this is the attitude I fundamentally disagree with and find a little dangerous. I honestly care more about whether or not something shady happened than whether or not it gets caught and punished by the NCAA.

Just to be clear, I'm happy the investigation is over and it makes sense to me why Lance isn't talking to us about it, and I agree he doesn't have to. I don't see any reason to jump to a conclusion that something illegal happened either. But I find some of the attitudes here a little troubling, and I would hope that recent athletic scandals at other institutions (in much more serious instances that aren't comparable to this story) have taught us that we should not take the "sticking our heads in the sand" route.

Wow, I think you are characterizing a bit harshly here. I'm not suggesting that we stick our fingers in our ears because we didn't get caught. I'm saying that there's zero evidence of this being anything other than a crappy financial decision by Lance that occurred independent of his status as an athlete or a Duke student. I'm also saying that Duke fans are not the IRS, and he's under no obligation to make us all feel better about his $30K downpayment by opening his bank accounts for our scrutiny.

This isn't looking the other way while envelopes of cash are changing hands. This is calling a duck a duck, and not calling it an ivory-billed woodpecker.

[OldPhiKap]

I think Lance ordered the Code Red.


It's as well-founded as the rest of the speculation on the thread.


I am not sure what purpose the thread continues to have, other than to debate whether one of the parties should make a clarifying statement or not. There is a confidentiality clause, so the answer is "not likely." Like it, hate it, them's the facts.

I agree with Sage (and others) upstream -- absent facts, I am not sure why we have a thread that impugnes our alumni based on inference and innuendo. I am sure there is a good thread on IC that has already gotten to the bottom of the conspiracy.

Anyway, carry on.

[wilko]

Let's take that to it's logical conclusion. If you murder someone and don't get caught, and the death was never identified as a murder, did no murder occur? If you steal what ends up being a huge winning ticket in the lottery, but the owner has forgotten he bought it, did no theft occur? That seems to me to be a strange way of looking at things.

The murder comparison is a bit extreme wouldn't you say?
No one has yet died from my alleged speeding and if someone had died in this jewerly-gate thing, it would have had an entirely different an undesirable flavor added to the case.

Lottery ticket thing. If the other person can prove they bought it and I stole it - then harm has been done and I deserve what I get. I'm not above the baser temptations. Am I going to knock you in the head and take your wallet, no? If you have a duffel bag full of hundreds - I might start looking around for a suitable rock... I'd say that it's human nature to at least notice such things.. whether you act on them is another thing entirely.

Lance is whole, the jeweler is whole and Duke is whole. Who is harmed?

[bob blue devil]

There is a confidentiality clause, so the answer is "not likely." Like it, hate it, them's the facts.


Presuming he did nothing wrong, do you think Lance should have agreed to such a clause knowing this was already a story?

[lotusland]

Interesting that you would compare an adult that owes you nothing to your children.
Likewise I owe Lance nothing. I owe my kids quite a bit by any standard and I love them unconditionally but I know better than to trust them blindly. I'm not obligated or inclined to give Lance any more benefit of doubt. Look I don't expect anything more to come out about this and I don't intend to harp on it. I tend to expect more from people I respect not less and I respect when people own what they did. Lance has every legal right to lawyer up, take the 5th, parse his words and hide behind legalese but I have every right to draw conclusions based upon the way he reactsto this controversy and so does everyone else.

[lotusland]

Why does Lance having access to $30,000 constitute the "appearance of impropriety?" There are certainly appropriate avenues for him to acquire the money, as others have pointed out.
I would hate to be in a situation where my every move was open to the scrutiny of anyone who claimed to smell a rat. I have a flat screen TV in my house right now that I absolutely cannot afford, but there it is. Must I abide others' infinite question simply because it's possible I stole it?

Why does the fact that the UNC professor who resigned without talking to anyone raise the appearance of impropriety? Is he obligated to talk about it? It raises the appearance of impropriety because it does. I don't know why. Why does the fact that Eric Bledsoe made an A in Algebra 2 before taking Algebra 1 after barely passing anything at his prior school raise the appearance of impropriety? Maybe he just decided to buckle down and study just in the nick of time to qualify under NCAA rules.

What are those appropriate avenues and why, if appropriate, would he not be inclined to disclose it in order to settle the controversy?

You are not a scholarship athlete in a revenue sport so your situation is not analogues. However if the IRS decided that you needed to explain your purchase based on income reported on your tax return you can just table any complaints about your privacy being invaded. The NCAA is not the IRS. I understand that and so does Lance.

[sagegrouse]

I disagree on two counts:

1. A violation can occur without punishment. One can violate the rules but not be caught. That does not mean a violation hasn't occurred. It just means that either no one found out about it or they couldn't prove it.
2. So I can only voice my opinion on a subject if I think it will be politically correct on this board? That seems inappropriate.

As I said, I retracted the "probably" and changed to "very possibly." I agreed with roywhite that "probably" was going too far and was inappropriate. But I do not agree that "very possibly" is going too far. I will not back off that opinion. And I don't feel I should HAVE to back off that opinion, nor do I think I should have to soften/hide my thoughts about that opinion.



I don't think I've taken any wild shots here. I objected to what I felt was an errant statement by roywhite (with regard to my comments on the program) and I revised what was an errant/inappropriate statement by me. Nothing else was "in your face."

Perhaps you're referring to one of the other threads with this comment. I can certainly think of one in which much more "in your face" comments were made. But that thread is an issue near and dear to lots of folks hearts (on both sides) so I think it's understandable that the conversation can get a bit more testy. Even then, I don't think anything went over the line, and I think both sides of the argument tried very hard to remain restrained on what are obviously passionate opinions about the topic.

WRT implications that we should treat UNC players the same as Duke players on such a topic. Uh,.... no. This is a Duke fans' site. I would treat a comparable UNC problem as a topic of humor, kinda like the Psycho T meme: "That's what his teammates call him, so there's no need to apologize for using the term." Or the famous tutor....

WRT a Duke player, and especially a solid citizen like Lance: he deserves to be defended, although not necessarily by everyone who posts here. People that want to criticize him should do so with an understanding that a lot of Duke people will be defending him. This isn't being PC; this is having a conversation with someone in the Duke community, rather than sticking a finger in someone's eye. That's what I mean by an in-your-face comment.

I don't want a circle-the-wagons atmosphere here, but I really object to people that go immediately to conjecturing about a "violation." Lots of people from elsewhere will view this site -- be careful what you say -- unless you further the story that "even the Duke Basketball Report thinks Lance committed an NCAA violation."

Anyway, my views on comity are a campaign not a skirmish and is a long-term objective.

sagegrouse

[Class of '94]

I am listening to this radio show online; and people are regularly calling in hammering Duke about this. I'm on the fence in regards to this situation; as a fan and Duke alum, I would love for Lance to give full disclosure (and know the truth whether it's good or bad); but on the other hand, I understand that Lance is not beholding to me or anyone else. I just wished he could've kept this from getting out by either a) waiting until after the season to buy the jewelry; or b) payed the debt before the jewelry company sued him.

As far as the DG show, Dave Glenn was really going on and on about Duke's final response to the situation; and how it was beneath them as a school and program to give such a weak response. I'm trying to look at this as a compliment since he is holding Duke to such a high standard (much higher than it appears he does UNC); but it still bothers me that he is ripping Duke for their response and supposed lack of investigation when it's not Duke's fault that Lance and the jewelry company aren't talking; and they weren't talking at any point during the law suite process from what I remember. And I especially love it when UNC fans call into that show saying how Duke is getting over (after their own issues); and imply that their were "multiple" issues within the bball program that were covered up eventhough all I can think of is one other situation (Corey Maggette).

[Reilly]

... I am not sure why we have a thread that impugnes our alumni based on inference and innuendo. ....

Because this issue, when it broke, scared the bejeezus out of Duke fans, thinking the 2010 championship would be removed?

Because, to some, it smells more than most other issues that come down the pike?

Because there's been no public airing of facts to clear the initial smell?

Because it's a real-life application of some silly NCAA rules, given they even investigated?

I'm glad Duke's championship is safe. Lance seems like a nice, hard-working guy, and I hope he prospers in every way. Even given that, I don't begrudge folks asking questions about this issue. And I'm not saying we have some sort of a right to more information, either. Just noting that I can see where those who are still questioning what all went down here are getting their questions.

[wilko]

I am listening to this radio show online; and people are regularly calling in hammering Duke about this. I'm on the fence in regards to this situation; as a fan and Duke alum, I would love for Lance to give full disclosure (and know the truth whether it's good or bad); but on the other hand, I understand that Lance is not beholding to me or anyone else. I just wished he could've kept this from getting out by either a) waiting until after the season to buy the jewelry; or b) payed the debt before the jewelry company sued him.

As far as the DG show, Dave Glenn was really going on and on about Duke's final response to the situation; and how it was beneath them as a school and program to give such a weak response. I'm trying to look at this as a compliment since he is holding Duke to such a high standard (much higher than it appears he does UNC); but it still bothers me that he is ripping Duke for their response and supposed lack of investigation when it's not Duke's fault that Lance and the jewelry company aren't talking; and they weren't talking at any point during the law suite process from what I remember. And I especially love it when UNC fans call into that show saying how Duke is getting over (after their own issues); and imply that there multiple issues within the bball program that were covered up when all I can think of is one other situation (Corey Maggette).

Hes a UNC guy. Consider the source.

[CDu]

Which is all well and good, except that there's barely more evidence of Thomas committing a violation than there is of Knox committing a violation (i.e., none). Jumping to conclusions seems inappropriate in either case, regardless of affiliation.

I think we disagree on the "barely more" part of the evidence.

1. We know that Thomas spent $30,000 on jewelry. We don't know where he got that money. It is completely reasonable to assume that he got it from his parents somehow. It's also completely reasonable to question whether or not he got the money in an inappropriate (from the NCAA perspective) manner. In other words, if he came about said $30,000, it's possible that the NCAA would this as an impermissible benefit. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to think that he might (or might not) have committed a violation related to the original $30,000.

2. We know that the jeweler claims that the jewelry was worth ~$100,000 and gave Thomas a loan period of 15 days to pay the rest. To my knowledge, we don't know if (a) the $100,000 value is correct or (b) the specifics of the actual loan. It is reasonable to assume that everything was on the up and up. It is ALSO reasonable to assume that there was shadiness, and that said shadiness was due to Thomas' status as a basketball player. If the NCAA were to find that, it would be a violation. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to think that Thomas might (or might not) have committed a violation related to the loan.

3. We know that the matter was settled out of court and a confidentiality agreement was signed by both parties. We don't know why the confidentiality agreement was signed (i.e., to protect whom), and we don't know why Thomas was so willing to settle out of court. Again, it's not unreasonable to assume that everything is on the up-and-up. It's also not unreasonable to assume (based on this evidence) that something was amiss, and that that something could have been an NCAA violation.

These three facts are substantially more than "nothing," and at least worth acknowledging the possibility of wrongdoing.

I'm very glad that the NCAA didn't find evidence. I'm glad our championship is safe. And I'm glad our program is not in future danger. But I disagree with folks whose concern is what other people will think about my opinion on the matter. I'd rather folks think that I'm reasonable and objective and not just a blatant homer. I want to be objective so that, when my thoughts about Duke are positive, it's not ignored as "well he's just a Duke fan being a homer." So in that sense, I won't be offended at all if some outsider says "CDu on DBR thinks that it's possible that Thomas committed a violation."

And note: I don't believe Thomas has any obligation to speak out on the issue. I don't expect a comment from him, nor do I feel cheated that he hasn't come forth. I am happy that all parties (except for other fans) are comfortable with the outcome. But that doesn't mean I can't have an opinion about whether a violation did or did not occur.

[CDu]

Hes a UNC guy. Consider the source.

I don't think that's a fair statement at all. I've found Glenn to be pretty unbiased with regards to these things. He's not afraid to hammer UNC when UNC has broken the rules.

[wilko]

I don't think that's a fair statement at all. I've found Glenn to be pretty unbiased with regards to these things. He's not afraid to hammer UNC when UNC has broken the rules.

He is better than most, I'll grant you that. There's only so much Adam and Joe I cant stand. I can usually manage to get thru most of DG's shows.. NOBODY on the air is pro Duke enough for me.

However, on today's show he seemed to have a certain amount of "glee" whereas before with UNC, he was making statements of fact w/o the passion I would have like to see from ANY host.

He seemed genuinely disappointed he didnt get to talk about it yesterday and LEAD with it today after he had all last evening to work up a good mad on over it.

[Duvall]

I don't think that's a fair statement at all. I've found Glenn to be pretty unbiased with regards to these things. He's not afraid to hammer UNC when UNC has broken the rules.

And apparently unafraid to hammer Duke when Duke hasn't. Unbiased indeed.

[CDu]

And apparently unafraid to hammer Duke when Duke hasn't. Unbiased indeed.

I don't think he hammered Duke at all. I think he simply stated all of the things that have been stated in this thread. And those all related to Thomas and how it ties to the NCAA. He didn't in any way bash Duke. He brought up the same questions that I brought up in this thread:
- "where did Thomas get the money?"
- "why did Thomas get the loan?"
- "why the confidentiality agreement, and why is Thomas being silent about this?"

Those are all reasonable questions. And the answers to those questions could potentially involve violations committed by Thomas. To bring up these questions is not evidence of bias. They are legitimate questions that a reasonable person would come up with. And given that we are in the triangle with two programs who have (to varying degrees) been punished by the NCAA, there is certainly interest in the topic.

I think people need to be better at dissociating what is Duke and what is the individual. This is an isolated question about an individual, not Duke or Duke basketball. The only reason Duke basketball comes into play is with respect to how the NCAA doles out punishment.

[roywhite]

I don't think he hammered Duke at all. I think he simply stated all of the things that have been stated in this thread. And those all related to Thomas and how it ties to the NCAA. He didn't in any way bash Duke. He brought up the same questions that I brought up in this thread:
- "where did Thomas get the money?"
- "why did Thomas get the loan?"
- "why the confidentiality agreement, and why is Thomas being silent about this?"

Those are all reasonable questions. And the answers to those questions could potentially involve violations committed by Thomas. To bring up these questions is not evidence of bias. They are legitimate questions that a reasonable person would come up with. And given that we are in the triangle with two programs who have (to varying degrees) been punished by the NCAA, there is certainly interest in the topic.

I think people need to be better at dissociating what is Duke and what is the individual. This is an isolated question about an individual, not Duke or Duke basketball. The only reason Duke basketball comes into play is with respect to how the NCAA doles out punishment.

Wot?

Thought I was done with this, but this last comment really struck me. This is a story almost entirely because of Duke basketball. If this story involved a random 21-year old college student and a commercial dispute with a jeweler, it would be no story at all, unless it had led to serious violence.

Okay, now I am done.

[fuse]

Sorry folks, I could not resist...

Lance did it in the Billiard Room with the Candlestick.

Thank you, thank you- I'll be here all week.
You may now resume your regularly scheduled off season hijinks :-)

[CDu]

Wot?

Thought I was done with this, but this last comment really struck me. This is a story almost entirely because of Duke basketball. If this story involved a random 21-year old college student and a commercial dispute with a jeweler, it would be no story at all, unless it had led to serious violence.

Okay, now I am done.

You missed my point. Yes, the story is related to Duke basketball. And without Duke basketball, it's not a story at all. But that is the extent to this story is related to Duke basketball. For some reason, folks can't seem to distinguish a story about individual who happens to be a Duke basketball player from a story about Duke basketball.

When David Glenn talks about the possibility that Thomas may have committed a violation (either through an improper receipt of the $30,000 or the impropriety of the loan), he is not commenting on the Duke basketball program. He is commenting on the actions of an individual who happens to be part of the Duke program. Unless one is saying that "Duke paid Thomas" or "Duke knew that Thomas was getting impermissible benefits," then there is nothing about the story that reflects on the Duke basketball program. It is a shame that folks can't seem to make that distinction.

[Class of '94]

You missed my point. Yes, the story is related to Duke basketball. And without Duke basketball, it's not a story at all. But that is the extent to this story is related to Duke basketball. For some reason, folks can't seem to distinguish a story about individual who happens to be a Duke basketball player from a story about Duke basketball.

When David Glenn talks about the possibility that Thomas may have committed a violation (either through an improper receipt of the $30,000 or the impropriety of the loan), he is not commenting on the Duke basketball program. He is commenting on the actions of an individual who happens to be part of the Duke program. Unless one is saying that "Duke paid Thomas" or "Duke knew that Thomas was getting impermissible benefits," then there is nothing about the story that reflects on the Duke basketball program. It is a shame that folks can't seem to make that distinction.

I agree.....But David Glenn was also hammering Duke about not being more forthcoming with information about the situation with Lance. Again, he made comments to the point that suggested Duke should've found out more about the situation; and didn't do enough to find the truth. I perceived DG as basically saying Duke had an obligation to do more but didn't. To his credit, it made it easier to hear by phrasing from the perspective that Duke has always done things in an exceptional manner and gone beyond the norm in dealing with issues. This time, he believes Duke didn't. IMO, DG is making this a Duke issue and not just a person who happens to be a former Duke bball player issue.

[devil84]

Here is what I wrote last October, after a particularly contentious thread (similar to what is happening in this thread). It's still relevant, and it contains links to sources that can talk to some of the speculation in this thread.


On 9/8/12, the story broke that Lance Thomas is being sued by a New York jeweler. Allegedly, he purchased diamond jewelry on 12/21/09 for a $30K down payment and a $67,800 balance due in 15 days. The lawsuit, filed in January, 2012, is for the unpaid balance and has not been publicly disclosed.[1] (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/8348908/former-duke-blue-devils-f-lance-thomas-purchased-100000-jewelry) This is the same jeweler that, in the last two years, sued and settled with Dallas Cowboys Dez Bryant for $240K [1] (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/8348908/former-duke-blue-devils-f-lance-thomas-purchased-100000-jewelry), sued rapper Gucci Mane for over $274K and won [2] (http://www.dukehoopblog.com/2012/09/15/2010-ncaa-champion-lance-thomas-sued/), and allegedly sold a Manhattan layer’s Rolex brought in for cleaning to rapper Drake [3] (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/owner_vexed_at_rapper_rolex_rgFR17kBkWTaPQpm3MOixO ). The terms for both Dez Bryant [4] (http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2011-03/60474695.pdf) and Gucci Mane [2] (http://www.dukehoopblog.com/2012/09/15/2010-ncaa-champion-lance-thomas-sued/) were the same 15 days as Lance Thomas; the actual invoice for Dez Bryant shows their pre-printed contract to be 15 days [4, page 8, point 1] (http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2011-03/60474695.pdf). The lawsuit was settled on 9/18/12, the details of the settlement are bound by confidentiality agreements. [5] (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/8394858/lance-thomas-former-duke-blue-devils-player-settles-jewelers)

There two points that cause Lance’s eligibility to be questioned:


Where did Lance get the $30K to put down? If he got it from an agent or booster, he would be ineligible. If he got it from his family, it’s not a problem. His mother is a manager at a Ford plant in NJ [1] (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/8348908/former-duke-blue-devils-f-lance-thomas-purchased-100000-jewelry), which can indicate his family does have money. Jeff Goodman’s “multiple sources close to Thomas” indicate that it came from the family.[6] (http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/blog/eye-on-college-basketball/20152211/lance-thomas-situation-muddy-without-answers)
Was Lance extended the 15 day loan based on his status as a student-athlete? If so, he would be ineligible. In 15 days, Lance would still be in college – hard to argue that he was given the loan based on future earnings as a pro athlete, especially as he was not expected to be drafted in the NBA [7] (http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/story/2012-09-10/lance-thomas-duke-lawsuit-ncaa-2010-national-championship). Would other students at Duke be able to get the same terms? It seems to be on the preprinted contact for Dez Bryant [4] (http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2011-03/60474695.pdf).


From the NCAA’s perpective, we know that:


The NCAA is investigating. Duke must cooperate and is cooperating.
The NCAA does not have subpoena powers. Neither the jeweler nor Lance Thomas (as he is no longer a student athlete) need to talk to the NCAA. Per the terms of their settlement, they cannot talk to the NCAA or media.
NCAA rules, specifically the Cooperative Principle, Bylaw 32.1.4, can prevent Coach K and Duke’s compliance officers from talking to Lance to preserve the integrity of the investigation. [8] (http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/10/02/2386145/thomas-reportedly-will-talk-to.html#storylink=cpy)
NCAA rules prohibit Coach K and Duke representatives from talking to the media about an ongoing investigation.
Good legal advice prohibits Lance from talking to the media about his confidential settlement and ongoing NCAA investigations.
If Lance either received the $30K down payment impermissibly or received an impermissible loan, he was an ineligible player, which could cause the games in which he played from that point on to be vacated, including the National Championship.


Lance has made a public statement on October 1 saying that he does not think he violated NCAA rules, and after legal details are worked out, he will talk to the NCAA.[9] (http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ex-duke-player-thomas-says-221031240--ncaab.html)

So.......

All we know is that a lawsuit was filed against Lance Thomas for $68K of a $100K jewelry purchased during winter break of his senior year (when Duke won the National Championship), and it was settled on 9/18/12 with a mutual confidentiality clause. We are assuming that the lawsuit filed is completely accurate on purchase dates, amounts, terms, and other transaction details. The NCAA is investigating, but Coach K cannot talk to Lance or the media about it until after the NCAA investigation, nor can Lance or the jeweler divulge the terms of the settlement.

So, what’s left to discuss until the NCAA is done with their investigation?

OK, we're done with the investigation, and no violation has occurred. There is no other information available, and Lance nor the jeweler can divulge the terms of the settlement, which would answer a ton of everyone's questions.

There's been a lot of speculation as to where Lance got the money, and it appears it is his money. It was his senior year, right before Christmas, after a game in NYC when he would likely return to his home in NJ. Seems like Christmas would be a good time, with graduation looking very likely, that a college savings plan would be given to him and he could spend it how he saw fit. Perhaps some of that jewelry was going to be a gift for his mother or girlfriend (the earrings, maybe). Perhaps he bought it on a whim and wanted to return it, only to find that he was out the $30K. Perhaps...well, we can speculate a lot. But there are legitimate reasons why he might have $30K (or more) and spend it on something many of us would not. Like has been said before, I'm really glad that I'm not having to answer publicly for any stupid purchases or financial decisions I've made early on in my career (or even when I should "know better!").

Here's a thought to ponder: this is not the first high profile lawsuit from this jeweler. Perhaps the company wants a confidentiality clause to protect their reputation? What if they settled for next to nothing...or maybe they took the crap jewelry back and gave Lance his down payment back...in other words, they flexed their legal muscles publicly and then privately settled in what might be viewed by many as a ridiculous lawsuit or settlement, so they don't want that part disclosed. But they got their name out there. What if they really didn't care about the results of the lawsuit, they just wanted another free mention in the media? The whole thing could be a marketing stunt. My point is that perhaps the confidentiality clause protects the jeweler instead of covers a possible NCAA violation. Most of us on this board went to Duke, let's use our education to examine all sides of this story (heck, even if you didn't go to Duke, you ought to be able to see all sides).

Look, there's lots of speculation going on. This is a Duke fan site, and we will naturally give Duke players the benefit of the doubt (and will ridicule our opponents unmercifully). Just because someone publicly defends Lance, doesn't mean that they privately are questioning what happened. They may not want to publicly give any fodder to our opponents by questioning the decision. Some fans and alumni, like me, are trusting that Coach K, Duke, and Lance know far more about this than I do and have taken the proper course of actions.

What would Lance think if he read this thread? What would his family think? How about an opponent's fan? How would you like to read a story that quotes this thread as proof that even Duke fans think a violation occurred? These points are the basis of our rules around here. We expect that Duke players will not get slammed by Duke fans and we don't tolerate rumor mongering and baseless speculation. And there's a huge difference in constructive disagreement and destructively negative comments. Please follow DBR's rules (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?21833-Decorum-amp-Posting-Guidelines-(Please-read-before-posting!)) in this discussion.

[CDu]

I agree.....But David Glenn was also hammering Duke about not being more forthcoming with information about the situation with Lance. Again, he made comments to the point that suggested Duke should've found out more about the situation; and didn't do enough to find the truth. I perceived DG as basically saying Duke had an obligation to do more but didn't. To his credit, it made it easier to hear by phrasing from the perspective that Duke has always done things in an exceptional manner and gone beyond the norm in dealing with issues. This time, he believes Duke didn't. IMO, DG is making this a Duke issue and not just a person who happens to be a former Duke bball player issue.

Ah, didn't hear that part. If he said that, then I think that was inappropriate. I think this is a Duke basketball player issue. It's possible that Duke knew more about this than they have said, but there really IS no evidence of that at all (nor a reason to assume that there would be).

[sagegrouse]

I think we disagree on the "barely more" part of the evidence.

1. We know that Thomas spent $30,000 on jewelry. We don't know where he got that money. It is completely reasonable to assume that he got it from his parents somehow. It's also completely reasonable to question whether or not he got the money in an inappropriate (from the NCAA perspective) manner. In other words, if he came about said $30,000, it's possible that the NCAA would this as an impermissible benefit. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to think that he might (or might not) have committed a violation related to the original $30,000.

2. We know that the jeweler claims that the jewelry was worth ~$100,000 and gave Thomas a loan period of 15 days to pay the rest. To my knowledge, we don't know if (a) the $100,000 value is correct or (b) the specifics of the actual loan. It is reasonable to assume that everything was on the up and up. It is ALSO reasonable to assume that there was shadiness, and that said shadiness was due to Thomas' status as a basketball player. If the NCAA were to find that, it would be a violation. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to think that Thomas might (or might not) have committed a violation related to the loan.

3. We know that the matter was settled out of court and a confidentiality agreement was signed by both parties. We don't know why the confidentiality agreement was signed (i.e., to protect whom), and we don't know why Thomas was so willing to settle out of court. Again, it's not unreasonable to assume that everything is on the up-and-up. It's also not unreasonable to assume (based on this evidence) that something was amiss, and that that something could have been an NCAA violation.

These three facts are substantially more than "nothing," and at least worth acknowledging the possibility of wrongdoing.

I'm very glad that the NCAA didn't find evidence. I'm glad our championship is safe. And I'm glad our program is not in future danger. But I disagree with folks whose concern is what other people will think about my opinion on the matter. I'd rather folks think that I'm reasonable and objective and not just a blatant homer. I want to be objective so that, when my thoughts about Duke are positive, it's not ignored as "well he's just a Duke fan being a homer." So in that sense, I won't be offended at all if some outsider says "CDu on DBR thinks that it's possible that Thomas committed a violation."

And note: I don't believe Thomas has any obligation to speak out on the issue. I don't expect a comment from him, nor do I feel cheated that he hasn't come forth. I am happy that all parties (except for other fans) are comfortable with the outcome. But that doesn't mean I can't have an opinion about whether a violation did or did not occur.

Don't worry, CDu, this is my last post on this hopeless and Godforsaken thread.

1. Many accounts have reported that whatever money Lance spent was his and the source was in the form of gifts from family members. The $30K/100K numbers came from the jewelers lawsuit, and if you believe that those are other than inflated numbers, well.... Lance has not confirmed any numbers, to my belief, and so I wouldn't assume anything.

2. The charge is that he made a down payment on some jewelry and owed the balance in less than a month. This doesn't necessarily constitute a "loan" or any terms other than "normal business practoice." It's a stretch to say that this was offered because Lance was a basketball player. Moreover, we can all probably agree that the jeweler's total costs were well under the amount that Lance actually paid at the time.

3.a. "We don't know why the confidentiality agreement was signed (to protect whom)...." This statement is so full of insinuation and innuendo that I don't see how you could hit press the "Submit" key. Virtually all legal settlements have confidentiality agreements, and the jeweler's reasons for one are far stronger than Lance's, in that this guy has sued lots of people on the same grounds. For example, if Lance settled for ten cents on the dollar (five cents, anyone?) then he doesn't want lawyers of other potential defendants (victims?) to find out. And Lance's reasons could well be because he doesn't want the world to see what a dope he was, which has nothing to do with the NCAA and Duke.

3.b. "It is also not unreasonable to assume that something was amiss, and that that something could have been an NCAA violation." It is utter and foolish conjecture, especially because the stakes are so high.

sagegrouse

[lotusland]

Here is what I wrote last October, after a particularly contentious thread (similar to what is happening in this thread). It's still relevant, and it contains links to sources that can talk to some of the speculation in this thread.



OK, we're done with the investigation, and no violation has occurred. There is no other information available, and Lance nor the jeweler can divulge the terms of the settlement, which would answer a ton of everyone's questions.

There's been a lot of speculation as to where Lance got the money, and it appears it is his money. It was his senior year, right before Christmas, after a game in NYC when he would likely return to his home in NJ. Seems like Christmas would be a good time, with graduation looking very likely, that a college savings plan would be given to him and he could spend it how he saw fit. Perhaps some of that jewelry was going to be a gift for his mother or girlfriend (the earrings, maybe). Perhaps he bought it on a whim and wanted to return it, only to find that he was out the $30K. Perhaps...well, we can speculate a lot. But there are legitimate reasons why he might have $30K (or more) and spend it on something many of us would not. Like has been said before, I'm really glad that I'm not having to answer publicly for any stupid purchases or financial decisions I've made early on in my career (or even when I should "know better!").

Here's a thought to ponder: this is not the first high profile lawsuit from this jeweler. Perhaps the company wants a confidentiality clause to protect their reputation? What if they settled for next to nothing...or maybe they took the crap jewelry back and gave Lance his down payment back...in other words, they flexed their legal muscles publicly and then privately settled in what might be viewed by many as a ridiculous lawsuit or settlement, so they don't want that part disclosed. But they got their name out there. What if they really didn't care about the results of the lawsuit, they just wanted another free mention in the media? The whole thing could be a marketing stunt. My point is that perhaps the confidentiality clause protects the jeweler instead of covers a possible NCAA violation. Most of us on this board went to Duke, let's use our education to examine all sides of this story (heck, even if you didn't go to Duke, you ought to be able to see all sides).

Look, there's lots of speculation going on. This is a Duke fan site, and we will naturally give Duke players the benefit of the doubt (and will ridicule our opponents unmercifully). Just because someone publicly defends Lance, doesn't mean that they privately are questioning what happened. They may not want to publicly give any fodder to our opponents by questioning the decision. Some fans and alumni, like me, are trusting that Coach K, Duke, and Lance know far more about this than I do and have taken the proper course of actions.

What would Lance think if he read this thread? What would his family think? How about an opponent's fan? How would you like to read a story that quotes this thread as proof that even Duke fans think a violation occurred? These points are the basis of our rules around here. We expect that Duke players will not get slammed by Duke fans and we don't tolerate rumor mongering and baseless speculation. And there's a huge difference in constructive disagreement and destructively negative comments. Please follow DBR's rules (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?21833-Decorum-amp-Posting-Guidelines-(Please-read-before-posting!)) in this discussion.

OK but you just made several speculative comments about where he got the money without any evidence. Those are possible but no more likely than other less innocuous potential sources for that money. I think Lance could live with owning up to a stupid youthful indiscretion over casting a cloud of suspicion over himself, Duke and all of the coaches, teamates and fans who enjoyed the championship season. You cannot have it both ways. If you don't want to acknowedge all of the possibilities just say we don't know and leave it at that.

[CDu]

2. The charge is that he made a down payment on some jewelry and owed the balance in less than a month. This doesn't necessarily constitute a "loan" or any terms other than "normal business practoice." It's a stretch to say that this was offered because Lance was a basketball player. Moreover, we can all probably agree that the jeweler's total costs were well under the amount that Lance actually paid at the time.

The jeweler's costs are irrelevant. All that matters is the price agreed upon between the two parties. And I don't know that it is in any way necessarily "normal practice" for a jeweler to allow ~70% of the price to be paid later without some sort of credit program. It may be "normal practice" for this particular jeweler. And if it is, then the question still remains whether that "normal practice" is applied only to basketball players/celebrities, or if that's how he works with the general public. If it's the former, then it is a violation per the NCAA. If it's the latter, then there's nothing wrong with it.


3.a. "We don't know why the confidentiality agreement was signed (to protect whom)...." This statement is so full of insinuation and innuendo that I don't see how you could hit press the "Submit" key. Virtually all legal settlements have confidentiality agreements, and the jeweler's reasons for one are far stronger than Lance's, in that this guy has sued lots of people on the same grounds. For example, if Lance settled for ten cents on the dollar (five cents, anyone?) then he doesn't want lawyers of other potential defendants (victims?) to find out. And Lance's reasons could well be because he doesn't want the world to see what a dope he was, which has nothing to do with the NCAA and Duke.

On the contrary, there was absolutely no insinuation or innuendo. It is quite possible that Thomas had reasons for keeping it quiet. It's quite possible that those reasons have to do with the NCAA, it's quite possible that they are for other reasons. It is also quite possible that the confidentiality was the idea of the jeweler and had nothing to do with Thomas. I made no claims as to which it was. I just noted that it's not unreasonable to suspect that something was amiss.


3.b. "It is also not unreasonable to assume that something was amiss, and that that something could have been an NCAA violation." It is utter and foolish conjecture, especially because the stakes are so high.

It is not in any way foolish. Nor are the stakes of my opinion very high. The matter is closed with regard to the law and NCAA. Nor would the NCAA find my thoughts meaningful in any investigation as (a) I don't have all of the facts, (b) am not an expert in the field of law, and (c) have no connection to either Thomas, the jeweler, the NCAA, or the Duke basketball program. They are my thoughts and mine alone, and they really aren't all that meaningful outside of my head and (only possibly) on this board.

[loran16]

All due respect, but that's a cheap shot. You're accusing people hypocrisy based on how *you* think they would react to a hypothetical situation. You could at least cite the people that made sweeping conclusions about UNC based on limited (but existing!) evidence in the Af-Am scandal.

Because it's true - and you cite an example yourself. But I was of course referencing: http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?29135-The-Tami-Hansbrough-Travel-Vigil. Hey look you even posted in this one.

Same thing.

EDIT: lest I be misunderstood, let me further hash out that some hypocrisy is unavoidable in sports fandom, and I understand that. But this is a bit much.

[Duvall]

Because it's true - and you cite an example yourself. But I was of course referencing: http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?29135-The-Tami-Hansbrough-Travel-Vigil. Hey look you even posted in this one.

Really? What did I say?


Oh, I disagree. Even if we had enough facts to conclude that the Lance Thomas lawsuit might lead to some kind of penalty for Duke, there hasn't been anything at all to suggest that the situation is nearly as serious as UNC's chief development official working with the university chancellor and Vice Chancellor to get his girlfriend a job on the university payroll, a job that resulted in misappropriation of university funds.

Hey, that's still true. The two situations are completely different, in that one had evidence of wrongdoing, and the other, well, didn't.

[devil84]

OK but you just made several speculative comments about where he got the money without any evidence. Those are possible but no more likely than other less innocuous potential sources for that money. I think Lance could live with owning up to a stupid youthful indiscretion over casting a cloud of suspicion over himself, Duke and all of the coaches, teamates and fans who enjoyed the championship season. You cannot have it both ways. If you don't want to acknowedge all of the possibilities just say we don't know and leave it at that.

You bolded this quote in my post:
and it appears it is his money. It was his senior year, right before Christmas, after a game in NYC when he would likely return to his home in NJ. Seems like Christmas would be a good time, with graduation looking very likely, that a college savings plan would be given to him and he could spend it how he saw fit. Perhaps some of that jewelry was going to be a gift for his mother or girlfriend (the earrings, maybe). Perhaps he bought it on a whim and wanted to return it, only to find that he was out the $30K. Perhaps...well, we can speculate a lot.

In the summary of the case, I cited Jeff Goldman's story (http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/blog/eye-on-college-basketball/20152211/lance-thomas-situation-muddy-without-answers), where he says, "I've been told by multiple sources close to Thomas that it came from within the family, but no one is talking on the record." That's not speculation. Because a legitimate news source tells me it's his money, I can see that being home around Christmas, one might get the contents of their college savings when it's clear that they will graduate on time -- that's where I speculate and offer a plausible explanation of why a large sum of money falls into a 21 year old's lap. I noted several speculative possibilities and inferred that we can speculate ad nauseum without reaching a definitive conclusion (maybe that's my downfall -- I didn't definitively state that there reasons too numerous to mention and we'll never know; I'll try to refrain from inferring anything in the future).

"I think Lance could live with owning up to a stupid youthful indiscretion over casting a cloud of suspicion over himself, Duke and all of the coaches, teamates and fans who enjoyed the championship season." Are you certain he hasn't owned up to his coaches (and therefore Duke) and teammates and given them the information that he legally can? The only other entity in your list is the fans. The confidentiality clause may prohibit Lance from saying ANYTHING publicly, including owning up to a youthful indiscretion. We don't know what it says. And we won't know. All that's left is speculation -- and while speculation is what drives message boards, there's a difference in offering a plausible option on how he legitimately acquired his money vs. determining from his silence that a violation occurred.

[-jk]

I think we've spun this one as far as it'll go, and people are getting testy. The facts are limited, nothing really new has come up since our first go 'round, and everyone is saying the same things over and over.

There have been some clear summaries, especially devil84's summary from last fall with linked sources. Nothing has changed, except the NCAA has determined there's nothing they can determine. Next play.

-jk

[Jim3k]

We have been told, based on the pleadings in Texas state court, that Lance put down 30K as a first payment on a ~100K purchase. The complaint was served on Lance in Texas apparently because he was with the Austin Toros at the time the complaint was filed. It's a dubious story to begin with, but it may arise from the way the jewelry company pleaded its case. It is a New York company, suing in Texas. Lance is most probably a New Jersey resident though there was some chance that he might be regarded as a Louisiana resident. From a lawyer's point of view, these possibilities immediately raise the spectre of finding the case in federal court on diversity of citizenship grounds. If so, federal courts also require the amount in controversy to exceed 75K. State courts of general jurisdiction have no such rules; they will hear most anything. There are no dollar minimums.

So...what would the Texas lawyer, Mike Bowers of Dallas, unsure of what court he might find himself in or out of, do to insulate his complaint from procedural dismissal efforts? In fact, it's probably a lawyers' commonplace to draw a complaint that accounts for perceived defense moves. I admit to not being clued in to these issues any more, first presented to me in 1964-5, when I entered law school; moreover, I never encountered the issue during my career in an entirely different area of practice so I would certainly defer to a more informed practitioner's expertise. But, if I'm right and Bowers was following a standard pleadings recipe, it would go a long way to explain the ~100K figure; it meets the federal requirement of 75K, but stands meaningless as substantive evidence of actual value. It would essentially be seen as a prophylactic move to keep the case local to the lawyer. Suppose Lance did claim Louisiana or New Jersey as his residence arguing that Texas had no jurisdiction over this New York dispute? Pointing out these facts in the complaint probably obviates any dismissal effort on jurisdiction grounds. It also keeps the case in Texas, imposing a burden on Lance to defend.

And, if the lawyer knows that settlement is sure to come in state court, he has nothing to fear from exaggerating the amount in controversy. No one will ever hear about the actual price of the jewelry or the amount settled for.

If I'm anywhere close to right, then the true value of the jewelry has never been published and the amounts tossed about in the press have been deliberately inflated for procedural, not substantive, reasons. It also means there is no evidence anywhere regarding the actual value of this near-bling. If there is no credible evidence supporting the press's numbers, there is no way any of us should be guessing at what was actually at stake.

OK, federal court practitioners, have at me. :D

[-jk]

I think we've spun this one as far as it'll go and people are getting testy. The facts are limited, nothing really new has come up since our first go 'round, and everyone is saying the same things over and over.

There have been some clear summaries, especially Devil84's summary (requoted, below) from last fall with linked sources. Nothing has changed, except the NCAA has determined there's nothing they can determine. Next play.


On 9/8/12, the story broke that Lance Thomas is being sued by a New York jeweler. Allegedly, he purchased diamond jewelry on 12/21/09 for a $30K down payment and a $67,800 balance due in 15 days. The lawsuit, filed in January, 2012, is for the unpaid balance and has not been publicly disclosed.[1] (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/8348908/former-duke-blue-devils-f-lance-thomas-purchased-100000-jewelry) This is the same jeweler that, in the last two years, sued and settled with Dallas Cowboys Dez Bryant for $240K [1] (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/8348908/former-duke-blue-devils-f-lance-thomas-purchased-100000-jewelry), sued rapper Gucci Mane for over $274K and won [2] (http://www.dukehoopblog.com/2012/09/15/2010-ncaa-champion-lance-thomas-sued/), and allegedly sold a Manhattan layer’s Rolex brought in for cleaning to rapper Drake [3] (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/owner_vexed_at_rapper_rolex_rgFR17kBkWTaPQpm3MOixO ). The terms for both Dez Bryant [4] (http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2011-03/60474695.pdf) and Gucci Mane [2] (http://www.dukehoopblog.com/2012/09/15/2010-ncaa-champion-lance-thomas-sued/) were the same 15 days as Lance Thomas; the actual invoice for Dez Bryant shows their pre-printed contract to be 15 days [4, page 8, point 1] (http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2011-03/60474695.pdf). The lawsuit was settled on 9/18/12, the details of the settlement are bound by confidentiality agreements. [5] (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/8394858/lance-thomas-former-duke-blue-devils-player-settles-jewelers)

There two points that cause Lance’s eligibility to be questioned:


Where did Lance get the $30K to put down? If he got it from an agent or booster, he would be ineligible. If he got it from his family, it’s not a problem. His mother is a manager at a Ford plant in NJ [1] (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/8348908/former-duke-blue-devils-f-lance-thomas-purchased-100000-jewelry), which can indicate his family does have money. Jeff Goodman’s “multiple sources close to Thomas” indicate that it came from the family.[6] (http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/blog/eye-on-college-basketball/20152211/lance-thomas-situation-muddy-without-answers)
Was Lance extended the 15 day loan based on his status as a student-athlete? If so, he would be ineligible. In 15 days, Lance would still be in college – hard to argue that he was given the loan based on future earnings as a pro athlete, especially as he was not expected to be drafted in the NBA [7] (http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/story/2012-09-10/lance-thomas-duke-lawsuit-ncaa-2010-national-championship). Would other students at Duke be able to get the same terms? It seems to be on the preprinted contact for Dez Bryant [4] (http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2011-03/60474695.pdf).


From the NCAA’s perpective, we know that:


The NCAA is investigating. Duke must cooperate and is cooperating.
The NCAA does not have subpoena powers. Neither the jeweler nor Lance Thomas (as he is no longer a student athlete) need to talk to the NCAA. Per the terms of their settlement, they cannot talk to the NCAA or media.
NCAA rules, specifically the Cooperative Principle, Bylaw 32.1.4, can prevent Coach K and Duke’s compliance officers from talking to Lance to preserve the integrity of the investigation. [8] (http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/10/02/2386145/thomas-reportedly-will-talk-to.html#storylink=cpy)
NCAA rules prohibit Coach K and Duke representatives from talking to the media about an ongoing investigation.
Good legal advice prohibits Lance from talking to the media about his confidential settlement and ongoing NCAA investigations.
If Lance either received the $30K down payment impermissibly or received an impermissible loan, he was an ineligible player, which could cause the games in which he played from that point on to be vacated, including the National Championship.


Lance has made a public statement on October 1 saying that he does not think he violated NCAA rules, and after legal details are worked out, he will talk to the NCAA.[9] (http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ex-duke-player-thomas-says-221031240--ncaab.html)

So.......

All we know is that a lawsuit was filed against Lance Thomas for $68K of a $100K jewelry purchased during winter break of his senior year (when Duke won the National Championship), and it was settled on 9/18/12 with a mutual confidentiality clause. We are assuming that the lawsuit filed is completely accurate on purchase dates, amounts, terms, and other transaction details. The NCAA is investigating, but Coach K cannot talk to Lance or the media about it until after the NCAA investigation, nor can Lance or the jeweler divulge the terms of the settlement.

So, what’s left to discuss until the NCAA is done with their investigation?

-jk