NCAA finds no violations in Lance Thomas jewelry investigation.

[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)

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.

[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.