UNC Athletic Scandal: New Wainstein Document Details

[devildeac]

I believe it is, more properly (as is appropriate for Sir Winston):

“'You are drunk Sir Winston, you are disgustingly drunk. 'Yes, Mrs. Braddock, I am drunk. But you, Mrs. Braddock are ugly, and disgustingly fat. But, tomorrow morning, I, Winston Churchill will be sober.”

That's likely more accurate. I found several quotes and omitted the first part about his inebriated condition at the time.

[BigWayne]

Another interesting mention from the DTH articles on an actor that is still employed there so could be compelled to testify by the NCAA:

Travis Gore

Current position: Administrative Assistant in the African, African-American and Diaspora Studies department

What Wainstein said about him: Gore began working under Crowder in 2001 and took over for her after her retirement in 2009. After Crowder’s retirement, Gore would get schedules from Nyang’oro and put them into the computer. "Gore acknowledged that his understanding of a paper class was a course that did not meet and required the student to write a paper. Gore recalled that for the paper classes after Crowder left, Nyang’oro would give him a list of topics that the class could write on, and Gore would provide the topics to the students,” the report said.

What he said about the report: Gore intially lied about his identity when asked for comment. After following up with Gore, he disclosed his identity and declined to comment on the report.

[hallcity]

From today's piece by Dan Kane:

Rick White, a UNC spokesman, said Wednesday: “We have not received a revised (notice of allegations) from the NCAA nor have we received a revised timeline.” He said that information would be made public as soon as UNC is notified.

It would please me greatly if the NOA ends up being amended so Ol' Roy is explicitly cited and the Men's Basketball and Football programs are so explicitly cited that even the most myopic Tar Heel can't miss it.

[OldPhiKap]

From today's piece by Dan Kane:

Rick White, a UNC spokesman, said Wednesday: “We have not received a revised (notice of allegations) from the NCAA nor have we received a revised timeline.” He said that information would be made public as soon as UNC is notified.

It would please me greatly if the NOA ends up being amended so Ol' Roy is explicitly cited and the Men's Basketball and Football programs are so explicitly cited that even the most myopic Tar Heel can't miss it.

Thanks. Where does that leave the deadline?

[BD80]

Thanks. Where does that leave the deadline?

The etymology of words can be interesting.

"Deadline" really does capture situation at the dump

[swood1000]

Thanks. Where does that leave the deadline?

It means that at least we know that UNC has finished its investigation and submitted its findings to the enforcement staff. There seem to be three possibilities.

(a) Enforcement staff will decide to conduct its own extended investigation. Seems unlikely. If they were going to do this they probably would have done so starting in August when they received the basic facts surrounding the new infractions.

(b) Enforcement staff will amend the NOA but in a way that is not significant or concludes that the new infractions are not Level I or II. Also seems unlikely. Activities by Jan Boxill seem like Level I almost by definition, and this infractions seems to be different in kind from the existing "extra benefits" infractions that she is charged with, although maybe it is just one more of the same kind of email that they have plenty of already.

(c) Enforcement staff will amend the NOA to add significant new infraction(s). This will restart the 90 days that UNC has to provide their answer. If UNC submitted the results of their investigation in mid-October and the enforcement staff takes two weeks to come up with a revised NOA then 90 days from November 1 is January 30, 2016, so their response will be due then (and they likely will have finished redacting the new NOA about then as well). Then come 60 days for the enforcement staff to meet with UNC and reply, bringing us to March 30, 2016. They have to give three or four weeks after that for the COI panel to read everything, and then they can have the hearing. If the same amount of time elapses as elapsed in the Syracuse case (127 days after the hearing began) then the decision will be released August 4, 2016.

At any rate, if there is a significant amendment of the NOA, then UNC is not going to miss the tournament in 2016 unless they self-impose. Also, Roy knew what he was talking about when he said that this was not going to affect the tournament in 2016.

[OldPhiKap]

It means that at least we know that UNC has finished its investigation and submitted its findings to the enforcement staff. There seem to be three possibilities.

(a) Enforcement staff will decide to conduct its own extended investigation. Seems unlikely. If they were going to do this they probably would have done so starting in August when they received the basic facts surrounding the new infractions.

(b) Enforcement staff will amend the NOA but in a way that is not significant or concludes that the new infractions are not Level I or II. Also seems unlikely. Activities by Jan Boxill seem like Level I almost by definition, and this infractions seems to be different in kind from the existing "extra benefits" infractions that she is charged with, although maybe it is just one more of the same kind of email that they have plenty of already.

(c) Enforcement staff will amend the NOA to add significant new infraction(s). This will restart the 90 days that UNC has to provide their answer. If UNC submitted the results of their investigation in mid-October and the enforcement staff takes two weeks to come up with a revised NOA then 90 days from November 1 is January 30, 2016, so their response will be due then (and they likely will have finished redacting the new NOA about then as well). Then come 60 days for the enforcement staff to meet with UNC and reply, bringing us to March 30, 2016. They have to give three or four weeks after that for the COI panel to read everything, and then they can have the hearing. If the same amount of time elapses as elapsed in the Syracuse case (127 days after the hearing began) then the decision will be released August 4, 2016.

At any rate, if there is a significant amendment of the NOA, then UNC is not going to miss the tournament in 2016 unless they self-impose. Also, Roy knew what he was talking about when he said that this was not going to affect the tournament in 2016.

Thanks, tried to Spork but must spread the love first.

I guess it's just up to us to beat the snot out of them. Ok.

[BigWayne]

From today's piece by Dan Kane:

Rick White, a UNC spokesman, said Wednesday: “We have not received a revised (notice of allegations) from the NCAA nor have we received a revised timeline.” He said that information would be made public as soon as UNC is notified.

It would please me greatly if the NOA ends up being amended so Ol' Roy is explicitly cited and the Men's Basketball and Football programs are so explicitly cited that even the most myopic Tar Heel can't miss it.

To me, the most interesting item in that article is this section about yesterday's data dump:

White said a much more voluminous request has tied up UNC’s public records staff. Last year, The N&O requested all records provided to Wainstein for his investigation. (The Daily Tar Heel, UNC’s student newspaper, made a similar request.) UNC began releasing those Wednesday, making public roughly 200,000 pages of records. UNC officials say five million pages of records were originally provided to Wainstein.

UNC reviewed the records before releasing them, with some names and dates redacted. That review led to UNC identifying the further allegations of misconduct by Boxill. The N&O has requested those particular records be released immediately.


So somewhere in these 200K pages is the new stuff that created the delay. Given that UNC states there are more releases coming, i.e. they aren't done redacting yet, the redactors could find more smoking guns in there. This could take a long time.

This all makes me wonder/hope that some of the manalishi comments last week about things speeding up could be something along the following lines:


1) NCAA sees from the 5 million page situation that the likelihood more violations keep getting mined over the next few months or years is pretty high.
2) NCAA is sick of the delays and wants to act now so they have something they can point to when they are in the courtroom defending the various lawsuits over the next year.
3) NCAA declares initial sanctions with the right to come back and pile on more later when all the documents get processed.

[aimo]

Well, she does resemble Winston ...

Al Czervik:
Last time I saw a mouth like that, it had a hook in it.

[swood1000]

Thanks, tried to Spork but must spread the love first.

I guess it's just up to us to beat the snot out of them. Ok.

Thanks. So it seems to me that the longer the enforcement staff takes to amend the NOA the more infractions they are likely to be adding, or at least the greater the pains they are taking to frame the charges in just the right way to make them stick. Therefore, we at the northern end of Rt. 501 should not be unhappy if they do not complete this process quickly. The longer they take, the greater the probable final penalties, and it won't affect the 2016 Tournament in any event.

[Henderson]

It means that at least we know that UNC has finished its investigation and submitted its findings to the enforcement staff. There seem to be three possibilities.

(a) Enforcement staff will decide to conduct its own extended investigation. Seems unlikely. If they were going to do this they probably would have done so starting in August when they received the basic facts surrounding the new infractions.

(b) Enforcement staff will amend the NOA but in a way that is not significant or concludes that the new infractions are not Level I or II. Also seems unlikely. Activities by Jan Boxill seem like Level I almost by definition, and this infractions seems to be different in kind from the existing "extra benefits" infractions that she is charged with, although maybe it is just one more of the same kind of email that they have plenty of already.

(c) Enforcement staff will amend the NOA to add significant new infraction(s). This will restart the 90 days that UNC has to provide their answer. If UNC submitted the results of their investigation in mid-October and the enforcement staff takes two weeks to come up with a revised NOA then 90 days from November 1 is January 30, 2016, so their response will be due then (and they likely will have finished redacting the new NOA about then as well). Then come 60 days for the enforcement staff to meet with UNC and reply, bringing us to March 30, 2016. They have to give three or four weeks after that for the COI panel to read everything, and then they can have the hearing. If the same amount of time elapses as elapsed in the Syracuse case (127 days after the hearing began) then the decision will be released August 4, 2016.

At any rate, if there is a significant amendment of the NOA, then UNC is not going to miss the tournament in 2016 unless they self-impose. Also, Roy knew what he was talking about when he said that this was not going to affect the tournament in 2016.

So by self-reporting "newly discovered" infractions immediately before its response to the NOA was due, UNC-CH bought itself an entire season of basketball, sanction free. Pretty clever. The strategy may be at the considerable expense of future teams because of the negative overhang of an ongoing NCAA investigation. But I see what they're doing.

[OldPhiKap]

So by self-reporting "newly discovered" infractions immediately before its response to the NOA was due, UNC-CH bought itself an entire season of basketball, sanction free. Pretty clever.

Yup. But I am sure that the NCAA noted this too. Water finds its own level.

[devildeac]

So by self-reporting "newly discovered" infractions immediately before its response to the NOA was due, UNC-CH bought itself an entire season of basketball, sanction free. Pretty clever. The strategy may be at the considerable expense of future teams because of the negative overhang of an ongoing NCAA investigation. But I see what they're doing.

Yup. But I am sure that the NCAA noted this too. Water finds its own level.

Aptly titled, perhaps in more ways than one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_holes

[Merlindevildog91]

Aptly titled, perhaps in more ways than one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_holes

I haven't spread enough love to spork you, DD, but consider yourself praised.

Love the picture and the caption. I expect the caption is there for the sake of those with a sheep u education.

[Pghdukie]

Citing Al Bundy - "It's only cheating if you get caught"

[swood1000]

So by self-reporting "newly discovered" infractions immediately before its response to the NOA was due, UNC-CH bought itself an entire season of basketball, sanction free. Pretty clever. The strategy may be at the considerable expense of future teams because of the negative overhang of an ongoing NCAA investigation. But I see what they're doing.

On the bright side, assuming that these were infractions that UNC kept in reserve specifically for this purpose, it's likely that they were serious. That's the only way that UNC could have been sure that the enforcement staff would OK a 60 day pause to investigate, and then issue an amended NOA, together supplying the crucial 150 day additional delay UNC needed to salvage its season. Also on the bright side, the enforcement staff has had an additional 60 days to pore through the evidence and may have added additional infractions and/or cited additional evidence to bolster the original infractions. On the dark side, the "newly discovered" infractions could be infractions that are against individuals, like Jan Boxill, and not against the institution.

[swood1000]

Aptly titled, perhaps in more ways than one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_holes

Love it. Perhaps the application of the Law of Holes here is this: "If you find that you are UNC, stop it."

[swood1000]

UNC will likely be releasing a number of other documents shortly. They have received a number of Freedom of Information requests but UNC says that attending to those requests has been delayed because of the request by the News & Observer and The Daily Tar Heel last year for all records provided to Wainstein for his investigation. That was the huge release we saw recently, and that release involved only 200,000 of the 5 million pages that were provided to Wainstein. Don't know how long it will be until they get to the other requests. Maybe they are taking their time on this in order to avoid complying with requests for more sensitive info. The Daily Tar Heel said:

But a check of the website shows many unfulfilled requests, some of which do not involve voluminous records. The N&O, for example, has not received legal and public relations bills from some of the firms UNC has contracted with, nor has UNC responded to a request for any letters of disassociation issued to people involved in the scandal. Both requests are several weeks old.

White said a much more voluminous request has tied up UNC's public records staff. Last year, The N&O requested all records provided to Wainstein for his investigation. (The Daily Tar Heel, UNC's student newspaper, made a similar request.) UNC began releasing those Wednesday, making public roughly 200,000 pages of records. UNC officials say 5 million pages of records were originally provided to Wainstein.

UNC reviewed the records before releasing them, with some names and dates redacted. That review led to UNC identifying the further allegations of misconduct by Boxill. The N&O has requested those particular records be released immediately. http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/...decisions-loom

[BigWayne]

UNC will likely be releasing a number of other documents shortly. They have received a number of Freedom of Information requests but UNC says that attending to those requests has been delayed because of the request by the News & Observer and The Daily Tar Heel last year for all records provided to Wainstein for his investigation. That was the huge release we saw recently, and that release involved only 200,000 of the 5 million pages that were provided to Wainstein. Don't know how long it will be until they get to the other requests. Maybe they are taking their time on this in order to avoid complying with requests for more sensitive info. The Daily Tar Heel said:

This week's dump was stated to be of 91,383 out of 1.7 million documents. It will be a very long time before they are done with these requests.

[swood1000]

This week's dump was stated to be of 91,383 out of 1.7 million documents. It will be a very long time before they are done with these requests.

So if The Daily Tar Heel is to be believed, 91,383 out of 1.7 million documents translates to 200,000 out of 5 million pages. (My Acrobat is still busy converting them to searchable text, which appears to be taking about 10 hours per download, so I can't open them up to count the number of total pages they contain.)

Edit: but with this number of documents it's not hard to understand the high fees that Wainstein charged.