Zion improper benefits allegations are back from the dead, again

[Nugget]

Daneil Wallach, the legal analyst, attorney, and contributor to The Athletic, had an interesting response to Pat Forde on twitter after the Forde article was posted to SI.



This is looking a lot more like a publicity stunt than an actual case. It should also be a tell that Coach K and Duke have not issued a statement about the situation as far as I have seen.

I think Wallach is being overly cavalier in those comments, if not outright wrong on at least some of them.

First, with respect to his assertion that Prime Sports' "discovery was filed in a FL lawsuit that’s on appeal and is stayed as to Zion," so "No response required."

While Zion is appealing the Florida state court's ruling denying his motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in Florida (as allowed under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i)), those rules do not provide for an automatic stay of the rest of the case while the personal jurisdiction issue is appealed. Specifically, Rule 9.130(f) states that "[i]n the absence of a stay, during the pendency of a review of a nonfinal order, the lower tribunal may proceed with all matters, including trial or final hearing, except that the lower tribunal may not render a final order disposing of the cause pending such review absent leave of the court."

So, unless the Florida case has been ordered formally stayed, discovery can proceed. I see nothing in the docket sheets in either the Florida trial court or appellate court indicating that either court has ordered the case "stayed as to Zion." Maybe there is such an order and it's simply not reflected in the docket sheets, but that would be very unusual.

Thus, I think there is a high likelihood that Zion will need to provide a "response" to (either answering or, more likely, objecting to) the Florida discovery requests in the next 30-45 days. And, of course, if he objects, there would be a further motion trying to compel him to answer.

Second, with respect to the statement that "No discovery can occur in NC until a scheduling order is entered."

That's not correct either - Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) and 26(f), as modified by the NC court's Local Rule 16.1(b), you cannot serve discovery requests until the parties have "conferred" for the purpose of preparing for the scheduling conference, which is to occur no later than 14 days before the scheduling conference (at which the scheduling order is typically entered).

Technically, the parties could "confer" more than 14 days before the conference and then begin discovery, but Prime Sports would likely refuse to do so in this case and the NC judge already rejected one attempt by Zion's lawyers to start discovery early. But, that was b/c Prime Sports' motion to dismiss was still pending.

Now that that motion to dismiss has been denied, and Prime Sports filed its Answer (on May 8), typically the scheduling conference would be set for sometime in the next 45-60 days. So, it isn't going to be long before Prime Sports could serve these same discovery requests in the NC case.

Third, with respect to his statement that "Relevancy battles loom."

Here, I agree with him completely. But, I think Wallach, and the author of the Forbes piece cited in the article on the DBR home page, are being a little cavalier about the relevance of Prime Sports' requests. Whether Zion had received impermissible benefits -- from Prime Sports or anyone else -- before he declared for the draft seems to me to be a critical component of Prime Sports' defense to this case. Again, while I'm no expert on the UAAA, it would appear that the Prime Sports' contract and/or the disclosures Prime Sports provided to Zion plainly didn't comply with the statute. My understanding is that would render the agreement void/voidable by Zion, such that he wouldn't be liable for breaching it and CAA wouldn't be liable to inducing him to break it.

Thus, Prime Sports' primary (if not only) defense will be "we didn't have to comply with the UAAA b/c Zion was already ineligible under NCAA rules." And, it's obviously a straight-shot from that to "therefore, we need to obtain evidence that Zion or his family received $$ from Nike or Addidas, or he or his family received impermissible benefits with respect to rent for the family's housing in NC."

The Forbes article dismisses this as an issue somehow unrelated to whether the Prime Sports contract was valid or breached. But, I think that is plainly incorrect given the broad standard for relevancy. If the case isn't settled, Zion's (IMO) absolutely going to have to answer this discovery.

Fourth, with respect to the statement that "Coach K (a non-party to the litigation) is beyond the subpoena power of a Florida court, and Ford’s attorneys will have to seek a special commission issued by a NC court to compel his testimony in Florida."

This is technically true, but in reality no big deal. North Carolina, like most states, has adopted the Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act, and Section 1F-3(b) of that statute says that the North Carolina clerk "shall" issue the deposition subpoena upon presentment of the Florida state court commission, which is issued as a matter of ministerial routine.

So, if the case isn't settled, it would be very easy to subpoena Coach K for a deposition in the Florida case. And, in any event, he would be readily subject to deposition power in the NC case as well.

This has been a lot of lawyer posturing about who's going to get homecourt advantage -- plus some obvious publicity mongering by Prime Sports aiming to pressure Zion (and, by extension, Duke) to settle. But, relatively soon, the litigation will get off the ground.

One humorous side note that tells you how far removed from the real world are some litigation arguments was this attempt by Prime Sports to try to support its argument to have the case transferred from NC to FL because it couldn't get a fair trial in NC: "Defendants' remaining argument for dismissal consists of their concern that Plaintiff’s status as a star for the Duke Blue Devils will make it impossible for Defendants to receive a fair trial in North Carolina.”

The Judge had the professionalism not to note the absurdity of that argument given the prevalence of UNC supporters in the jury pool.

[mattyoung18]

I have a feeling coach K is beyond pissed if he has to show up in court for a player that is not only gone but the University went to bat for him to become eligible.

[duke79]

I think Wallach is being overly cavalier in those comments, if not outright wrong on at least some of them.

First, with respect to his assertion that Prime Sports' "discovery was filed in a FL lawsuit that’s on appeal and is stayed as to Zion," so "No response required."

While Zion is appealing the Florida state court's ruling denying his motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in Florida (as allowed under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i)), those rules do not provide for an automatic stay of the rest of the case while the personal jurisdiction issue is appealed. Specifically, Rule 9.130(f) states that "[i]n the absence of a stay, during the pendency of a review of a nonfinal order, the lower tribunal may proceed with all matters, including trial or final hearing, except that the lower tribunal may not render a final order disposing of the cause pending such review absent leave of the court."

So, unless the Florida case has been ordered formally stayed, discovery can proceed. I see nothing in the docket sheets in either the Florida trial court or appellate court indicating that either court has ordered the case "stayed as to Zion." Maybe there is such an order and it's simply not reflected in the docket sheets, but that would be very unusual.

Thus, I think there is a high likelihood that Zion will need to provide a "response" to (either answering or, more likely, objecting to) the Florida discovery requests in the next 30-45 days. And, of course, if he objects, there would be a further motion trying to compel him to answer.

Second, with respect to the statement that "No discovery can occur in NC until a scheduling order is entered."

That's not correct either - Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) and 26(f), as modified by the NC court's Local Rule 16.1(b), you cannot serve discovery requests until the parties have "conferred" for the purpose of preparing for the scheduling conference, which is to occur no later than 14 days before the scheduling conference (at which the scheduling order is typically entered).

Technically, the parties could "confer" more than 14 days before the conference and then begin discovery, but Prime Sports would likely refuse to do so in this case and the NC judge already rejected one attempt by Zion's lawyers to start discovery early. But, that was b/c Prime Sports' motion to dismiss was still pending.

Now that that motion to dismiss has been denied, and Prime Sports filed its Answer (on May 8), typically the scheduling conference would be set for sometime in the next 45-60 days. So, it isn't going to be long before Prime Sports could serve these same discovery requests in the NC case.

Third, with respect to his statement that "Relevancy battles loom."

Here, I agree with him completely. But, I think Wallach, and the author of the Forbes piece cited in the article on the DBR home page, are being a little cavalier about the relevance of Prime Sports' requests. Whether Zion had received impermissible benefits -- from Prime Sports or anyone else -- before he declared for the draft seems to me to be a critical component of Prime Sports' defense to this case. Again, while I'm no expert on the UAAA, it would appear that the Prime Sports' contract and/or the disclosures Prime Sports provided to Zion plainly didn't comply with the statute. My understanding is that would render the agreement void/voidable by Zion, such that he wouldn't be liable for breaching it and CAA wouldn't be liable to inducing him to break it.

Thus, Prime Sports' primary (if not only) defense will be "we didn't have to comply with the UAAA b/c Zion was already ineligible under NCAA rules." And, it's obviously a straight-shot from that to "therefore, we need to obtain evidence that Zion or his family received $$ from Nike or Addidas, or he or his family received impermissible benefits with respect to rent for the family's housing in NC."

The Forbes article dismisses this as an issue somehow unrelated to whether the Prime Sports contract was valid or breached. But, I think that is plainly incorrect given the broad standard for relevancy. If the case isn't settled, Zion's (IMO) absolutely going to have to answer this discovery.

Fourth, with respect to the statement that "Coach K (a non-party to the litigation) is beyond the subpoena power of a Florida court, and Ford’s attorneys will have to seek a special commission issued by a NC court to compel his testimony in Florida."

This is technically true, but in reality no big deal. North Carolina, like most states, has adopted the Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act, and Section 1F-3(b) of that statute says that the North Carolina clerk "shall" issue the deposition subpoena upon presentment of the Florida state court commission, which is issued as a matter of ministerial routine.

So, if the case isn't settled, it would be very easy to subpoena Coach K for a deposition in the Florida case. And, in any event, he would be readily subject to deposition power in the NC case as well.

This has been a lot of lawyer posturing about who's going to get homecourt advantage -- plus some obvious publicity mongering by Prime Sports aiming to pressure Zion (and, by extension, Duke) to settle. But, relatively soon, the litigation will get off the ground.

One humorous side note that tells you how far removed from the real world are some litigation arguments was this attempt by Prime Sports to try to support its argument to have the case transferred from NC to FL because it couldn't get a fair trial in NC: "Defendants' remaining argument for dismissal consists of their concern that Plaintiff’s status as a star for the Duke Blue Devils will make it impossible for Defendants to receive a fair trial in North Carolina.”

The Judge had the professionalism not to note the absurdity of that argument given the prevalence of UNC supporters in the jury pool.

Thank you for your detailed legal analysis of the issues in these pending cases! (but the complexity of the procedural issues makes me glad I am no longer practicing law!!).

[DevilYouKnow]

I’m enormously biased. Duke degrees, following Devil Hoops since the 60s, friends with some former players.

I believe K and Duke are clean. If I’m wrong, I’ll have a lot of soul searching to do, but it just makes sense they’re clean.

First, Duke and K have an enormous investment in the “Winners who play by the rules” reputation. It’s deeply ingrained in our brand, much more so than other programs. If that got tainted, it would devastating to Duke. There’s no player worth that risk, even and especially from a financial point of view.

Second, I know a bit about how Duke regards compliance. They have multiple people self-monitoring to ensure nothing untoward happens. Other schools do too, but Duke’s have strong support from its coaches.

So, if detractors want to claim Duke is motivated by greed, fine. Just make sure they consider the tremendous cost of a tarnished image.

[DavidBenAkiva]

I think Wallach is being overly cavalier in those comments, if not outright wrong on at least some of them...

Thanks for the write-up of this, Nugget. I found it informative and would give you sporks if I could.

[chrishoke]

Thanks for the write-up of this, Nugget. I found it informative and would give you sporks if I could.

Got you covered.

[ice-9]

If Zion is so intelligent, how did he get himself into such a mess? He had access to some of the best advice available to a college basketball player.

C'mon guys. History is littered with examples of very smart people being fooled by con-people. Theranos? Madoff?

[proelitedota]

I’m enormously biased. Duke degrees, following Devil Hoops since the 60s, friends with some former players.

I believe K and Duke are clean. If I’m wrong, I’ll have a lot of soul searching to do, but it just makes sense they’re clean.

First, Duke and K have an enormous investment in the “Winners who play by the rules” reputation. It’s deeply ingrained in our brand, much more so than other programs. If that got tainted, it would devastating to Duke. There’s no player worth that risk, even and especially from a financial point of view.

Second, I know a bit about how Duke regards compliance. They have multiple people self-monitoring to ensure nothing untoward happens. Other schools do too, but Duke’s have strong support from its coaches.

So, if detractors want to claim Duke is motivated by greed, fine. Just make sure they consider the tremendous cost of a tarnished image.

There is nothing to the Zion story that calls for your sentiment. It's simply one side in a lawsuit pulling all matters of dirty tactics to force a settlement.

[duke96]

C'mon guys. History is littered with examples of very smart people being fooled by con-people. Theranos? Madoff?

Hardly comparable to the most marketable athlete in a generation, with presumably every advisory resource imaginable, making a series of incredibly foolish choices around one fairly basic (but critical) decision that he knew he would likely have to make for many years leading up to the time.

I love Zion but WTH?! Also very puzzled how Duke didn't help him make better choices.

[Stray Gator]

Hardly comparable to the most marketable athlete in a generation, with presumably every advisory resource imaginable, making a series of incredibly foolish choices around one fairly basic (but critical) decision that he knew he would likely have to make for many years leading up to the time.

I love Zion but WTH?! Also very puzzled how Duke didn't help him make better choices.

Until we have more information about the circumstances under which this contract was signed, including such material facts as the influence of family members, it seems to me that charging Zion with a "series of incredibly foolish choices" is prematurely harsh.

[duke96]

Until we have more information about the circumstances under which this contract was signed, including such material facts as the influence of family members, it seems to me that charging Zion with a "series of incredibly foolish choices" is prematurely harsh.

Well, we know enough to know he signed with one firm and then tried to break his contract to sign with another firm six weeks later, exposing himself to a massive lawsuit (and some degree of public embarrassment). I think that's pretty clearly a foolish series of decisions. One can debate the semantics, but he needed to measure twice and cut once on a decision of that magnitude.

And that's not to mention initially trying to sign with the family friend who wasnt even a qualified agent (as I recall), but less details are known about that part.

I love the kid and always will. But those were bad choices.

[ice-9]

Hardly comparable to the most marketable athlete in a generation, with presumably every advisory resource imaginable, making a series of incredibly foolish choices around one fairly basic (but critical) decision that he knew he would likely have to make for many years leading up to the time.

I love Zion but WTH?! Also very puzzled how Duke didn't help him make better choices.

Are you saying that a 19-year old should be better equipped to deal with con-people than highly experienced, extremely successful, investors that gave hundreds of millions to Theranos?

In 2016 the board at Theranos included:

Riley Bechtel, former Bechtel Group CEO
David Boies, a founder and the chairman of Boies Schiller Flexner
William Foege, former director CDC
Richard Kovacevich, former Wells Fargo CEO and chairman
James Mattis, later U.S. Secretary of Defense
Fabrizio Bonanni, former executive vice president of Amgen

Yeah, Zion should know better than those guys, with "every advisory resource imaginable" at his disposal.

[Bluedog]

And that's not to mention initially trying to sign with the family friend who wasnt even a qualified agent (as I recall), but less details are known about that part.

I believe his family friend tried to become a qualified agent and Zion would have signed with him, but he failed the NBA mandated agent exam to ensure agents know the rules well enough to represent athletes...that test cost him a big pay day...I agree with your post. It seems clear that unfortunately Zion or those helping him navigate the waters/giving him guidance made some poor moves.

[duke96]

Are you saying that a 19-year old should be better equipped to deal with con-people than highly experienced, extremely successful, investors that gave hundreds of millions to Theranos?

In 2016 the board at Theranos included:

Riley Bechtel, former Bechtel Group CEO
David Boies, a founder and the chairman of Boies Schiller Flexner
William Foege, former director CDC
Richard Kovacevich, former Wells Fargo CEO and chairman
James Mattis, later U.S. Secretary of Defense
Fabrizio Bonanni, former executive vice president of Amgen

Yeah, Zion should know better than those guys, with "every advisory resource imaginable" at his disposal.

Actually, yes, and its not even a close comparison. I imagine you're not involved in corporate finance or governance, and if this is the case then I can certainly see why you might think this. But I can assure you that all those people had a lot of other important things to think about than doing deep investigative work on whether the underlying technology of Theranos was a fraud, and they certainly wouldn't have been able to do that investigative work as a prospective board member even if they had been so inclined. And there is no equivalent of Coach K and the Duke basketball infrastructure available whatsoever (let alone to the extent this exists for a unique prospect like Zion) when someone is considering joining a board of directors. Those people all thought they were doing something that burnished their resumes and made them a nice income, and they were joining a club of other successful people who were making the same decision. Probably did little if any research on the viability of the technology. If Zion had, say, initially signed with a high profile agency like CAA and then subsequently it turned out that CAA was a fraud... well then maybe there would be a comparison. But the reality is just the opposite.

[ice-9]

Actually, yes, and its not even a close comparison. I imagine you're not involved in corporate finance or governance, and if this is the case then I can certainly see why you might think this. But I can assure you that all those people had a lot of other important things to think about than doing deep investigative work on whether the underlying technology of Theranos was a fraud, and they certainly wouldn't have been able to do that investigative work as a prospective board member even if they had been so inclined. And there is no equivalent of Coach K and the Duke basketball infrastructure available whatsoever (let alone to the extent this exists for a unique prospect like Zion) when someone is considering joining a board of directors. Those people all thought they were doing something that burnished their resumes and made them a nice income, and they were joining a club of other successful people who were making the same decision. Probably did little if any research on the viability of the technology. If Zion had, say, initially signed with a high profile agency like CAA and then subsequently it turned out that CAA was a fraud... well then maybe there would be a comparison. But the reality is just the opposite.

Actually, I'm CEO of a company with 650 employees, so am quite familiar with corporate finance and governance.

If you look deeper into the Theranos example, there were many opportunities for investors and board members to discover the fraud if they were just a little more skeptical. Doing any kind of due diligence typical of an investment (e.g. fact checking the military contracts the CEO claimed they had in press; interviewing employees; insisting on seeing the machine work) would have raised major red flags. One of the investors' grandson interned at Theranos and had grave concerns about the company -- which the grandfather dismissed.

Investors and board members didn't suspect a thing for a long time. Why? Because they were hoodwinked by Elizabeth the CEO. These were seasoned investors, hundreds of millions of dollars, big names on the board. They were all fooled.

So a 19-year old basketball player is supposed to be better? Come on.

Zion should've known better than to sign with Gina. But more experienced people have been fooled to greater degrees, so judgement of the kid should be tempered.

[duke96]

Actually, I'm CEO of a company with 650 employees, so am quite familiar with corporate finance and governance.

If you look deeper into the Theranos example, there were many opportunities for investors and board members to discover the fraud if they were just a little more skeptical. Doing any kind of due diligence typical of an investment (e.g. fact checking the military contracts the CEO claimed they had in press; interviewing employees; insisting on seeing the machine work) would have raised major red flags. One of the investors' grandson interned at Theranos and had grave concerns about the company -- which the grandfather dismissed.

Investors and board members didn't suspect a thing for a long time. Why? Because they were hoodwinked by Elizabeth the CEO. These were seasoned investors, hundreds of millions of dollars, big names on the board. They were all fooled.

So a 19-year old basketball player is supposed to be better? Come on.

Zion should've known better than to sign with Gina. But more experienced people have been fooled to greater degrees, so judgement of the kid should be tempered.

Congratulations on your business. That's great and I hope it's doing well. I am, among other things, a lead board director at companies with well over 100,000 cumulative employees, sitting with board members of comparable pedigrees to those of the Theranos board. And I've seen the decision making process associated with people of that stature joining boards of that nature, and suffice to say it is not approached with anywhere near the degree of rigor that one would expect would accompany a generational prospect making a 9+ figure decision under the close guidance of a top-tier basketball program like Duke. It's night and day.

Now, whether the Theranos board members should have (after joining the board) subsequently identified the fraud and gotten off the board - a very different question. But their failure to do so frankly underscores my point - it wasn't all that important to them (at least until it was too late). They all have much more important things going on in their careers than what board(s) they join or stay on. And again, they have no advisors devoted to helping them to do diligence on their board choices and ensuring that it reflects well on them (and the advisor) in a very publicly visible way. And, for all they knew at the time, they were joining the "A team" supported by groupthink alongside a bunch of other high profile board members. Different story for the investors, who really should have had enough skin in the game to do better diligence. But those weren't the examples you cited, and again they got caught up in backing the next "hot company".

This is in stark contrast to Zion, whose choice in representation was probably the single biggest choice he had to make at that stage in his life (rather than one of many, as is the case for the board members/investors in Theranos). He could/should have had all the best advisors in the world helping him make that single decision. His choices were, unfortunately, really poor. And it was pretty obvious whether it was his family friend that failed the agency test or Gina Ford, he wasn't joining the "A team" (or a hot company in your Theranos analogy). He tried to sign with one clown show and then when that failed he signed with the next clown show, before finally getting with a real company. It's just a totally different situation and, to me, pretty unfathomable.

Again, love the kid, hate to see the very unfortunate choices he made. And they are baffling given the circumstances.

[ice-9]

Congratulations on your lead directorship, and sitting on various boards.

I regret posting the board member list for Theranos, as my original point was more about investors getting fooled. But a Google search gave me the list of board members and I was too lazy to go further...so just copy-pasted the board list as a proxy for investors. The concept works, though in practice, I agree board members conduct a lot less due diligence than investors.

However, on the topic of investors, each and every single one should absolutely do some kind of due diligence. The lead investor should unquestionably do a LOT of due diligence. Perhaps because you sit on boards and aren't in the weeds raising money for a company, you've forgotten how extensive due diligence can be when raising hundreds of millions of dollars. As someone who has gone through that multiple times the last few years, though in smaller amounts, I can attest that most investors actually really do conduct due diligence. Any competent form of that would've uncovered the fraud at Theranos.

Despite these VC/PE funds employing professionals, many of whom are our best and brightest from universities like Duke and not 19 year olds who only primarily know how to play basketball, they were collectively hoodwinked by a con-person.

[Ultrarunner]

Congratulations on your business. That's great and I hope it's doing well. I am, among other things, a lead board director at companies with well over 100,000 cumulative employees, sitting with board members of comparable pedigrees to those of the Theranos board. And I've seen the decision making process associated with people of that stature joining boards of that nature, and suffice to say it is not approached with anywhere near the degree of rigor that one would expect would accompany a generational prospect making a 9+ figure decision under the close guidance of a top-tier basketball program like Duke. It's night and day.

Now, whether the Theranos board members should have (after joining the board) subsequently identified the fraud and gotten off the board - a very different question. But their failure to do so frankly underscores my point - it wasn't all that important to them (at least until it was too late). They all have much more important things going on in their careers than what board(s) they join or stay on. And again, they have no advisors devoted to helping them to do diligence on their board choices and ensuring that it reflects well on them (and the advisor) in a very publicly visible way. And, for all they knew at the time, they were joining the "A team" supported by groupthink alongside a bunch of other high profile board members. Different story for the investors, who really should have had enough skin in the game to do better diligence. But those weren't the examples you cited, and again they got caught up in backing the next "hot company".

This is in stark contrast to Zion, whose choice in representation was probably the single biggest choice he had to make at that stage in his life (rather than one of many, as is the case for the board members/investors in Theranos). He could/should have had all the best advisors in the world helping him make that single decision. His choices were, unfortunately, really poor. And it was pretty obvious whether it was his family friend that failed the agency test or Gina Ford, he wasn't joining the "A team" (or a hot company in your Theranos analogy). He tried to sign with one clown show and then when that failed he signed with the next clown show, before finally getting with a real company. It's just a totally different situation and, to me, pretty unfathomable.

Again, love the kid, hate to see the very unfortunate choices he made. And they are baffling given the circumstances.

May I ask a question, in two parts, meant without rancor? You are quite successful in your corporate endeavors. At the age of 19, would you possess the same acumen that you display now? And, at age 19, would you be able to divorce yourself entirely from the inputs of family and friends to reach an optimal decision?
Did Zion screw up? I don't know. At this point, we primarily have information from one party. I do know that I do not have the information to make a valid judgment, but I am adverse to judging him until I do have enough data.

[duke96]

Actually I am centrally involved in doing due diligence for investments of hundred of millions of dollars and more. But none of this really the point, we’re getting off track.

Elizabeth Holmes was a fraudster the likes of which have rarely been seen in history, and she created a unique aura around Theranos that between the high profile investors and high profile board members was incredibly self perpetuating and led to a lot of smart people making bad mistakes.

But Theranos has very little comparability to Gina Ford or Zion’s family friend. The Duke program is (or should be) world class when it comes to helping a player to select an agent. And the credentials of an agent are much easier to assess than diligencing the underlying technology of a biotech unicorn. And it’s pretty hard to imagine that Gina Ford is the fraudster equivalent of Elizabeth Holmes.

His choices were unfortunately shockingly bad ones. I sure hope he makes better ones going forward.

[FellowTraveler]

Congratulations on your business. That's great and I hope it's doing well. I am, among other things, a lead board director at companies with well over 100,000 cumulative employees, sitting with board members of comparable pedigrees to those of the Theranos board. And I've seen the decision making process associated with people of that stature joining boards of that nature, and suffice to say it is not approached with anywhere near the degree of rigor that one would expect would accompany a generational prospect making a 9+ figure decision under the close guidance of a top-tier basketball program like Duke. It's night and day.

Congratulations on the many things of which you are obviously quite proud.

If you re-read your post, I wonder if you might notice the double-standard you’re (inadvertently, I trust) deploying in order to denigrate a 19-year-old while absolving people with whom you seem to identify of responsibility for their actions. I’ve taken the liberty of bolding some phrases that might help.

You’re holding Zion to the standard of what you think he should do, and you’re holding board directors and noblemen like yourself to the standard of what is commonly done. And by doing so, you’re defending people who helped perpetuate a massive fraud, all while condemning a 19 year old for failing to live up to your expectations. Just as I assume this double standard is unintentional, I assume the fact that it favors your peer group is coincidental.