|
Post by Wolfgang on Mar 13, 2019 12:14:53 GMT -5
I sometimes pee in my back yard because it's nice out and I'm too lazy to walk back inside. Plus, save water. This is the only thing I'm embarrassed about and would not want this fact to be known publicly. Hope it's not a crime.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Mar 13, 2019 12:16:09 GMT -5
I keep humming that Richie Valens song, "Oh Donna."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2019 12:16:50 GMT -5
Are there really people who don't know that getting kickbacks is a crime? Just ask yourself, would I want it to be publicly known what I am doing right now? If the answer is "no", then you are probably doing something you shouldn't be doing. Anyway, a lot of college coaches should be waking up now to the fact that transferring money for illegal purposes or just conspiring to hide money transfers for any purpose is a federal crime. Taking or giving bribes is a crime. Not reporting the money transfers to the IRS is a crime. Paying the money to "Bill Ferguson volleyball camp" as a way of hiding that they are paying him a bribe is basically the very definition of what "money laundering" is all about. It's about taking dirty money and filtering it through a legit income stream so that it ends up looking legit by the time it gets to the bank account. I agree, and I do not know why I feel bad for him but I do. Don't know the guy but it seemed minor compared to what was happening at USC, Yale, and Stanford. I am not saying he is innocent (he is guilty). He screwed up badly and is going to pay a huge price for what he did.
|
|
|
Post by azvb on Mar 13, 2019 12:22:18 GMT -5
Am I correct in assuming an athlete offered a scholarship but was not accepted to the school is ONE HORRIBLE STUDENT?
I remember Denise Corlett telling me even she couldn’t get her niece, Sydney Donahue in to Stanford. Clearly, Denise wasn’t trying hard enough. 😉 she ended up at ASU, where everyone is accepted, everyone gets a trophy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2019 12:23:26 GMT -5
What is honest services mail fraud? Stealing the spot of a student that is not a moron. Could apply it also to stealing the ACT score too I guess. I think these charges are pretty weak compared to what they could charge them with. Maybe they will up the charges when they have full access to bank records, emails etc. Everyone should be getting money laundering charges, many should be getting tax evasion and tax fraud charges too.
|
|
|
Post by azvb on Mar 13, 2019 12:29:00 GMT -5
What is honest services mail fraud? Stealing the spot of a student that is not a moron. Could apply it also to stealing the ACT score too I guess. I think these charges are pretty weak compared to what they could charge them with. Maybe they will up the charges when they have full access to bank records, emails etc. Everyone should be getting money laundering charges, many should be getting tax evasion and tax fraud charges too. Thanks. Seems a bit of an oxymoron. Like jumbo shrimp 😀.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2019 12:33:50 GMT -5
I read this and actually felt bad for the coach. Background, Girl was already on the "wait list" at WF and likely would have received admission. There was not a ton of information but from what I could glean it seems that the coach likely knew this was not kosher but I doubt he understood it was a crime. I read it like he thought it was how things worked. $50k went to the school (donations happen all the time to help kids get in) and the $50k that went to his camps would have been reported as income with his camp. While it is not right, his punishment will outweigh his "crime" (if it is only one instance). He will likely have to plead, might get some time and has killed his career. He would have paid income tax on the camp money but since the govt will want big punishment for coaches, they will likely pile on charges like mail fraud/wire fraud and money laundering to make the sentence larger. This case I felt the worst about and Donna's sins were so glaring I kind of ignored it. The worst part is the Yale coach who received a direct $400,000 bribe and did not pay taxes on it, is a cooperating witness (CW3) so he will get less punishment than Ferguson. More background: Ferguson was the USC men's coach for 9 years up until 2015, which has very nice overlap with the crimes of Donna, Vavic and others. Oh... I guess I should have waited to read the other 710 students that have not been named yet before feeling bad for someone.
|
|
|
Post by bigfan on Mar 13, 2019 12:41:34 GMT -5
I agree, and I do not know why I feel bad for him but I do. Don't know the guy but it seemed minor compared to what was happening at USC... This is considered a federal crime? If so their guidelines that the judge must follow regarding sentencing? Is this why you think Heinel gets a decade locked up?
|
|
|
Post by vbcoach06 on Mar 13, 2019 12:56:47 GMT -5
Serious question-could AD's and presidents get fired over this? If an assistant coach breaks a major rule, it's the head coach who gets fired for "failure to monitor". Does this not apply in this situation?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2019 13:00:22 GMT -5
After reading the indictment and then the complaint (only 40 of the 750 cases that the FBI has info on), there is no doubt in my mind that Donna will be looking at 10-20 years in federal prison minimum. I highly doubt she will get away with only 10 years, there is way too much evidence against here and the crimes she has committed would demand more than that. The worst thing for Donna is that the FBI does not need her cooperation. Her information is useless to them because they made their case against her over the last 8 months on wiretaps. Let's remember, CW1 (is Singer) the mastermind of the whole scheme is Cooperating Witness 1. CW2 is Riddell and CW3 is the Yale Coach. From the footnotes it appears the Yale Soccer coach was pushed to approach a female Harvard coach and that is where things started unwinding. So, to summarize, you have the two people that know everything (CW1 and CW2) about participants and payments cooperating with the government for over 8 months already. That is why they have all the fake calls about an IRS audit recorded because Singer was already CW1. They have Donna on tape admitting her crimes, they have emails from USC (Swann to Donna and back) where Donna is covering up her crimes. She will not get sympathy nor leniency because of her brazen disrespect for the law (and common decency). If I have to put an over/under on Donna's sentence it would be 15 years. I predict 43 or 47 months. I assume this is a political comment. If it is not, I will take the over. Donna has nothing to offer the FBI and when you add the sentencing guidelines for her crimes combined with no remorse, covering them up, and the number (I expect it will be hundreds of students) it will be a travesty to see that type of sentence.
|
|
|
Post by vbjustice on Mar 13, 2019 13:02:32 GMT -5
Serious question-could AD's and presidents get fired over this? If an assistant coach breaks a major rule, it's the head coach who gets fired for "failure to monitor". Does this not apply in this situation? Potentially. Remember USC fired their President over that big sex abuse scandal. I saw reports last month they were considering someone from Northwestern to take the helm. Who in their right mind would want that job?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2019 13:04:03 GMT -5
Serious question-could AD's and presidents get fired over this? If an assistant coach breaks a major rule, it's the head coach who gets fired for "failure to monitor". Does this not apply in this situation? If the AD was not a well loved, minority, former professional football player that helps collect a lot in donations to the school, the answer would be yes. Failure to supervise. The students should all be kicked out by now and the graduates stripped of degrees (like USC did with the Walton cheating scandal). I am willing to bet that USC has not contacted plant services to scrape the AD's name off his office door.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2019 13:04:11 GMT -5
Still not sure I'm following. So you think the athletics coach, whether it was Mick or anyone hired to replace Mick, wouldn't "figure out" that there was something odd going on when a senior athletic director is telling that coach who to use his or her scholarships towards? Just trust the senior AD, sight unseen, that this girl she's pushing into his/her program is going to be worth the scholarship? And even if that's the case, when this recruit shows up and obviously doesn't play the sport...? No that is not what happened. You have to read the hundreds of pages. The AAD at USC was adding additional PSAs to the list that the coaches submitted to the AAD. Essentially the AAD was adding more "walk ons" that needed to be presented to admissions for special consideration. The AAD was only doing this for the sports that she did not have coaches that were also getting bribed (at USC waterpolo coach was also in on it). Sand VB and Indoor (and the other sports not cooperating with the AAD) had no idea these students existed (read the pole vaulter's case) but near the time that Haley was fired, Sand VB had found out about one of them and asked the AAD about it. Additionally, prep schools had called admissions about the terrible student (aunt becky's kid) that clearly put no effort into school, work, athletics to ask how the eff she was admitted to USC. Donna was playing whack a mole trying to cover up multiple fake athletes that she had been bribed to let in at the exact same time. But your original story was that the sand volleyball coach was pissed because he/she only gets 6 scholarship spots so when the AAD told him/her that he/she was taking on this extra player it really hindered him/her.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2019 13:11:30 GMT -5
No that is not what happened. You have to read the hundreds of pages. The AAD at USC was adding additional PSAs to the list that the coaches submitted to the AAD. Essentially the AAD was adding more "walk ons" that needed to be presented to admissions for special consideration. The AAD was only doing this for the sports that she did not have coaches that were also getting bribed (at USC waterpolo coach was also in on it). Sand VB and Indoor (and the other sports not cooperating with the AAD) had no idea these students existed (read the pole vaulter's case) but near the time that Haley was fired, Sand VB had found out about one of them and asked the AAD about it. Additionally, prep schools had called admissions about the terrible student (aunt becky's kid) that clearly put no effort into school, work, athletics to ask how the eff she was admitted to USC. Donna was playing whack a mole trying to cover up multiple fake athletes that she had been bribed to let in at the exact same time. But your original story was that the sand volleyball coach was pissed because he/she only gets 6 scholarship spots so when the AAD told him/her that he/she was taking on this extra player it really hindered him/her. No, I stated what was in the complaint. The sand VB coach was concerned about the unheard of player because they only had 6 spots and wanted to win a NC. Donna assured them it would not take up a schollie. They were further concerned it took up walk-on spots. Donna then contacted CW1 and CW1 called the parents to set up a story. Donna also was concerned about the prep schools who had complained and did not want the parents going to Marymount and raising a stink (that a $30k/yr prep school had called USC to argue AGAINST the admission of their DD) because that could blow the whole show given the relationship between marymount and admissions. This is ALL in the FBI filings to read. The only thing you have to glean out is what is freeform truthful communications and what are "FBI made up cover stories" given to CW1 to parrot to the parents/donna to get the parents/donna on tape admitting their role in the crimes.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Mar 13, 2019 13:17:08 GMT -5
Serious question-could AD's and presidents get fired over this? If an assistant coach breaks a major rule, it's the head coach who gets fired for "failure to monitor". Does this not apply in this situation? The NCAA and NCAA rules are very different from the FBI and Federal Law. In my opinion, the NCAA shouldn't touch any of this. People are getting arrested. Pretty sure that is enough of a deterrent for these actions. No real need for the NCAA to get involved. (I also have the opinion that the NCAA should've left the Jerry Sandusky situation alone to be settled by the judicial system. But I'm likely in the minority on that one.)
|
|