"Fundamentally, the Panel, after rejecting the University's proffer of evidence that would have informed the Panel's understanding of the basis for the Enforcement Staff's removal of former Allegation No. 1, used the very absence of this evidence to take the unprecedented step of directing the issuance of a Third Notice of Allegations with respect to matters that were appropriately addressed in the investigation and were the subject of extended dialogue between the University and the Enforcement Staff."
 |
(Side note: the COI Panel was not, as Evrard articulates, "directing the issuance of a Third Notice of Allegations." But that will be for a later article.)
UNC-CH Athletics Director parroted Evrard the next day:
"...the committee then cited the absence of the very same evidence in the instructions it gave to the enforcement staff to revisit the second notice of allegations. That means the university was deprived the opportunity to submit evidence in the case record and the committee used the lack of evidence against us."
The Panel's rejection of UNC's request didn't result in the "absence of evidence" as UNC claims.
First: When it denied UNC's request, the Panel also granted UNC the opportunity to summarize the information in a 10-page "targeted and synthesized submission" to allow UNC to succinctly get the information it wanted on the record before the hearing. UNC took advantage of that opportunity. Contrary to the reporting of InsideCarolina, that 10-page "targeted and synthesized" submission was NOT rejected by the Panel, at least not according to the documents UNC has made public.
Secondly; the rules on which the Panel based its denial (Bylaw 19.7.5 and COI IOP 3-15) applied only to written materials submitted prior to the hearing:
Per bylaw 19.7.5, "Information may be submitted at the hearing." Just because UNC wasn't granted relief from the 30-day rule to get the correspondence evidence on the record before the hearing doesn't mean UNC was stymied from getting those materials introduced as evidence at the hearing. Nothing and no one barred UNC from presenting that "evidence" to the Panel at the hearing to supplement and buttress the 10-page submission already in the record.
The COI Panel's letter of November 28th states, "At the procedural hearing, the panel probed the underlying reasons for amending the original NOA." UNC was represented at the hearing. Surely they presented their case and didn't leave the Panel with an "absence of evidence" on which to base a decision.
Per bylaw 19.7.5, "Information may be submitted at the hearing." Just because UNC wasn't granted relief from the 30-day rule to get the correspondence evidence on the record before the hearing doesn't mean UNC was stymied from getting those materials introduced as evidence at the hearing. Nothing and no one barred UNC from presenting that "evidence" to the Panel at the hearing to supplement and buttress the 10-page submission already in the record.
The COI Panel's letter of November 28th states, "At the procedural hearing, the panel probed the underlying reasons for amending the original NOA." UNC was represented at the hearing. Surely they presented their case and didn't leave the Panel with an "absence of evidence" on which to base a decision.
With or without the actual correspondence evidence, the Panel well understood UNC's explanation of why/how the original Allegation 1a (Article 16 impermissible academic benefits) had been jointly discussed between the institution and Enforcement, resulting in its removal from the ANOA. But UNC's explanation, and the "key" correspondence evidence, were not responsive to the focus of the Panel's concern.
"The change appears to have been based, in part, on a belief by the enforcement staff that the COI does not generally support the consideration of impermissible academic assistance allegations. This is not an accurate characterization of the COI's position. The COI will consider allegations of violations of NCAA rules, including those involving impermissible academic assistance and academic misconduct, when the facts are present to support such allegations."
This concern, raised by the Panel, has nothing to do with the nature of the dialogue UNC and Enforcement engaged in leading up to the ANOA. And nowhere in the COI's November 28th letter does it "cite the absence of...evidence" or any words to that effect as a reason for any of its decisions.
The only relevant evidence absent from the procedural hearing was anything explaining the rationale for removing the Article 16 impermissible benefits allegations from the ANOA while not only keeping the Lack of Institutional Control (LOIC) allegation but adding a Level I Failure to Monitor allegation, both of which were based on language about "anomalous courses" no longer found anywhere else in the allegations. Such an explanation is not found in any of the "evidence" UNC claimed was key. It wasn't in UNC's 10-page submission. And apparently, neither UNC nor Enforcement explained it at the October 28th hearing.
Inexplicably, UNC's Bubba Cunningham said the ANOA "fairly aligned the facts of our case with the appropriate NCAA bylaws and case precedent;" yet UNC's Response to that ANOA strongly suggested otherwise. There was obviously still some unfinished business with regard to the adequacy of the ANOA related to the jurisdictional issues associated with the deleted allegation. The UNC/Enforcement dialogue that had led to the ANOA had left it fundamentally flawed. It's little wonder why UNC was happy with the ANOA and wanted it as the ceiling for Panel consideration.
