 |
| NCAA Division I Manual |
The Clock Tolls...
Ignoring the exceptions (a), (b) and (c) above for the moment, which of the following represents
"…the date the institution notifies…the enforcement staff of its inquiries into the matter."
- From when UNC notified NCAA Enforcement of Wainstein investigation on February 21st, 2014 ? [link]
- From May 28th, 2014, when Kenneth Wainstein clarified communication protocol with UNC regarding NCAA inquiries ? [link]
- Or from June 2nd, 2014, when NCAA Enforcement reminded UNC, in light of ongoing Wainstein investigation, of UNC's responsibility to keep the Enforcement staff apprised of possible NCAA violations ? [link]
- Or from when the NCAA announced it has "has reopened its investigation" of UNC on June 30th, 2014 ? [link]
The application of the Statute of Limitations bylaw depends on the date from which one begins marking back 4 years for potential infractions occurred before the statue of limitations is reached.
NCAA Enforcement claims the "clock tolled" on February 21st, 2014 when Senior Associate Athletics Director Vince Ille notified Enforcement's Mike Zonder of the institution's independent investigation into the matter by Caldwalader, Wickersham & Taft (lead by Kenneth Wainstein.) That would put the start date for any cited infractions at February 21st, 2010.
UNC claims the "clock tolled" on May 28th, 2014, when the "communication protocol" between the university, Wainstein and NCAA investigators was established. That would make the earliest date for any cited infraction subject to statute of limitations at May 28th, 2010.
These two dates are only 3 months apart. Does it really matter? The allegations involve evidence and behavior several years earlier than either date, so quibbling over when the "clock tolled" seems silly to me.
The Real Question...
The real question is whether any of the exceptions to Bylaw 19.5.11 apply.
(a) is not a factor since any student-athlete who might have been affected by the conduct alleged is long gone.
NCAA Enforcement argues, in its rebuttal to UNC's Response to the Amended Notice of Allegations (ANOA), that both (b) and (c) are met by the Notice of Allegations.
UNC's rebuttal to Enforcements response did not address the Statute of Limitations argument.
The Committee on Infractions hearing panel that met October 28th, 2016 addressed the Statute of Limitations issue, but only to say it was premature to do so and would consider the application and effect of Bylaw 19.5.11 when the panel addresses the "substantive underlying conduct at a hearing on the merits." The only procedural matter that the panel considered was whether or not the Bylaw prevents the matter from going forward, which it ruled it did not and that the issue will be considered at the hearing on the merits.
