 |
| "WalterByerz" goes 0 for 5 |
So, I do. And I watched his following ballooned from around 200 in November to over 1700 to date, once he began his assault on NCAA investigators, enforcement staff and the committee on infractions in the wake of the November/December news that the infractions case for UNC had taken an unexpected turn for the worst (at least from a pro-UNC perspective).
He's pandered to Penn State, Ole Miss, and Miami-FL advocates, but mostly (lately) he's been campaigning against what he claims is the unfair and unethical treatment of UNC by those responsible for the NCAA infractions process.
Today was a particularly fun one in terms of "WalterByerz" watching. Usually, "Walter" does a pretty clever job of mixing truth with fiction. Let's do a little fact-checking and see how he did today.
Reality:
NCAA Enforcement staff and UNC informed the Committee on Infractions (COI) that the investigation process needed to be re-opened in order to review additional information UNC had turned up, which could have an impact on the allegations. The COI was not involved in the review process, did no see the new information, nor did it weigh in on the decision or process of whether or not to amend the allegations. That is not the role of the COI at that point in the infractions process and there's nothing in any public document to insinuate otherwise.
The USA Today article to which he linked doesn't even make his mistake of mentioning the COI or its chairman Greg Sankey. The responsibility of reviewing the new information and determining impact on the NOA belongs to the Enforcement staff, and the article makes that clear. @WalterByerz has inserted the misinformation on his own that the COI chairman had a role or voice in the process at that point in August 2015.
Fact Check: False
Reality:
"Walter" is just reinforcing his misinformation from the previous Tweet.
COI Chairman Greg Sankey played no part in reviewing the new information UNC had provided to NCAA Enforcement. Sankey played no part in determining if the new information would impact the Notice of Allegations and delay the infractions process from moving into the hearing phase. Per NCAA Infractions Process, these two functions belong to the Infractions staff, not the Committee on Infractions. The COI is only involved in docket scheduling and panel assignment at that point in the process. @WalterByerz is attributing actions to the COI Chairman for which there is no factual basis.
The image accompanying "Walter's" Tweet is from UNC's Carolina Commitment web portal, showing a public release UNC made when it announced the delay. In it, even UNC doesn't make the claim "Walter" is in attributing actions to Greg Sankey and the COI that would not be within their authority to perform. Again, @WalterByerz is making a false and incorrect claim, which even his supplied exhibit fails to substantiate.
Fact Check: False
Reality:
As previously noted, NCAA Enforcement & UNC did NOT submit information to Sankey for a determination on how it should be processed. In reality, NCAA Enforcement & UNC informed the COI that new information had come to light and it was Enforcement that would be determining, without input from the COI per NCAA protocol, whether or not there would be an impact to the NOA. The COI's only involvement at that point is procedural in terms of scheduling of hearing and assignment of hearing panel.
Additionally, if UNC had any reason to object to the COI chairman being assigned as chief hearing officer of the panel assigned to the UNC case, it had plenty of opportunity to do so. A year later, when the Panel membership was formally announced after an Amended Notice of Allegations (ANOA) was issued, and after UNC responded to the ANOA, and when a hearing was scheduled for October 28th, 2016, UNC was given a deadline of October 14th, 2016 to object to any panel members assigned. UNC did not object. Bylaw 19.5.1.2 did not apply for the reasons already outlined above.
Fact Check: False
Reality:
1. @WalterByerz repeatedly charges NCAA entities with "unethical conduct & rule breaking" but despite hundreds of Tweets and weeks of campaigning, has yet to produce any sound information or substantive example of these claims.
2. Joel McGormley is the Managing Director of the Office of the Committee on Infractions (OCIO). His job is to administratively assist the Committee, managing things like correspondence, docket scheduling and process tracking. The OCIO staff are NCAA employees supporting the COI appointees who are not NCAA headquarters employees. The OCIO staff, including McGormley, have no authority and play no part in who gets assigned to the Panel in a case. Whatever the process is to randomly assign Panel members from the available COI roster, McGormley's role is strictly clerical.
3. Since COI chairman Greg Sankey never was involved in reviewing new information or making a determination on whether or not the Notice of Allegations needed to be Amended, Sankey's later assignment as chief hearing officer on the Panel hearing UNC's case does not violate NCAA Bylaw 19.5.1.2.
Fact Check: True + False
Reality:
The statement of Joel McGormley's position and functions is true, with the description taken straight from the NCAA's own Web site; but "Walter" conflates" the duties of "researches, analyzes" with the actions reserved for the Enforcement staff as it applies to analyzing information for the Notice of Allegations. The managing director of the OCOI doesn't perform that function.
The OCOI also does not write for the COI Chairman, Greg Sankey. "Walter" added that one in on his own. It is not from the NCAA Web site. The Panel members compose their correspondence. The OCOI staff provides administrative support only.
"Walter" again alleges "unethical" conduct and rule-breaking without sound foundation to do so.
Fact Check: "Walter's" opinion, based on the preceding error
Reality:
There are plenty of examples of NCAA governance, leadership, staff -- and institutional members -- failure to adhere to the Association's rules. In an attempt to direct attention away from a member institution's own behavior, "Walter" strains to associate the infractions process in UNC's case with the missteps NCAA Enforcement has made in the University of Miami major infractions case and that the NCAA Board of Governors made in the Pennsylvania State University scandal.
The logical fallacy is that even if NCAA Enforcement and NCAA Committee on Infractions were either independently or collaboratively corrupt or inept, that wouldn't exonerate UNC's own "unethical conduct & rule-breaking."
@WalterByerz has managed to assemble a following of over 1700, most of whom like the sound of what he's preaching because it reinforces their emotional commitment to seeing their institutions as victims of an unfair and out of control governance and legislative process. I've seen not a single one of those 1700 followers critically challenge or double-check anything "Walter" has posted. Why, when his pronouncements are rife with error, is that?
"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest"
~ Paul Simon
