FOR RELEASE: November 9, 1993, 1 p.m. (Central Time) CONTACT: David Swank, Chair, NCAA Committee on Infractions University of Oklahoma VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY INFRACTIONS REPORT OVERLAND PARK, KANSAS--This report is organized as follows: I. Introduction. II. Violations of NCAA legislation, as determined by the Committee on Infractions. III. Committee on Infractions penalties. I. Introduction. In March 1991, during a meeting requested by three cross country student-athletes with the director of athletics, the young men reported possible violations of NCAA legislation that involved the head men's and women's cross country coach. At that time, the director of athletics asked the assistant director of athletics for compliance to join the meeting. Subsequent to this meeting, the director of athletics and the assistant director of athletics for compliance informed the university's president, the faculty athletics representative and the Metropolitan Collegiate Athletic Conference assistant commissioner of the violations reported by the student-athletes. On June 26, 1991, the NCAA enforcement staff was contacted by the institution and notified of the reported irregularities. On October 9, 1991, the assistant director of athletics for compliance was assigned by the president as the primary investigator, and the institution launched an investigation into the possible violations. On August 21, 1992, the university submitted a report to the NCAA enforcement staff that contained information concerning violations of NCAA legislation within the men's cross country program. Because the alleged violations appeared to be major in nature, an NCAA enforcement representative was assigned to the case and, on September 23, 1992, visited the university's campus to conduct on-campus interviews and review the results of the institution's investigation. As a result of the information reported by the institution and collected by the enforcement staff, a letter of preliminary inquiry was delivered to the university on February 15, 1993. A letter of official inquiry was sent to the president on March 19, 1993, and the former head cross country coach also was notified of the [Page 2] allegations. The university responded on May 10, 1993. A prehearing conference with the institution was conducted on August 26, 1993. The former head coach responded on September 3, 1993. A formal hearing before the Committee on Infractions was held on Friday, September 17, 1993, with institutional representatives. The Committee on Infractions found that violations within the men's cross country program had occurred, including: instructing student-athletes to compete under assumed names, using
institutional funds to pay lodging and transportation costs for a student-athlete to compete in a club event and submitting false participation sheets to the institution and to the conference. Because the violations found in Part II of this report are major, the minimum penalties set forth in NCAA Bylaw 19.5.2 ordinarily would apply. The committee, however, recognized several mitigating circumstances, including the limited number of violations; the prompt and thorough investigation and reporting of violations to the NCAA; cooperation in the processing of the case, and initiation of strong disciplinary and corrective actions, including removal of the involved coach and the establishment of administrative procedures designed to ensure full compliance with NCAA legislation. Accordingly, the penalties assessed by the committee include: - Reprimand and censure of the university's athletic program. - Two-year probationary period. - Development of a comprehensive education program. - Forfeiture of the conference championship. - Institutional recertification. In addition, the committee adopted the institution's self-reported penalties. In that regard, the institution: - Dismissed the head cross country coach. - Declared involved student-athletes ineligible without appeal for immediate restoration, thereby resulting in a loss of one season of eligibility. In the case of one student-athlete, restoration was never requested. - Returned the conference championship trophy. All eligibility issues related to student-athletes in this report have been resolved. [Page 3] II. Violations of NCAA legislation, as determined by the Committee on Infractions. A. [NCAA Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1, 11.1.1 and 14.01.5.3-(b)] During the period from late October to early November 1989, the head cross country coach acted contrary to the principles of ethical conduct in that he provided instructions to redshirt studentathletes that they reasonably understood to mean they were to participate under assumed names in the open race held immediately preceding the November 4, 1989, Metropolitan Collegiate Athletic Conference Cross Country Championships. Specifically, the head coach: (a) provided such instructions at a team meeting in which he made entry forms available; (b) responded to a
student-athlete's postteam meeting request for clarification by specifically stating that all redshirt student-athletes should run under assumed names, and (c) directed another student-athlete to complete his entry form using a different name. As a result of the coach's instructions, six student-athletes ran under assumed names. B. [NCAA Bylaw 13.1.1.3] On July 20, 1988, the head cross country coach offered institutional financial aid to a cross country student-athlete who was enrolled at another NCAA member institution. The institution did not obtain an official release or permission from the first member institution to talk with the young man, as required under NCAA recruiting legislation. Specifically, the student-athlete telephoned the head coach to discuss the institution's cross country program and the possibility of the young man transferring to the institution. Subsequently, the student-athlete's father telephoned the head coach on at least one occasion to further discuss this issue. The head coach informed the young man that they should not talk with him until the student-athlete was released from his former institution. The coach met with the young man's family and a family friend on July 20, 1988, at a sporting goods store owned by the head coach where recruiting information, including the offer of a grant-in-aid from the institution to the student-athlete, was discussed. As a result of the head coach's actions, the young man received an impermissible grant-in-aid from the institution during the 1988-89 academic year. C. [NCAA Bylaws 16.10.2.4 and 16.12.2.1] During the period from April 26 through 28, 1989, the head cross country coach utilized institutional funds to pay lodging and transportation costs for a student-athlete. This was done in order for the young man to travel to participate in competition for a racing team that was sponsored by a sporting goods store in Blacksburg, Virginia, owned by the head coach. At the time, the young man was not eligible to receive such expenses because he was fulfilling his oneyear residency requirement at the institution after transferring from a previous four-year institution. [Page 4] D. [NCAA Bylaw 16.12.2.1] From the summer of 1989 until the summer of 1990, the head cross country coach entertained a cross country student-athlete on at least four occasions by providing meals in restaurants in the Blacksburg, Virginia, area and other sites, at no cost to the young man. E. [NCAA Bylaws 10.01.1 and 10.1-(d)] The involved head cross country coach acted contrary to the principles of ethical conduct, inasmuch as he did not, on all occasions, deport himself in accordance with the generally recognized high standards of honesty and sportsmanship associated with intercollegiate athletics. He knowingly submitted false participation sheets for competition to the institution and the conference. During his interview with university investigators on November 25, 1991, the coach knowingly furnished false and misleading information to university investigators concerning his
involvement in or knowledge of matters relevant to possible violations of NCAA regulations. Specifically, the head coach knowingly provided false information concerning his involvement in or knowledge of: (a) redshirt student-athletes participating in an open race under assumed names on November 4, 1989, as described in Part II-A, and (b) payment of lodging and transportation expenses for a student-athlete to participate in competition on April 27, 1989, as described in Part II-C. III. Committee on Infractions penalties. For the reasons set forth in Part I of this report, the Committee on Infractions found that this case involved several major violations of NCAA legislation that occurred after September 1, 1985. NCAA Bylaw 19.5.2.2, as adopted by the Association's membership, requires prescribed minimum penalties, "subject to exceptions authorized by the Committee on Infractions in unique cases on the basis of specifically stated reasons," that include: (a) a two-year probationary period (including a periodic, in-person monitoring system and written institutional reports); (b) the elimination of all expense-paid recruiting visits to the institution in the involved sport for one recruiting year; (c) a requirement that all coaching staff members in the sport be prohibited from engaging in any off-campus recruiting activities for one recruiting year; (d) a requirement that all institutional staff members determined by the Committee on Infractions knowingly to have engaged in or condoned a major violation be subject either to termination of employment, suspension without pay for at least one year or reassignment of duties within the institution to a position that does not include contact with prospective or enrolled student-athletes or representatives of the institution's athletics interests for at least one year; (e) one year of sanctions precluding postseason competition in the sport; (f) one year of sanctions precluding television appearances in the sport, and (g) institutional recertification that the current athletics policies and practices conform to all requirements of NCAA regulations. [Page 5] The Committee on Infractions determined that the appropriate penalties that the institution should receive should be less than the full set of minimum penalties otherwise required by NCAA legislation. Mitigating circumstances included: prompt and thorough investigation and reporting of violations to the NCAA; cooperation in the processing of the case, and initiation of strong disciplinary and corrective actions, including the establishment of administrative procedures designed to ensure full compliance with NCAA legislation. The committee believed that this case primarily resulted from the deliberate actions of an individual coach who violated the basic trust of the student-athletes with whom he worked, as well as of the institution. Accordingly, the penalties imposed by the committee are as follows: A. The university shall be publicly reprimanded and censured, and placed on probation for a period of two years from the date these penalties are imposed, which shall be the date the 15-day appeal period expires or the date the institution notifies the executive director that it will not appeal, whichever is earlier, or the date established by NCAA Infractions Appeals Committee action in the event of an appeal by the university. B. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University shall be subject to the provisions of NCAA Bylaw 19.5.2.3 concerning repeat violators for a five-year period beginning on the effective date of the penalties in this case.
C. During this period of probation, the institution shall: develop and implement a comprehensive educational program (e.g., seminars and testing) to instruct coaches and athletics department personnel on NCAA legislation; submit a preliminary report by December 31, 1993, setting forth a schedule for establishing this compliance and educational program, and file annual progress reports with the NCAA enforcement staff by July 1 of each year thereafter during the probationary period with a particular emphasis on outside competition, club activities and housing requirements. D. The institution shall recertify that all of its current athletics policies and practices conform to all requirements of NCAA regulations. E. The institution shall forfeit its 1990 Metropolitan Collegiate Conference Championship. F. The Committee on Infractions adopted the penalties the institution imposed upon itself and its cross country coach. In that regard, the institution: 1. Dismissed the head coach. [Page 6] 2. Declared involved student-athletes ineligible without appeal for immediate restoration resulting in loss of one year of eligibility. In the case of one student-athlete, eligibility was never restored. 3. Returned the conference championship trophy. G. If the involved former head cross country coach still had been employed at the institution, the university would have been required to show cause in accordance with Bylaw 19.5.2.1-(m) why it should not be subject to additional penalties if it had failed to take appropriate disciplinary action against him. H. Due to his involvement in certain violations of NCAA legislation found in this case, the former head cross country coach involved in this case will be informed in writing by the NCAA that in the event he seeks employment or affiliation in an athletically related position at an NCAA member institution during a seven-year period (November 9, 1993, through November 8, 2000), he and the involved institution shall be requested to appear before the Committee on Infractions in order for the committee to consider whether that member institution should be subject to the show-cause procedures of Bylaw 19.5.2.1-(m), which could limit the former coach's athletically related duties at the new institution for a designated period. Should Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University appeal either the findings of violations or proposed penalties in this case to the NCAA Infractions Appeals Committee, the Committee on Infractions will submit an expanded infractions report to the appeals committee. This expanded report will include additional information in accordance with Bylaw 32.9.5. A copy of the committee's report would be provided to the institution prior to the institution's appearance before the appeals committee.
The Committee on Infractions wishes to advise the institution that when the penalties in this case become effective, the institution should take every precaution to ensure that their terms are observed. The committee intends to monitor the penalties during their effective periods, and any action contrary to the terms of any of the penalties shall be considered grounds for extending the institution's probationary period, as well as to consider imposing more severe sanctions in this case. Should any portion of any of the penalties in this case be set aside for any reason other than by appropriate action of the Association, the penalties shall be reconsidered by the Committee on Infractions. Should any actions by NCAA Conventions directly or indirectly modify any provision of [Page 7] these penalties or the effect of the penalties, the committee reserves the right to review and reconsider the penalties. NCAA COMMITTEE ON INFRACTIONS Richard J. Dunn Jack H. Friedenthal Roy F. Kramer Beverly E. Ledbetter Yvonne (Bonnie) L. Slatton David Swank (chair) DS:cg/aj -30-