🏀 KuBuckets Archive

Will Silvio get any minutes in the tournament? Does Self risk vacating wins if he plays him?

Or is his not playing him a potential admission of guilt?

Wut

@FarmerJayhawk look sometimes you gotta drink on a Sunday afternoon.

Edit: just having some fun.

Why mess with chemistry? He’ll play if needed.

@dylans said in Is Silvio finito?:

Why mess with chemistry? He’ll play if needed.

Oh some where along the line if were in deep he WILL be needed and I have no worry about him doing just fine - -seen it done before. - - ROCK CHALK ALL DAY LONG BABY

Would the NCAA vacate regular season wins but allow tourney wins?

He's legit now!

@chriz for 2017-2018 possibly. Including the 14th conference championship and final 4. The punishments will be handed down some time between this summer and 100 years.

This year however he is good to play.

The NCAA cleared De Sousa to play, and therein lies their Self-made (pun intended) mess. How can you clear a guy to play (for grades? Yeah, right! It wasn't only about grades) and then later try to hammer a university that - though Adidas supposedly did, yet the player and guardians say otherwise - did not give the player a dime?

@Marco

The guardian of De Sousa did in fact receive the $2500 dollars from Gassnola

My thing is I never feel safe with the NCAA, especially when they're still determining the NOA penalties. You gotta think they could still keep this 2019-2020 season in mind with DeSousa playing. Heck, they originally cleared him and then reneged on that later. Who's to say they wouldn't do it again?

Especially since, as mentioned above, he's not contributing much and it could be argued that we're better without him (unless Dok or McCormack get injured).

So do we risk it?

@chriz said in Is Silvio finito?:

My thing is I never feel safe with the NCAA, especially when they're still determining the NOA penalties. You gotta think they could still keep this 2019-2020 season in mind with DeSousa playing. Heck, they originally cleared him and then reneged on that later. Who's to say they wouldn't do it again?

Especially since, as mentioned above, he's not contributing much and it could be argued that we're better without him (unless Dok or McCormack get injured).

So do we risk it?

He’s free and clear. Served his suspension and we’ve all moved on. There’s zero risk to playing him.

@chriz said in Is Silvio finito?:

Heck, they originally cleared him and then reneged on that later.

He was never cleared of alleged receipt of funds by his guardian. People constantly think an initial eligibility determination when entering college sports is some white glove test that explores all aspects of players' and their families' lives. Not so.

@BeddieKU23 Did he admit it?

@Marco

yes.

Read below

Allegation 2-d asserts that sometime between September 8 and
15, 2017, Gassnola and Gatto provided a $2,500 cash payment to (Silvio's Guardian) as an impermissible recruiting
inducement to secure (Silvio's) commitment to the University. There is no assertion in the ANOA that
the University contemporaneously knew about this payment and no explanation of how the University
should have known about this private cash payment.
At the SDNY trial, Gassnola testified that he put $2,500 cash inside a magazine and sent it to
in response to request for help paying for online classes that (Silvio) was taking.
During the investigation, (Silvio's Guardian). stated he received the $2,500
in cash wrapped inside an auto repair receipt, denied asking Gassnola for it or knowing that it was going to
be sent, and indicated that the online classes that (Silvio). might need to take were free.

@BeddieKU23 Oh, that's right.... But Silvio denied knowing about it, right?

@Marco

The NCAA does not care if he knew or not. While I've venomously disagreed with punishing players if their parents/guardians are the real bad actors here an impermissible benefit was admitted and Silvio lost a year of eligibility. But the issue hasn't gone away since Gassnola is being labeled as a Booster in the NOA and they want KU's head for that and other things they "were supposed to know" about

I thought that there's texts from KU and Gassnola about it going through.

@wissox said in Is Silvio finito?:

I thought that there's texts from KU and Gassnola about it going through.

What do you mean?

@BeddieKU23 Self texted Gassnola, "we good?" which seems to fly in the face of what people are saying here that KU is being punished for something they they didn't know anything about.

@wissox said in Is Silvio finito?:

@BeddieKU23 Self texted Gassnola, "we good?" which seems to fly in the face of what people are saying here that KU is being punished for something they they didn't know anything about.

I think most folks are just going off Gassnola’s testimony that the schools didn’t know and his conviction of defrauding said schools.

@wissox said in Is Silvio finito?:

@BeddieKU23 Self texted Gassnola, "we good?" which seems to fly in the face of what people are saying here that KU is being punished for something they they didn't know anything about.

That text was taken out of context.

Self asked "we good?", prompting the response from Gassnola "always. That was light work. Ball is in his court now." While this exchange has been the subject of substantial, irresponsible media speculation and projection, the evidence in the record establishes it was simply in relation to efforts to obtain used gear for Angolan amateurs. Gassnola testified under oath his reference to "light work" was simply the "uniforms, bags and stuff that (Fenny) wanted for Angola,", and expressly denied that "light work" referred to any "agreement to pay him 20,000. (Fenny) separately explained in his 2018 interview that "light work" referred to his contacting Gassnola, and emphasized "all I ever asked [Gassnola] was for some gear”. Self-affirmed characterization of the text, noting that "light work" to Self would be "whatever (Fenny) talked to [Townsend] about," which was connecting (Fenny) and Gassnola—to discuss a sponsorship, or obtaining product for the Angolan program. There is nothing about this exchange to suggest it is anything other than innocuous and benign."

@BeddieKU23 As I have previously stated on that text: classic example of a statement which could support an inference of knowledge, but standing alone does not establish knowledge, of a particular illicit act.

Another way to say it is that the statement is not inconsistent with innocence.

@mayjay I don’t not like what you did there with a double negative. It isn’t inconsistent with straightforward confusing lawyer speak. Lol

@mayjay

Well the NCAA took the "could" and made it much more then that.

@dylans I understand what you are saying, but think of the burden of proof as a teeter-totter. The text does not weigh on either side of the balance point. When evidence is submitted to prove wrongdoing, the fact-finder is not supposed to assume it proves guilt when it is just as consistent with innocence. We say "not inconsistent with innocence" not to muddle it but to emphasize what is really at stake with the notion of burden of proof: here, the NCAA has the burden to prove the wrongdoing, which the text does not do.

It is usually used more in criminal cases where the burden on the prosecution is to overcome the presumption of innocence.

@mayjay yes, typical noncommittal cya lawyer speak. Our DA is very good at it...As he lets everyone off. I guess that’s better than the opposite.