Albama Arkansas Auburn Florida Georgia Kentucky LSU Mississippi State Missouri Ole-Miss USC Tennessee Texas A&M Vanderbilt
Latest News

Newton Tapes Coming In Two Weeks? We’ll See.

Late last week, Huntsville, Alabama radio host Scott Moore went on a couple of radio stations to announce that he has heard tapes of Cecil Newton talking about the “bids” that had been made for his son.  Auburn was implicated.  Tennessee was implicated.  Cam Newton was said to be in the room during one conversation.

Of course, only Moore has heard the tapes.  Former Mississippi State quarterback John Bond and fellow MSU booster Bill Bell made the tapes but they haven’t released them.  Moore said on Friday that the tapes are “valuable.” 

The long string of teasing from Bond and the Moore media push prompted us to write:


It’s Time For Bond And Moore To Put Up Or Shut Up On The Newton Saga


Yesterday, Kevin Scarbinsky of The Birmingham News wrote nearly the exact same story on his blog:


It’s Past Time For John Bond And Bill Bell To Put Up Or Shut Up On Cam And Cecil Newton


Maybe Moore, Bond and Bell are paying attention because the word is spreading now that Moore will play the audio recordings on his new radio show in two weeks.  Now, what kind of guy would try to build up an audience for the release of potentially groundbreaking news?  Somebody trying to build up ratings in order to get his fledgling show into syndication (which Moore has admitted is a goal of his).  It’s called a stunt.  And this has all the makings of being just that.

Many Alabama fans are dancing in the streets — or at least on the messageboards — at the thought of the Newtons and Auburn and Tennessee going down.

But they need to be warned: Moore’s teases and delays and story changes  — one day he thinks Cam is implicated, the next he says Cam can be heard in the room… one day he says Tennessee offered $150,000, the next he says the Vols offered $200,000 — don’t give him a lot of credibility.  Ditto the fact that he’s launching a new show.

Bond and Bell don’t have a lot of credibility either right now.  Moore said they turned some of their tapes over to the NCAA.  Why not all of them?  And if the two are trying to get cash for their story, then they’re no more credible than someone selling an “I had an affair with…” story to The Star. 

Anyone expecting to tune into Moore’s show and find the smoking gun of evidence in the Newton case is likely to be very disappointed.  We’re not saying it’s not possible that new evidence exists.  And if the tapes are earth-shattering, then it’s about time they were released.  But taking everything into account, we wouldn’t trust this bunch as far as we could throw them.

Tapes in two weeks?  We won’t hold our breath.

 


11 comments
HerpDerp
HerpDerp

"The NCAA said initially that Cam Newton's lack of knowledge played a role." Source? What role are you talking about?
I just showed you the NCAA statement that said it didn't have to do with knowledge.

"Also, the SEC had to rule Newton eligible though one of its own by-laws was apparently violated: " It wasn't apparent at all, that's why there had to be a ruling. The ruling stated that the solicitation did not equal "agreement". Knowledge again was not a factor in the ruling.

I UNDERSTOOD THE POINT OF YOUR PIECE JUST FINE. YOU SEEM TO FAIL TO GRASP MINE. By the NCAA and, as you just supplied in the above link, the SEC published the prior rulings saying "regardless of knowledge". Thus if Bond's yet to be heard tapes provide evidence that Cam had knowledge, it doesn't change the prior rulings.

johnmrsec
johnmrsec

I'd already posted this once on this comment string:
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=58767....

It includes a quote from the NCAA's own website when Newton was cleared:

Kevin Lennon, NCAA vice president of academic and membership affairs, said on the website that when the reinstatement staff reviews eligibility cases, it reviews each case based on its own merits and specific facts.

"During the decision, we must examine a number of factors, including guidelines established by our membership for what conditions should be applied based on the nature and scope of the violation," Lennon said. "We also carefully consider any mitigating factors presented by the university to determine if relief from the guidelines should be provided."

Lennon said Wednesday of the Newton case:

"Based on the information available to the reinstatement staff at this time, we do not have sufficient evidence that Cam Newton or anyone from Auburn was aware of this activity, which led to his reinstatement."

clarification
clarification

There are two groups who deal with NCAA problems.

1. is the REINSTATEMENT committee. They deal with individuals players and what they need to do to become eligible again. They rule quickly. This is the group that issued the 4 game suspension for AJ Green and the kids at OSU. AND This is the group that dealt with Cam Newton previously. Auburn seemed to find out about the MISS St. offer. Auburn suspended Cam and reported to the REINSTATEMENT committee. The reinstatement committee determined that they had no evidence at that time to maintain that suspension. And so it was lifted. This does preclude them from ever finding evidence to the contrary (double jeopardy does not apply)- but it wouldn't much matter to this committee since he is no longer in school.

2. The other side of the coin it this COMMITTEE ON INFRACTIONS. This is the one that you as a university and fan need to fear. If they believe they have reason to pursue an issue further and in a more comprehensive manner, the C.O.I. is unleashed. They have long investigations (like that of USC and reggie bush). Then they show up with all of their information and give you a chance to answer for the transgressions and problems that they have found. This is the group that hammers the university's (like ALABAMA in early 2000's and USC more recently) with "Lack of Institutional Control" and penalties of probation, loss of scholarship, and perhaps the death penalty.

So yes it doesn't "change" prior rulings. But prior rulings don't absolve anyone of future rulings from any of these bodies. And more importantly, the COI is still collecting their information. And complicity might be an important part of their judgment.

NittanyLionInAL
NittanyLionInAL

The NCAA said the main factor was that no money changed hands. Cam's lack of knowledge had bearing, but no money offer (at least from Auburn) and no money changing hands was the reason Cam was eligible at Auburn. He may not have been eligible to play at MSU.

clarification
clarification

There are two groups who deal with NCAA problems.

1. is the REINSTATEMENT committee. They deal with individuals players and what they need to do to become eligible again. They rule quickly. This is the group that issued the 4 game suspension for AJ Green and the kids at OSU. AND This is the group that dealt with Cam Newton previously. Auburn seemed to find out about the MISS St. offer. Auburn suspended Cam and reported to the REINSTATEMENT committee. The reinstatement committee determined that they had no evidence at that time to maintain that suspension. And so it was lifted. This does preclude them from ever finding evidence to the contrary (double jeopardy does not apply)- but it wouldn't much matter to this committee since he is no longer in school.

2. The other side of the coin it this COMMITTEE ON INFRACTIONS. This is the one that you as a university and fan need to fear. If they believe they have reason to pursue an issue further and in a more comprehensive manner, the C.O.I. is unleashed. They have long investigations (like that of USC and reggie bush). Then they show up with all of their information and give you a chance to answer for the transgressions and problems that they have found. This is the group that hammers the university's (like ALABAMA in early 2000's and USC more recently) with "Lack of Institutional Control" and penalties of probation, loss of scholarship, and perhaps the death penalty.

The ruling previously rendered, was not because they proved that no money changed hands, but rather that they couldn't at the time prove it, and in addition lacked other evidence to justify holding a kid from playing. They don't want to cause a kid to miss games from his short college career while they investigate. But that rendering bears no real weight on the C.O.I.'s investigation.

They did not proclaim his/or the schools innocence. Don't confuse it as such.

Houstonvol
Houstonvol

I also don't buy the whole UT offered X and Auburn offered X, but you can have it for X amount. That is classic bidding techniques, and used to drive the price up of a transaction. Sorry, I need to see that quote in writing before I match it.

@BadAUrabbit
@BadAUrabbit

Scott Moore is known for his ability to mimic voices (and beating his wife). I'm betting these are faked. ____John,____What you are referring to is an early statement by the NCAA that was later clarified. The NCAA said that as long as no money changed hands Cam's knowledge was irrelevant. The media continues to get this wrong.

johnmrsec
johnmrsec

@BadAUrabbit...

Here's a December story from ESPN.com: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=58767...

It says:

Kevin Lennon, NCAA vice president of academic and membership affairs, said on the website that when the reinstatement staff reviews eligibility cases, it reviews each case based on its own merits and specific facts.

"During the decision, we must examine a number of factors, including guidelines established by our membership for what conditions should be applied based on the nature and scope of the violation," Lennon said. "We also carefully consider any mitigating factors presented by the university to determine if relief from the guidelines should be provided."

Lennon said Wednesday of the Newton case:

"Based on the information available to the reinstatement staff at this time, we do not have sufficient evidence that Cam Newton or anyone from Auburn was aware of this activity, which led to his reinstatement."

The NCAA might have changed their rationale after the fact, but Newton was ruled eligible because he (and Auburn) didn't know what his father had done. Their words. At the time.

Taht said, from the first -- even when the "but he didn't know" argument was in full throat -- this site pointed out that that was a bogus defense. (And we took a lot of heat for doing so.) If money had changed hands, Newton would have been suspended whether he knew about his father's dealings or not. Therefore, Newton not knowing was only a smokescreen to begin with. Money was the issue, not knowledge. And the NCAA could not prove that money changed hands.

But since it was the NCAA that used that knowledge smokescreen -- and why did they do that? -- I see nothing wrong with folks trying to expose it. I just don't believe John Bond and Scott Moore have the evidence to do it.

John

HerpDerp
HerpDerp

Didn't the NCAA's ruling and clarifying statements say that Cam's knowledge of a solicitation to Miss St. by his father had no bearing on his eligibility at Auburn? Unless the tapes have something on Auburn bidding for him I don't see how this changes anything.

johnmrsec
johnmrsec

HerpDerp...

The NCAA said the Cam Newton didn't know about his father's actions. If he had known, he likely would have been suspended. So if there's evidence that he knew, it could change things regarding his eligibility. We're just betting that the evidence doesn't exist or it would have come out back in the fall. We'll see.

John

HerpDerp
HerpDerp

Per the NCAA statement clarifying the differences in treatment in the OSU and Auburn cases.

Quote: "While efforts are being championed by NCAA President Mark Emmert to further clarify and strengthen recruiting and amateurism rules when benefits or money are solicited (but not received), current NCAA rules would be violated and students declared ineligible should a parent or third party receive benefits or money, regardless of the student's knowledge."

This highlighted the issue in the current NCAA rules showing solicitation without reception is not a rules violation, regardless of knowledge.

source: http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/r...

Trackbacks

  1. [...] not saying that Moore is fabricating claims in order to boost both his profile and the launch of a new professional endeavor.  We’re just saying that there’s a significant stench surrounding these latest [...]



Follow Us On:
Mobile MrSEC