“The NCAA statement about me is total propaganda and an absolute misrepresentation of the facts,” the statement reads. “For the record, I do have sources at the NCAA and that’s why the organization has chosen to shoot the messenger.
“I spoke with two NCAA investigators last Wednesday for almost an hour. I was consistent with them as I have been with the media and the public in refusing to divulge my sources.
“I also politely declined to share the name of the individual I have been told gave money to Cecil Newton. For the NCAA to claim I did anything else is specious, deceitful, disingenuous and completely false. I will be happy to take a polygraph test on these specific issues and challenge them to do so as well.”
First, the NCAA was pretty damning and pretty detailed in its statement regarding Sheridan. It also put the statement front and center on its website. There didn’t seem to be much worry on the NCAA’s part that it was defaming Sheridan’s character. That is why we — and most thinking adults outside the state of Alabama — tend to believe what the NCAA said about its dealings with Sheridan last week.
Second, what’s up with all polygraph offers from Sheridan. He’s offered during the Paul Finebaum radio show to take one. Now he’s offering to take one in a statement released on Twitter. Doesn’t he realize that we all know lie detector tests can be beaten:
Naturally, there are still a few Tide fans out there who want to believe Sheridan simply because they despise Auburn. Their conspiracy theory goes like this: “If Sheridan didn’t have real dirt, why did the NCAA attack him so roughly? They haven’t done that with anyone else!”
As if the NCAA’s slapdown of the oddsmaker’s claims somehow proves those very statements in a roundabout way.
That fact is — of course — that no one else has made claims nearly as outlandish as Sheridan’s. Even Scott Moore spoke of having heard someone else’s tapes. He didn’t claim to know the name of a bagman and he certainly didn’t suggest that an NCAA mole gave him audio tapes or information regarding Cam Newton.
Also, it’s a mighty long way from Sheridan’s “I have a name” claims to the photo-based scandals that pop up on websites like SportsByBrooks.com and OutkickTheCoverage.com. Those sites are basically showing pictures and suggesting something’s fishy. They’re not claiming that the photos were given to them by NCAA officials.
In the end, Sheridan may well turn out to have been telling the truth all along. But unless he’s willing to put up, it’s definitely time for him to shut up.
And offering to take a lie detector test isn’t “putting up.” Especially when laws in the state of Alabama protect him against any suits that might be filed against him by someone he chose to name as Auburn’s bagman. There’s absolutely no reason for him to not give up the name. The fact that he’s decided to remain silent anyway… speaks volumes.
"I told them that I would honor their request to say ‘no comment' when asked about what was said in the meeting. Of course, all bets are off when they released that statement."
hahaha- i think its safe to say he didn't appreciate that statement too much!! If he was holding something back to protect people... gotta wonder if now he's just gonna go down swinging
This story is so interesting, not b/c of potential ramifications to Auburn b/c whether or not Danny does or does not know the name of who the NCAA thinks is the bagman is completely irrelevant to the AU Investigation, but b/c this is slowly turning into a knock down drag out fight between Danny vs the NCAA... and neither one are gonna come out looking very good
I'm with you on almost everything you say. But I'm curious on your take on why the NCAA decided to put out a statement about Danny
I just find it so bizarre and out of character the way they beat down Danny on Friday... it made me really wonder what is going on behind the scenes between them. Is the NCAA angry he is airing their alleged info on the Auburn case... are they angry he is claiming to have sources in their organization?
I feel like this charade has little to do with Auburn, and is more about Danny claiming he knew about every NCAA investigation of the past years months in advance... and the NCAA wanting to discredit him and claim there is no possible way he got any info from someone in Indianapolis (we are to believe it would be impossible for someone in an organization as dysfunctional as the NCAA to leak anything to anyone...)
If Danny were just some nobody with a bunch of bs... wouldn't they NCAA ignore them like they do every other nobody spewing bs?
Disclaimer: I think Danny has made himself a complete joke and even if some day he is vindicated (not likely) he'll always be a punch line from now on due to the way he handled his "inside information" and led us all on this rediculous charade. I'm not trying to say Auburn is toast or guilty or even if Danny does have a name of the bagman it wouldn't make a bit of difference in the Auburn investigation
Just curious on your thoughts soley from a Danny vs the NCAA perspective... b/c these 2 are throwing haymakers at each other like I've never seen
I've tried to make this clear in both pieces I've written on this:
1. Sheridan is someone from the gambling industry claiming to have connections inside the NCAA. That looks bad. Other accusers don't have that issue.
2. Sheridan claims that he has flat been told that there IS a bagman. No one else -- not Scott Moore, not SportsByBrooks, not OutkickTheCoverage -- has come out and said: "The NCAA tells me that cheating went on in Case X." They speculate, they do not state. Sheridan states. Boldly.
3. By stating that the NCAA knows of a bagman, he's making it look -- to Bama fans at least -- as though the NCAA has info on Auburn that it's refusing to act on. That doesn't look real good for the NCAA. They need to nip the idea that they're somehow playing favorites.
My question to those who want to believe Sheridan is this: Why is there a belief that the NCAA is protecting Auburn. They've certainly never protected them in the past. They haven't protected Alabama or Southern Cal or Miami in the past. So why is Sheridan to be believed over the NCAA?
He may be telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but I have no reason to believe him until he offers proof.
I haven't heard the "NCAA is protecting Auburn argument" yet
I think most people who want to believe Danny, think the NCAA is working on it but hasn't gotten enough proof to do anything yet.
Even if they did have the name of a person who they suspect is the "Bagman" they either dont have enough proof to do anything with that information, or they may be investigating other things in addition to Cam Newton and nothing will come out the entire investigation is over
Danny looks like a clown either way, and even if he tuns out ot be telling the truth... then the NCAA may have a suspect but are most likely still unable to prove anything
One thing is sure, I dont think they met with Danny last week to discuss Auburn or Cam Newton at all, I think they wanted to feel him out and find out IF he had a source and if so who it was etc. The thing about that statement is it makes me feel like the NCAA perceives Danny as a threat somehow, and in bashing him it somehow made him seem more important than your run of the mill rumor mongerer
As we have done with other claims like this we look for a couple of things:
1. Knowledge of the person making the claim -- Sheridan is an oddsmaker who has no news-gathering reputation to speak of.
2. Evidence to back up the claim -- So far, there has been none. Just talk. Which means we have to trust the person making the claim (see #1)
When the person making a big claim like this doesn't have a reputation for getting these types of things right and he/she doesn't have or won't share evidence, our response is almost always the same: "Put up or shut up." Same with Scott Moore's audio tape story. Same with websites using photos that may or may not show what they claim to be violations.
Do we think Sheridan made all this up? Not sure. We just know it's one man making a claim with nothing to back it up. If it turns out that he was telling the truth, we'll certainly give him his due. But until then, we're awfully suspicious of his claims and his motives.
Oh, and we also know that if Sheridan were claiming that an NCAA source had told him that Alabama was paying players, it would be Bama fans who'd be calling him a flake and Auburn fans who'd be gulping his down his claims like tonic. And we know that's a fact.