FBI-Government college basketball trial testimony

Thursday 2018-10-10
Back in April 2018 Thomas "T.J." Gassnola, an AAU basketball director from Massachusetts, pled guilty to one felony count of wire fraud conspiracy and agreed to cooperate with prosecutors in the federal government's investigation into bribes and other corruption in college basketball. His testimony apparently began yesterday, and today he talked more on KU.

1. Adamant NO ONE at KU knew what was going on.
2. Paid Preston's mom $89K over the course of a year. (Again, good thing KU sat Preston).
3. Paid Fenny Falmagne, guardian of current KU sophomore Silvio De Sousa $2,500 for online courses so that De Sousa could graduate high school early. Gassnola also said he agreed to pay $20,000 to help the guardian repay a Maryland booster who gave him $60,000 to direct De Sousa to Maryland, but Gassnola never .paid.

Also from the KC Star article linked below:
During Wednesday’s trial, Jeff Smith, senior director of compliance for the KU athletic department, was asked about De Sousa signing a contract with a pro team in Spain and an agreement with a sports agent. An attorney for the prosecution said KU only allowed De Sousa to play after presenting evidence — KU had hired handwriting experts who could not conclude who signed the documents, according to court transcripts — and obtaining a clearance from the NCAA. (emphasis mine - HE)
Link to Jesse Newell & Adam Zagoria article in KC Star on Gassnola testimony

There was a lot more talk over the past few days about other schools as well, but I'm not going into that here, want to focus on KU and Silvio's case.

First, per Wednesday's testimony by Smith and the prosecution, the issue of Silvio signing with an agent and a team in Spain was already addressed with the NCAA last year and Silvio was cleared to play. That's good for KU and Silvio.

Second, Gassnola's insistence that KU people knew nothing about what was happening with Preston or De Sousa -- and in fact was afraid that KU would find out about Preston (which KU did) -- is great testimony for KU. And the fact that KU knew of no other issues with De Sousa until after the season was over is also good news for KU.

Third, the testimony makes it clear that Silvio opted to go to KU over Maryland in spite of any efforts his guardian made to get him to College Park. While the guardian would be considered an agent by the NCAA under the Cam Newton rule for taking the $60K from the Maryland booster, since (a) Silvio did NOT go to Maryland and (b) all parties involved adamantly state that Silvio and his family knew nothing of the Maryland $, IMO the NCAA has to give the benefit of the doubt to Silvio and decide he was eligible despite his agent's behind the scenes actions. Again --
1. Did not attend Maryland
2. Indicates no evidence of influence by the guardian and
3. No evidence Silvio or his family knew of or benefited from the Maryland $.
I really believe that if the NCAA does declare him ineligible for this, then KU and Silvio will be suing the NCAA in court, challenging the Cam Newton rule and how it's improper application by the NCAA significantly damaged the University and the student-athlete.

Fourth is what I think will be an issue -- the $2500 from Gassnola to pay for the online courses so Silvio could accelerate finishing HS.
IMO this will end up being the biggest headache for Silvio and KU, but I do not think it will result in his being declared ineligible or KU having to vacate any games. I do think that if the NCAA gets around to it in time they will require that Silvio sit out some games this year. A lot will depend on how long the trial goes and its results (we want it done ASAP!). Remember that under its new rules the NCAA can take the results of another entity's investigation for its use instead of reinvestigating on its own, so if the trial wraps early and the Gassnola testimony holds water, the NCAA can use that information to decide on what to do regarding Silvio (and the other schools & players involved as well).

Again, I think at most Silvio will have to sit some games for the $2,500 for classes that allowed him to graduate HS and attend KU early.

My fingers are crossed that any additional testimony/evidence serves to support KU and Silvio, and sanity rules the day for both.

NotOstertag wrote: Great logic HE. I agree that the $2500 is going to be pretty tough to get away from. That one could very well stick.

I'm still not sold on the Maryland $60k or promise of $20k being so easy to dodge. So if you'll permit me, I'm going to play the part of prosecutor here.

Point 1: It really doesn't matter whether financial decisions were made with a parent or guardian. Legally speaking I'd say they're damn near equivalent as the guardian not only has full responsibility for the child their fostering, but it could be argued that a guardian could have as much influence (possibly more) than a parent.

Point 2: The Maryland money. If in fact the guardian accepted money from a Maryland booster, it's not entirely relevant whether the booster got what he hoped to pay for. The NCAA specifically uses the term "extra benefits". I looked it up and it's basically anything that a prospect receives on behalf of a school (indirect or direct) that isn't authorized by the NCAA. It doesn't define whether the benefit succeeded in producing a result. Simply accepting it is. By this logic, Silvio's goose was cooked the minute he guardian accepted Maryland's representative's money.

So with that mind, it comes down to proving whether or not the Maryland money actually happened. KU is still in the clear due to ignorance. The NCAA cleared Silvio which helps us. But there's an outside chance we're forefitting some games, a better chance that Silvio is done or at least misses some games.

Nevertheless, I don't think the "but he chose to go to KU anyway" argument holds water in light of the actual rulebook.

Good points. Some counterpoints.

First, it is my understanding that the guy serving as Silvio's guardian does so for other foreign students in his charge so far away from home. It also seems pretty clear from all the evidence to date that everything he was doing was for himself and not for the people he was supposed to be "guarding". A good attorney would argue that his behavior was a breach of his fiduciary duty to Silvio as it jeopardized Silvio's eligibility, and it would hold up in court -- and I'd be amazed if this doesn't go to court if the NCAA goes draconian. So I submit the NCAA will be taking everything that has been testified to -- none of said testimony indicating anyone but the guardian was involved -- into consideration in its deliberations after the trial ends. (Aside: the trial is expected to go to jury by Wednesday according to today's news , so the trial at least should be over in about a week.)

Second, regarding the potential threat for the NCAA to vacate some of last season because Silvio played, one is tempted to make comparisons to the Derrick Rose situation, but these really are totally different cases. Rose knowingly took actions which, if known, would have rendered him ineligible from the start. Silvio has insisted all along that he knew nothing of any transactions, and none of the testimony to date indicates that Silvio or his parents -- or KU -- actually knew what was going on with the guardian.

Third, the testimony to date regarding the Maryland booster money (not UA $ as was originally indicated) has all been hearsay. To the best of my knowledge only Gassnola has discussed this under oath, in connection with offering to help the guardian pay it back. But he offered no evidence, other than what he was told by the guardian, to prove that the $60K payment actually occurred. And with the Feds and defense NOT calling the guardian to testify (unless they do so in these last few days of testimony), the guardian's adamant denial that he got any money has to stand unless further proof of the transaction(s) can be found. And you know that proof won't be forthcoming from the Terps or their booster, because they don't want to have to deal with the impact that will have on their program if such payments can be proven.

Fourth, while they are all part of the same coin, the relevant point is *not* that the alleged Maryland money did not yield the expected results. The relevant point is that the NCAA prohibits such payments so that recruits maintain their amateurism (don't get me started here on this) and are not unduly influenced to go to one school over another. The NCAA wants the recruits to make their own choices, and Silvio, from all the evidence we have to date, clearly did so -- and this further supports his claim that he knew nothing about what the guardian was doing. ADDENDUM - and if in fact the guardian was doing all this for his own pocketbook and neither Silvio or his parents got the money or even knew about the money, how does the NCAA show that Silvio and family got "extra benefits"? The only reasonable answer is the NCAA cannot.

Fifth, all the testimony to date regarding what KU knew and when KU knew it has been positive for KU. We know that KU worked closely with the NCAA investigating a purported Spanish pro team contract and agent contract before Silvio came to KU, and the NCAA cleared Silvio to play based upon the evidence that was brought to light then. All the trial testimony is that KU personnel knew nothing about any payments (you can argue all you want that they had to know this stuff was going on, but the bottom line is that the government's star witness, who is spilling his guts on everything else in line with his deal with the Feds, insists that KU knew nothing), so KU is good there. KU not playing Preston after his issues came to the attention of the KU Compliance office demonstrates KU's efforts to stay within the lines, and we would expect they would have reacted similarly with Silvio if they had had the information that only came to light in April.

Sixth, the Cam Newton rule could allow the NCAA to punish a student-athlete even if the student-athlete and his/her family is totally unaware of the infractions that occurred. I submit that even if Silvio had gone to Maryland, if he could show that he was unaware of the money and actions taken to get him there, the NCAA could face legal action in declaring him ineligible and potentially negatively affecting his college and career prospects. With him choosing to go to KU, his case would be even stronger. I know if I was the student-athlete I would take them to court, and with a good attorney and the facts on my side I would win.

Seventh, if the NCAA cannot show that he or his family knew what was going on and the NCAA should still declare him retroactively ineligible for last season and vacate all the games in which he appeared, I would be astonished if KU did not take the NCAA to court. Such an action would damage KU financially (all the tournament money KU would have to return) and by reputation and record, costing KU its 14th straight conference title and its 15th Final Four appearance. Whatever else they are, the NCAA folks are smart enough to realize the possibility of such a suit, and that possibility would temper their actions.

Mind that all the above goes OUT THE WINDOW if the NCAA can show that Silvio or his parents knew what was going on.

SO, given all the above, I do not see KU getting retroactively dinged at all because KU worked closely and diligently with the NCAA all last year on Silvio's -- and Preston's -- issues, these new Silvio issues did not come to light until after the season, by which time KU had in good faith played him with the blessings of the NCAA, and unlike Rose, Silvio had acted in good faith because he was unaware of the occurrence of the alleged infractions.

I expect that Silvio probably will have to sit out some games this year, and mostly for the $2500. This assumes that there is actual evidence for that transaction beyond Gassnola's testimony, otherwise even that may be set aside for lack of proof.

Keeping my fingers crossed because this is the NCAA we're dealing with after all, and we aren't the tarred ones. I just hope our KU attorneys are as good as those on the powder blue payroll, if not better.

I added a comment on determining "extra benefits" to the fourth point in my preceding post.

I really dislike that article by editor Chad Lawhorn. The headline and its tone are worthy of a Manhattan or Columbia publication.

First, despite what is written in the headlines the allegations are NOT mounting, they are pretty much what we expected they were going to be, with the exception of the Maryland money being $60K and coming from a booster and not UA. And the testimony to date has so far been very positive for KU and not necessarily damning for Silvio (but I've already spoken to that earlier here).

But second and most importantly, no attorney worth his or her salt is going to let their client make any comments to the media about a case that is actively being adjudicated or any related ongoing contract negotiations. What do they really expect the KU folks to say? Just because we all definitely want to know what is going on doesn't mean we or the media have the right to know what is happening with the negotiations on a contract. Why would KU risk giving adidas *any* negotiating advantage by talking about it in public?

Cry me a river that you're not getting the scoop you want, Chad, but at least present the information you do have in an even-handed manner. Don't slant it against the hometown school.

www.espn.com/espnw/sports/article/249906...de-sousa-recruitment

www2.kusports.com/news/2018/oct/15/consu...-ku-basketball-coac/

But it is better than outright taking money and being the middle man. The $2500 for course work is not good and the acknowledgement that Adidas was helping is not good, in my opinion, either.

Nothing we can do about it, so I don't tend to worry about such stuff, but I don't think we are as clean as we might want to be.

Here are a couple more pieces, for broader (birdseye) context:

www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/co...caa-care/1662138002/

www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-columns-bl...rticle220136590.html

Mellinger, in particular, seems to nail it.

What a fiasco. The NCAA has long known all about the AAU circuit, the shoe companies, and all the underground nonsense. They've chosen to do nothing. Yet my fear is they will ultimately act all sanctimonious (like K at Duke on this issue - give me a break!) and go after KU to make us the whipping boy what we know are universal transgressions.

Sickening.

www2.kusports.com/news/2018/oct/18/defen...yvXx1pdnXsMoO7xUujFs

www2.kusports.com/news/2018/oct/17/colle...9n6y_I2PSmUK2EsHpfaY

Read the text messages on The Virginia Pilot

Why The Pilot?
Because The Star has taken to limiting reads for people, AND
because why should The Star get our clicks?

Oh, BTW -- texts show pretty much what we already know.