Mr. WUNDER. And were you aware of the charges that were made against you by the NCAA?

Mr. TARKANIAN. Yes.

Mr. WUNDER. OK. The reason I asked you that question is because the Supreme Court said in 1975-U.S. Supreme Court-in the case of Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565

Mr. SANTINI. You remember that?

Mr. WUNDER [continuing]. That the fundamental requisite due process of law is the opportunity to be heard. That was afforded to you, the fundamental due process of law, the opportunity to be heard? Mr. TARKANIAN. I could have been heard for 10 years, it would not make any difference.

Mr. WUNDER. I see, but you were afforded an opportunity to be heard?

Mr. TARKANIAN. Yes.

Mr. Moss. Also of great significance is the nature of the hearing, the rules that surround the presentation of testimony and of evidence.

I think if counsel wants to examine the question of whether or not an opportunity for hearing was afforded that we should then develop on the record the nature of that opportunity, the kind of a hearing that was permitted.

Mr. WUNDER. OK. Just to cite further, my only other point about the case, they, referring to the words of the due process clause:

Require the deprivation of life, liberty or property by adjudication be preceded by an opportunity to be heard.

This is in fact the case with a statutorily created property right. Thank you, I have no further questions.

Mr. Moss. The Chair now wants to inquire, were you afforded an opportunity for hearing where you were permitted to adequately crossexamine, to adequately prepare for your hearing, to have full knowledge of all charges against you, to question members of the investigative staff, bring in support witnesses or anything of that type, was that the kind of a hearing you were given?

Mr. TARKANIAN. No, I wasn't.

Mr. Moss. The Chair has stated earlier that he felt we were getting into irrelevancies this morning and he does, and we have.

The question is whether or not there is in fact, by this private organization, and I want to emphasize that this is a private organization, that has taken the power-we can say the membership is voluntary, but whoever is so naive as to believe that is indeed one of the most naive individuals I have ever seen. It is not voluntary. It is a fact of life, it is essential that you belong. It has the power to destroy careers of men who have sports as their sole occupation, and to totally frustrate the ambitions of younger men, and it can do it without the basic fabric of protection that we have been accustomed to regard as our right.

The question that the Congress has to decide is whether that situation should continue, what steps should be taken to correct the course so that at least those who are going to be adversely affected know the extent of the risk they are faced with when they go into one of these hearings.

As I listened to your story, I know this, that I would be outraged if I was to be summoned before a comparable tribunal and have a judgment rendered that would adversely affect me, and I daresay there is not a member of this committee who would not be equally outraged, confronted with the same set of conditions. If there is a member who would want to indicate to the contrary, the chair thinks it ought to be done on the record, because clearly, the kind of a fabric that has been put over the entire collegiate athletic movement by the NCAA is an unhealthy one.

Now I do not want to see us try to dismantle it, I think there must be regulation here; it is far preferable that the institutions do it themselves if they can. But up to this point they have not demonstrated a willingness to make the kinds of changes that, in my judgment, must be made, and the courts have copped out in discharging their responsibility. So I think the ball is clearly in our court and we are going to have to play it, and I am prepared to do precisely that.

Gentlemen, I want to

Mr. LENT. Mr. Chairman, you seemed to indicate that you were opening the floor for comment on this subject of due process, and I certainly did not mean by my silence not to respond but I do want to just point out, I think everyone recognizes that due process means different things at different levels of consideration.

Mr. Moss. Of course it does, Mr. Lent. But the Chair said that he did not think any member of this committee would want, under the same circumstances and conditions, to be judged by a similar tribunal. That is the Chair's conclusion. If the gentleman feels that he would want to be judged by such a tribunal, I would like to see it on the record.

Mr. LENT. Well, certainly, Mr. Chairman, the due process accorded to someone in an administrative hearing is different than the due process accorded in a legislative hearing.

Mr. Moss. Mr. Lent, this is not an administrative hearing.

Mr. LENT. You are not affording due process right now and I am trying to make

Mr. Moss. No; I have the floor, Mr. Lent.

Mr. LENT [continuing]. Or in a civil action.

Mr. Moss. You did not ask me to yield.

Mr. LENT. I thought you asked if I had anything I would like to say.

Mr. Moss. No; I did not say anything you want to say; I said if any member wanted to indicate to the contrary. The Chair recognizes under law there are different types of hearings, but here you have all of the effects of a criminal punishment; it can destroy your livelihood, for now and forever into the future, and where is the due process?

It is not an administrative hearing as we fashioned them in Congress, because we do give procedural safeguards; in administrative hearings you have certain rights. They are not as broad as they are in a criminal matter before the Federal courts: clearly that is the case. But here you are not accorded anything that really relates to any of the procedures that we spell out in the Federal law. Perhaps closely analogous would be a hearing before the Civil Service Commission, and even that is appealable to the Federal courts. I would yield

Mr. LENT. Perhaps we could just leave the record open because I apparently am not going to be given an opportunity to say what is on my mind.

Mr. Moss. Mr. Lent, the Chair always gives you time when you want to do it under the rules, and he just now said he would be very happy to yield to the gentleman for him to make his comments.

Mr. LENT. Since you will not permit me to put more than 30 or 40 words together at a time, Mr. Chairman, it seems fruitless.

Mr. Moss. Apparently the Chair has succeeded in frustrating a member.

Mr. LENT. I have been denied my due process.

Mr. Moss. Gentlemen, we do thank you

Mr. LENT. Just like Mr. Tarkanian-

Mr. Moss. We do thank you for your testimony and your appearance here. I assure you it is helpful to us. Now you can go back to a more salubrious climate than we have here in the Nation's Capital.

The committee will stand adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 2:02 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned subject to the call of the Chair.]

о