NCAA Enforcement Program: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Ninety-fifth Congress, Second SessionU.S. Government Printing Office, 1978 - 1520 pages |
From inside the book
Results 1-5 of 85
Page 266
... CCSB , Thompson and his attorneys to resolve the procedural matters and set a date for the hearing . Saunders and Winey sent statement of charges and notice of preliminary conference on March 1 by Snoke , Conduct Code Coordinator ...
... CCSB , Thompson and his attorneys to resolve the procedural matters and set a date for the hearing . Saunders and Winey sent statement of charges and notice of preliminary conference on March 1 by Snoke , Conduct Code Coordinator ...
Page 267
... CCSB hearing for Thompson . CCSB hearing for Winey . Draft findings of CCSB on Saunders , Thompson , and Winey prepared . Letter from NCAA attorney Gangwere to University attorney Tierney requesting speedy resolution of the Thompson ...
... CCSB hearing for Thompson . CCSB hearing for Winey . Draft findings of CCSB on Saunders , Thompson , and Winey prepared . Letter from NCAA attorney Gangwere to University attorney Tierney requesting speedy resolution of the Thompson ...
Page 324
... ( CCSB ) with the ultimate de- cision resting in the ACIA , the committee responsible for supervising intercollegiate athletics . The University struc- tured this two tiered process to resolve a jurisdictional is- sue in that Thompson's ...
... ( CCSB ) with the ultimate de- cision resting in the ACIA , the committee responsible for supervising intercollegiate athletics . The University struc- tured this two tiered process to resolve a jurisdictional is- sue in that Thompson's ...
Page 325
... CCSB representatives be- tween February 26 , 1976 and March 1 , 1976 . While the University of Minnesota's proceedings against the student - athletes were in the preliminary stages , Presi- dent Magrath notified the NCAA that the ...
... CCSB representatives be- tween February 26 , 1976 and March 1 , 1976 . While the University of Minnesota's proceedings against the student - athletes were in the preliminary stages , Presi- dent Magrath notified the NCAA that the ...
Page 326
... CCSB held hearings on March 9 for Saunders , March 11 for Thompson , and March 18 for Winey , each hearing was held before a different panel of the CCSB composed of primarily different members . At their hear- ings , Thompson and Winey ...
... CCSB held hearings on March 9 for Saunders , March 11 for Thompson , and March 18 for Winey , each hearing was held before a different panel of the CCSB composed of primarily different members . At their hear- ings , Thompson and Winey ...
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
ACIA allegations appeal asked assistant basketball assistant football coach athletic program attorney believe Berst Big Ten Conference Bylaw CCSB Chairman charge CLARK Collegiate Athletic Association COLLINS Committee on Infractions complimentary tickets conduct Confidential Report correct declare Delaney district court due process Dunlop eligibility fact findings FUZAK going hearing hockey Hunt ineligible infractions committee intercollegiate athletics interview involved Jones Kansas City Kings KEGLER Larry Gillard LENT letter LUKEN MAGRATH Major Jones McLAIN member institutions memorandum Michigan State University Miskelly Mississippi State University MOFFETT Moss Mychal Thompson National Collegiate Athletic NCAA Constitution NCAA Council NCAA enforcement NCAA investigator NCAA rules NCAA's Ole Miss penalties players President probation procedures prospective student-athlete question RAABE recruiting Reed Larson representative response SANTINI Saunders statement student subcommittee testimony Thompson tion TYLER University of Minnesota versity violations of NCAA Walter Byers WARD Wayne Duke Wharton Winey WUNDER
Popular passages
Page 151 - First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.
Page 150 - Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.
Page 151 - [t]he fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard 'at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.
Page 151 - Clause, and due process requires, in connection with a suspension of 10 days or less, that the student be given oral or written notice of the charges against him and, if he denies them, an explanation of the evidence the authorities have and an opportunity to present his side of the story.
Page 155 - It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined. Vague laws offend several important values. First, because we assume that man is free to steer between lawful and unlawful conduct, we insist that laws give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly.
Page 70 - Do you swear that the testimony that you are about to give to this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God.
Page 188 - ... the liberty and property of the citizen shall be protected by the rudimentary requirements of fair play. These demand 'a fair and open hearing...
Page 155 - A vague law impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application.
Page 151 - Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Local 473 v. McElroy, 367 US 886, 895, 81 S.Ct. 1743, 1748, 6 L.Ed.Zd 1230 (1961). '[D]ue process is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands.
Page 152 - We . . . hold that a college has the inherent power to promulgate rules and regulations ; that it has the inherent power properly to discipline ; that it has power appropriately to protect itself and its property ; that it may expect that its students adhere to generally accepted standards of conduct.