Georgia Tech NCAA appeal denied
Georgia Tech’s appeal to the NCAA over sanctions handed out last July has been denied. The school will be required to return its 2009 ACC football championship trophy to the league office, one of the penalties for NCAA findings of failure to cooperate and failure to meet the conditions and obligations of membership in an investigation into possible impermissible benefits violations to former football players Demaryius Thomas and Morgan Burnett.
“In its appeal, Georgia Tech asserted the vacation of records penalty was not warranted based on its contention that it did not gain a competitive advantage, among other factors,” the NCAA wrote in a release. “After a comprehensive review of the case, the Infractions Appeals Committee found the facts of the case did support the findings of violations. The Infractions Appeals Committee also found it speculative to state a competitive advantage was not gained and the penalty was appropriate in this case.”
The verdict of the infractions appeals committee is final. The school has no other legal recourse on the appeal. The investigation began in November 2009 when an NCAA investigator learned of possible impermissible benefits, which turned out to be $312 worth of clothes given to Thomas by his cousin’s roommate. Burnett was not found to have violated NCAA rules.
The school faced significant odds for an overturn of any of the two findings or the revocation of the football championship. Since the NCAA toughened standards for appeal in 2008, only one out of at least 14 appeals has been granted.
“We are disappointed with the ruling of the NCAA appeals committee, but respect the process and the NCAA’s decision,” Georgia Tech president G.P. “Bud” Peterson said in a statement. “We felt we owed it to the Georgia Tech community and to our student-athletes to exercise the appeals process provided by the NCAA in order to defend the integrity of Georgia Tech and to reaffirm our commitment to the principles and obligations of the NCAA.”
Peterson was out of the country and unavailable for comment, according to a school spokeswoman. Athletic director Dan Radakovich declined comment.
In its appeal, the school conceded it had made mistakes during the investigation, but argued that the indiscretions didn’t want warrant a finding of improper conduct or the removal of the ACC title. Tech argued that the title removal was inappropriate and an abuse of discretion, one criterion for an overturn of an appeal. The school claimed that none of the factors typically associated with a penalty of vacated wins, including academic fraud and serious intentional violations, were met.
“The vacation penalty punishes an entire team of student-athletes by taking away a championship because of decisions made in good faith by institutional staff members,” the school contended in a written appeal filed last September.
To lodge the appeal, the school retained the services of the Birmingham-based law firm of Lightfoot, Franklin & White, including Gene Marsh, the former chair of the NCAA’s infractions committee. As of December, the school had paid $93,000, nearly all of it to Lightfoot, Franklin & White, for counsel.
A school statement released last July noted Tech’s “unwavering commitment to the integrity of its athletics program” and that “we feel that we owe it to the institution” and the football team to appeal.
In addition to the return of the trophy, Tech must vacate the win from coach Paul Johnson’s records and remove any public references to the ACC title.
More updates to come
Ken Sugiura, Georgia Tech blog
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
518 comments Add your comment
Boot Licking Toadie
March 9th, 2012
4:32 pm
WnE, it was all an evil plot by CPJ to destroy Tech and turn them in to the “Annapolis of the South”. Correct? That’s from your website weirdo.
Question – is the United States Naval Academy something to be ashamed of in your view?
GT Lee
March 9th, 2012
4:32 pm
WnE, you write, but all I see is blah blah blah blah blah……psycho
George Stein
March 9th, 2012
4:33 pm
It was the week of Thanksgiving, WnE. They would not have had time to get the clearance process done. Further, the school sought the guidance of the conference, which told them to proceed.
WnE
March 9th, 2012
4:34 pm
re:
HE COULD NOT TELL JOHNSON ABOUT THE INVESTIGATION, WNE.
This is not difficult.
___________
Nowhere in my reply did I say that DRad should tell CPJ until the time came to hold the players out of the game, I think that by that time the NCAA had already interviewed the players.
The critical part was to not talk to the players or HC before the NCAA interview.
Supersize that order, mutt
March 9th, 2012
4:35 pm
We Own You definitely showed one thing ….nobody can “compeat” with him for ignorance—-he wins hands down
Boot Licking Toadie
March 9th, 2012
4:35 pm
Too bad you were not there WnE. You could have solved the problem right then. Go talk about somebody getting charged with DUI on the other blog.
student athlete
March 9th, 2012
4:36 pm
Anyone answer me this: the NCAA told Rad not to speak to CPJ; Rad tells CPJ but neglects to mention the NCAA has instructed him not to: ok is Rad an idiot or did CPJ throw Rad under the bus; or some other explanation?
Supersize that order, mutt
March 9th, 2012
4:37 pm
I’d like to know how the NCAA could interview the players without the coach knowing that they were going to be interviewed. They were in the middle of preparation for a game, and suddenly they disappear and the coach has no idea why? That’s just stupid.
WnE
March 9th, 2012
4:38 pm
re:
It was the week of Thanksgiving, WnE. They would not have had time to get the clearance process done. Further, the school sought the guidance of the conference, which told them to proceed.
_______________
Not true.
The NCAA cleared Cam Newton in time for the SEC title game, I think the School Auburn declared him ineligible on Tues. or Wed. and by Friday before the SEC CG he was cleared to play.
Better to roll the dice with that than to deal with 4-years Probation and now having to sweat out Text-gate and run the risk of being a repeat offender in the same sport, FB.
DRAd did NOT “have to” tell CPJ as many GT fans claim.
George Stein
March 9th, 2012
4:39 pm
Do you have any idea what the timeline here was, WnE? I strongly – and I mean STRONGLY – suggest you get your facts right before dealing with me. I do this stuff for a living and I’m pretty good at it.
Perhaps you should go review the findings. In fact, I’ll provide the link:
http://blogs.ajc.com/georgia-tech-sports/2011/07/14/read-the-ncaas-public-report/
Supersize that order, mutt
March 9th, 2012
4:39 pm
Hey, George, did you notice in one of WnE’s posts earlier that he said you ignored the SUBSTANCE of his remarks? How could he say that when you have PROVED that in at least two occasions that SUBSTANCE was based on FALSEHOODS? HE is the one ignoring substance, but his own and yours in reminding him of his promise.
George Stein
March 9th, 2012
4:40 pm
The two are not parallel, WnE, and one result doesn’t mean the other would be turned around in the same time period. But please provide me the timeline for Cam Newton.
Just the facts, maam
March 9th, 2012
4:40 pm
Wne, still say that your scenario benefits greatly by having the benefit of hindsight. Drad could have acted differently, all just speculation. What would the outcry been if he had held out the two, we lose to UGA, then the NCAA decides to slap us on the wrist with some minor punishment. People would have been screaming for his head. You ask me, Drad was put in a no win situation and from all appearances, did the best he could. Damned if he did, damned if he didn’t. All speculation and conjecture from our vantage points.
George Stein
March 9th, 2012
4:41 pm
He makes up most of the crap he posts, Supersize. This isn’t surprising because facts typically don’t support him.
Supersize that order, mutt
March 9th, 2012
4:42 pm
From everything I have read since it all happened representatives of both the ACC AND the NCAA cleared the players to practice and play. They were NEVER deemed ineligible. Some NCAA twirp just got his pan-ties in a wad because he didn’t like the way DRad handled things.
Buzz 2011
March 9th, 2012
4:42 pm
We won the 2009 ACC Championship. If you have any doubts ask Clemson athletic department, as it was Clemson GT defeated in the ACC final
See if you can find any 2009 ACC football trophy in Clemson, South Carolina. You
can make believe if you want, but you can’t change the past..
George Stein
March 9th, 2012
4:43 pm
The NCAA never had enough proof to declare them ineligible, Supersize. However, when notified that Student Athlete No. 2 might be ineligible, they sought immediate guidance from the ACC, who told them to proceed with playing him.
WnE
March 9th, 2012
4:44 pm
re:
I’d like to know how the NCAA could interview the players without the coach knowing that they were going to be interviewed. They were in the middle of preparation for a game, and suddenly they disappear and the coach has no idea why? That’s just stupid.
________________
There are times during the day when a SA has breaks in their schedule, all DRad had to do was tell the NCAA investigator that you have to schedule your meeting(s) with the SA during a break in his Academic schedule but before meals or Practice so the HC would not know and that would prove that DRad was a making a good faith effort to follow the NCAA’s instructions.
Going and telling CPJ and IGNORING the explicit instructions of the NCAA was clearly the worse possible decision that DRad could make.
HighTech
March 9th, 2012
4:44 pm
You are right. I have no idea how twitter works. I’ve never tweeted. I see no use for it.
I can surf the interwebs and find gems like this:
http://georgiatech.247sports.com/Board/35/D-Rex-Wrecksneffect-trying-to-sabotage-Vad-Lees-recruitment-790060/1
Ga Text
March 9th, 2012
4:45 pm
DRad is a self-important know-it-all who decided he knew better than to follow instructions. And CPJ wasn’t the only person he told if you read the reports. Paul Griffin was another that DRad presented the situation to even after being being told by compliance that that was not what DRad was supposed to do.
George Stein
March 9th, 2012
4:45 pm
Typo. It was Student Athlete No. 1.
GT Lee
March 9th, 2012
4:47 pm
GT 11 NC ST 2 bottom 5th
Supersize that order, mutt
March 9th, 2012
4:49 pm
There is inherent hypocrisy in the dwag trolls blaming DRad for doing what he did. DRad is a product of the SEC. Whatever he learned, he learned in the SEC. I personally don’t think he did anything wrong, but the fact of the matter is, he came to Tech from the SEC, and either he learned his trade in the SEC or he learned that the SEC cheats, and he is trying to rise above that level
Tech grad Mows my lawn
March 9th, 2012
4:50 pm
never seen so much whining since O’Leary forged a resume’…what a goober…what’s the deal with you guys down at Tech….you guys just look silly on and off the field….
WnE
March 9th, 2012
4:51 pm
re:
Do you have any idea what the timeline here was, WnE? I strongly – and I mean STRONGLY – suggest you get your facts right before dealing with me. I do this stuff for a living and I’m pretty good at it.
Perhaps you should go review the findings. In fact, I’ll provide the link:
http://blogs.ajc.com/georgia-tech-sports/2011/07/14/read-the-ncaas-public-report/
____________
So you want everyone to believe that GT & DRad did everything PERFECT and that the NCAA is just a corrupt & incompetent Organization.
Are you happy that DRad ignored the explicit instructions of an NCAA investigator?
Supersize that order, mutt
March 9th, 2012
4:52 pm
@ Mows my lawn, and you don’t think the hashbrown incident makes UGA look silly ??? That little incident has people all over the country shaking their heads in disgust and laughing their asses off at the same time
Supersize that order, mutt
March 9th, 2012
4:53 pm
@ WnE, yes, I for one believe the NCAA is a corrupt and incompetent organization. Enough said
Just the facts, maam
March 9th, 2012
4:55 pm
Thanks for keeping the discourse classy, mows. Always a pleasure to hear some salient points being made. Being silly in trying to call someone else silly. Ironic, but not very clever.
Tech grad Mows my lawn
March 9th, 2012
4:55 pm
what are you talking about? you must do this for a living too. Whatever that means….yap about sports like they really really really matter…sad
George Stein
March 9th, 2012
4:55 pm
Address the content of what I said, WnE. I’ve extended the same courtesy to you. The least you could do is the same.
The email from the NCAA saying Student Athlete No. 1 MAY have jeopardized his eligibility was sent at 8:18 AM on November 24, 2009. That was the Tuesday before Thanksgiving. The school consulted the ACC immediately and were told to allow Student Athlete No. 1 to play. Let’s consider what options Radakovich had. He could have:
1) declared Student Athlete No. 1 ineligible and sought reinstatement – unlikely given the timing
2) declared Student Athlete No. 1 ineligible and given no reason – explain to me how that makes sense
3) consulted the conference and take their counsel
George Stein
March 9th, 2012
4:56 pm
I’m telling you, Wrexy, you better get your facts straight before dealing with me.
Tech grad Mows my lawn
March 9th, 2012
4:57 pm
and by the way….what makes you think i am a UGA grad or even a fan of UGA….it really just goes to show how silly and narrow minded you are. if someone makes a joke towards Tech then it must be a UGA grad/fan. Well, smart guy…you’re wrong…i’m not a UGA grad nor fan.. but a Tech grad really does mow my lawn
George Stein
March 9th, 2012
4:58 pm
Sure he does, Mows my lawn.
Just the facts, maam
March 9th, 2012
5:00 pm
Wne, you are painting this picture in black and white. Tech fans think the NCAA is corrupt and Tech was perfect. There is an awful lot of gray that you have completely left out. Perhaps tech made some mistakes but did their best, and perhaps there is some problems at the NCAA with regard to integrity, but overall, they try to police as best as they can. Could that be possible?
Tech grad Mows my lawn
March 9th, 2012
5:00 pm
another narrow minded person whose let sports trivia muddle their thinking….As a matter of fact a Tech Grad really does mow my lawn….the lawn servicing company i have a contract with is owned by a Tech grad….and i believe he does fairly well….Feel stupid now dont you…..
HighTech
March 9th, 2012
5:01 pm
Here’s a string of twitter messages WnE DID NOT SEND to Vad Lee. These messages were posted on WnE’s twitter account for anyone to view.
Here are the candidates for what to call this masterpiece:
The Weejina Monologues
The Weenie Monologues
The Weenie Diatribes
Just WnE Baby
A Day in the Life of a Psycho
Confessions of a Dangerous Mind
Please vote for which one you like best. AJC Pals, Tech fans, Dawgs, dwags, all are welcome.
21 Jan 11 John Patrick Mason @WrecksNEffect
Since young Vad is confused I’ll help him. Vad if U don’t get 2 the NFL, it won’t matter how much U like GT & the Coaches. Also you can get the SAME BUSINESS Degree frm a sch.that WILL PASS THE BALL, that has GOOD WRs, BIG PASS-BLOCKING OLs, & “closer” to a Pro-Style O, so that U will at least have a “Some shot” @ the NFL, deep down inside Vad YOU KNOW that if U play QB 4 CPJ & GT you will have no chance @ the NFL.
That’s the reason you keep looking around Vad, you know what U R thinking deep down inside, Vandy’s HC was Md.’s OC & he’ll run a Pro-Style
The same 4 NCST & Minn., think Vad, if U R lookn @ MINNESOTA 4 cryin’ out loud, then U really don’t wanna play in CPJ’s Triple-SLOPtion Off.
Vad U R merely DELAYNG the inevitable, if U choose CPJ’s Triple SLOPtion Off., U’ll always ask yourslf could I have made the NFL@ NCST, etc
So FOR YOUR SAKE Vad, ask yourself WHY would CPJ change his Offense 4 U, when he wouldn’t change it 4 a 3-yr Starter & All-ACC QB?
Do you really think CPJ will change things up for a 18-y/o kid, when he wouldn’t change it up for a 22-y/o “grown ass man” like Josh?
You know the answers Vad, you’re just SCARED as to what DECISION will result if you answer these Questions honestly to yourself.
Of all the GT Fans that have writtn about your Recruitment, NOT-1, other than ME has taken N2 account YOUR DESIRES, 2 B a passn QB @ the NFL
So Vad WHY don’t the folks @ stink-talk and other places care about YOU realizing YOUR DREAM, being a passing QB & playing N the NFL?
So IF I’m the 1 that considers YOUR DREAMS, & they tlk about Recruit’s moms & playing QB where U can’t go Pro, whose advice is better 4 Vad?
Once U sign an LOI, Clock starts ticking, you’ll have 5-yrs. 2play 4 seasons 2 PROVE, U should B N the NFL, sign w/the WRONG sch. and you’ll LOSE one of those 5 precious years trying to transfer, those yrs. are PRECIOUS, because that’s ain’t much time 2 show NFL scouts what U got!
Of all the GT fans & COACHES & former GT PLAYERS, I’m the one talkn the most “cents”/sense, PUN INTENDED. Vad worry about your $$$ & not GT
George Stein
March 9th, 2012
5:01 pm
I don’t feel stupid because I’m not stupid, you troll.
superDawg
March 9th, 2012
5:02 pm
HAHAHA! and tek deserved every sanction and probation you recieved.Boo Hoo.
George Stein
March 9th, 2012
5:02 pm
He has ten followers, HighTech. Basically he was talking to himself.
GT Lee
March 9th, 2012
5:06 pm
troll hard, superdwag
WnE
March 9th, 2012
5:06 pm
re:
I’m telling you, Wrexy, you better get your facts straight before dealing with me.
___________
November 11 – Agent, gambling and amateurism (AGA) staff advised institution that information had been developed regarding possible violations of NCAA legislation involving football student-athletes and instructed that only the director of athletics and president be advised.
November 19 – AGA staff and enforcement staff conduct on-campus interviews.
______________
This entire “process” started on NOV. 11 that’s a good 13 days before what you wrote in that post above about that E-mail.
GT knew these at least ONE SA was on the NCAA’s radar by Nov 11th they would have had plenty of time to get their eligibility restored.
GT broke the NCAA’s instructions by talking to or prepping the SAs on Nov. 16th , AFTER FIVE DAYS OF DELIBERATION on how to handle this situation.
Please tell me how your time line is different from mine.
wreckmaniac
March 9th, 2012
5:07 pm
Does it really matter ? No. Everyone knows Tech was the ACC champ that year. I am now having my own Trophy made and I suggest we all do the same.
Will the NCAA punish us if we display our own trophies ? Or wear capsembroidered with ” 2009 ACC Champs “
HighTech
March 9th, 2012
5:09 pm
“You know the answers Vad, you’re just SCARED as to what DECISION will result if you answer these Questions honestly to yourself.”
UGA GRADS MOW THEIR KUDZU
March 9th, 2012
5:11 pm
Keep those trailer parks pretty
George Stein
March 9th, 2012
5:11 pm
Good lord. You’re dumb, dishonest, and lazy. That’s a helluva trifecta. Did you bother to read the report?
The first interview was with SA #2 on Nov 18, 2009. They found no evidence of impropriety. They got another tip on Thursday, November 19, 2009. They conducted the interview with SA #1 the same day. The details of that interview are found in the link I provided but you were too lazy to read. Tech heard back from the NCAA on Nov 24, 2009.
You are expecting an immediate turnaround during a holiday week?
GT Lee
March 9th, 2012
5:12 pm
GT 14-2 bottom 6
George Stein
March 9th, 2012
5:12 pm
I’m still waiting on the Cam Newton timeline, by the way.
Wreckmaniac
March 9th, 2012
5:15 pm
Nice gig for an attorney. $93,000 to lose ? Being in B’Ham he wouldn’t have lost defending Alabama or his butt would be shown the Bill Curry treatment.
WnE
March 9th, 2012
5:15 pm
Seems pretty CUT & DRY to me George Stein:
______________
The compliance director was clearly instructed that the information could be shared with only the institution’s president and the director of athletics. Arrangements were made to interview student-athlete 2.
On November 18, during an interview with both the NCAA and institution, student-athlete 2 denied that he was given any impermissible benefits. Subsequently, it developed that the institution, acting contrary to the explicit instructions of the AGA staff, had questioned student-athlete 2 on two occasions prior to his interview and had disclosed to him specific information, which was the subject of the interview. This information had been told to the institution’s compliance officer by the AGA staff during the November 11 telephone call. The meetings involving student-athlete 2 and institution officials occurred on November 16, 2009, after the NCAA’s warning and before the NCAA’s interview with him. This series of events forms the foundation of Finding B-2.
On November 19, the AGA staff received additional information indicating that impermissible benefits had also been provided to student-athlete 1. As a result, student-athlete 1 was interviewed on November 19, the day after the interview of student-athlete 2.
__________________
We had an off week before we played UGA that year, we had no reason to prep those SAs going against NCAA instructions.
We first heard from the NCAA on Nov. 11th BEFORE the Dook game on Nov. 14th and we didn’t play UGA until the 28th of Nov.
George Stein
March 9th, 2012
5:16 pm
The interviews were not conducted until November 18, you dolt.