Rotating Image
Sport Home   |   Roster   |   Schedule   |   News   |   Archives   |   Stub Hub
 
Purdue Responds to NCAA's Recommended Sanctions
 
University to appeal Committee on Infractons' report on men's basketball violations.
  • print
  • email
  • font +
  • font -
  • rss

June 30, 1999

WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. - Purdue plans to appeal an NCAA committee's recommendation to impose sanctions against the university's men's basketball program, Morgan J. Burke, director of intercollegiate athletics announced today.

"We, frankly, are surprised, disappointed and puzzled by some of the recommendations, " Burke stated. "We recognize the difficulty of the work of the Committee on Infractions, particularly in cases that hinge on the credibility of different parties with varying interests. However, our review of some of the findings suggests that there is information in the record that appears contradictory. Furthermore, even if the findings are upheld on appeal, we consider some of the recommended penalties to be inappropriate and excessive.

"This has been an arduous process covering more than three years, and I want nothing more than to bring it to a close, but we have an obligation to pursue the matter to the final step. Certain aspects of the ruling cause me to recommend an appeal so we can bring closure to this matter by assuring a final review of those points that are still in question."

President Steven C. Beering said: "I believe in the basic integrity of our men's basketball program, and I am pleased that both the NCAA enforcement staff and Committee on Infractions affirmed the strength of Purdue's institutional control. I am also pleased that the committee has not recommended future limitations on post-season participation or television appearances, so our current and future players will not be penalized.

"However, we must question some of their conclusions and the level of penalties recommended. We have an obligation to our student-athletes, to our fans, to Coach Gene Keady and to the entire university community to pursue an appeal where we believe there is contradiction or excessive penalty.

"Purdue is committed to meeting the highest standards of excellence in intercollegiate athletics, and that includes absolute integrity. We have cooperated fully with the NCAA throughout this process, and we will continue to do so, but our investigation of the allegations and evidence upon which the inquiry is based do not lead us to the same conclusions that the committee has drawn."

Keady said: "Of course, I'm disappointed. This has been very hard on the players, the coaches and our fans. I want it to be over, but we just have to keep fighting. It is very difficult to run a clean program, but we have done that, and I just can't accept a decision like this one."

The Committee on Infractions found that Purdue had violated NCAA bylaws governing recruiting, extra benefits and ethical conduct in connection with a bank loan granted to a prospective student-athlete and assistance with a household move and other financial help provided by an Indianapolis businessman to the mother of a student athlete. In each case, the committee said Assistant Coach Frank Kendrick arranged the contacts between the students and the outside parties.

The committee dismissed a third allegation - that another Indianapolis businessman had sent money to the prospective student-athlete.

Although the committee acknowledged that its findings did not show a lack of institutional control on Purdue's part, it recommended penalties that include two years of probation, forfeiture of 90 percent of Purdue's revenue share from the 1995-96 NCAA tournament, a reduction in the number of official recruiting visits to campus by prospects from 12 to four each in 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, the loss of one scholarship each year in the 2000-20001 and 2001-2002 basketball seasons, and forfeiture of the 24 games in which the student athlete who received the loan appeared in 1995-96. The game forfeitures, if upheld on appeal, would cost Purdue the Big Ten championship it won that season.

The committee recommendation also would ban Kendrick from recruiting off campus for one year and would require Purdue to disassociate itself for four years from the bank officer who granted the loan and for two years from the businessman who assisted the player's mother.

Burke said there is a basis to challenge some of the key findings.

"There is no disputing the fact that a loan was made," he said. "However, the NCAA permits loans to student-athletes if they meet the organization's guidelines. In 1997 and again in 1998, Purdue contacted the lender and was assured that the loan and the handling of the loan from its origination to its current status had been handled like all other loans within the bank. In this case, the sanctions against Purdue are based on the allegation that Coach Kendrick acted inappropriately on the athlete's behalf to secure a loan that did not have to be repaid. The evidence introduced on this issue simply doesn't seem sufficient to meet the NCAA standard of 'credible, persuasive information of a kind on which reasonably prudent persons rely in the conduct of serious affairs,' and more importantly, there appear to be contradictions in the record.

"In the second finding, the university has maintained from the beginning that the businessman is not a Purdue supporter. He also denies any affinity for our sports programs. In addition, four other individuals familiar with the circumstances provided sworn statements that Coach Kendrick had no involvement with the household move. For reasons we do not understand, the committee has discounted this evidence.

"We recognize that the NCAA enforcement staff and the Committee on Infractions have a very difficult job that is especially complex in a case like this one which began with a large number of anonymous allegations and involves a vast amount of conflicting evidence. I believe the committee has done its best to make a fair recommendation, but Purdue cannot complete its responsibilities until these remaining matters are reviewed.

"To put the case in perspective, an anonymous letter to sports editors in September of 1996 alleged 16 general categories of potential irregularities in the men's basketball program that could have constituted in excess of 100 individual violations. The university investigated each of them thoroughly. In the vast majority of instances the lack of credible information led Purdue to conclude that a finding of violation and a self-report were not warranted.

"After more than three years of intense scrutiny by Purdue, its independent counsel, the NCAA enforcement staff and the Committee on Infractions, we are down to these two allegations, neither of which appears to be supported by clear-cut evidence of any improper conduct by the university or any member of its staff. In addition, the record contains information contrary to certain findings."

Purdue has until July 15 to notify the NCAA Division 1 Infractions Appeal Committee of it intention to appeal. The university then will have 30 more days to submit the appeal.


 

 

Photo Store