PonyFans.com

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/sports/artic ... 0009990001

Trainers Reportedly Tell Grand Jury They Were Assaulted
Grand Jury Also Reportedly Uncovers 'Slush Fund' at Colorado

DENVER (March 1) - Two female athletic trainers told a grand jury investigating the University of Colorado football recruiting scandal that they were sexually assaulted by an assistant coach, according to a report obtained by The Denver Post and KUSA-TV.


The panel's investigation also uncovered a "slush fund" financed by coach Gary Barnett's Football Technique School.

One of the women also said she was "coerced to perform sexual favors for players and recruits repeatedly over a two-year period," according to the report obtained Monday. The woman said she was pressured to have sex with a recruit in a hotel room full of players. It wasn't immediately clear why the panel failed to issue more indictments.

Money was kept in "16 or 17" cash boxes, with each managed by a different person with little oversight, the Post reported.

CU director of football operations David Hansburg "told the grand jury that up to $2,500 could be missing, but not missed," the report says. "All funds were available to employees of the football program" and "all funds were available to coach Barnett to use in his discretion."

Barnett told the grand jury that "the school received only income from the registration fees of (football camp) participants," the report says.


The grand jury, which finished meeting Aug. 19, handed up just one indictment, accusing former football recruiting aide Nathan Maxcey of soliciting for a prostitute for himself. Former call girl Pasha Cowan has said Maxcey paid her $2,500 for three call girls to visit "very young, very athletic men" at Boulder-area hotels, though Maxcey has said any solicitation was for him.

The report concurred with an independent commission's finding last year that players used sex, alcohol and marijuana as recruiting tools without the football staff encouraging or sanctioning it.

But the report said, officials' denial of knowledge about the practices "demonstrates either conscious disregard of these circumstances or a lack of oversight of recruiting practices."

In a statement provided by the CU athletic department, Barnett said: "I am sure there are things I'd like to refute, but since this has to do directly with the grand jury investigation, I am bound by law that I would not discuss my testimony or anything that was discussed by or included in the grand jury report."

Hansburg also declined comment, citing state grand jury secrecy rules.

The report said Barnett and Hansburg gave conflicting explanations of the team's finances.


03/01/05 02:23 EST

I figure they'll lose a couple of scholarships, get put on probation for a year or two, maybe lose a season of bowl eligibility, and told not to do it again. Gotta love the NCAA.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

yes - that will happen

Either that or Barnett will be chosen Coach of the Year in the Big 12. Oh-wait- That already happened!!

Ole Gary Barnett is dumb as a fox. He knows the NCAA won't do a thing to a big school.

He and John Chaney should have plenty of time to chat in the unemployment line. But LHP is right -- CU's too big a school to get anything more than a slap from the NCAA. If the CU administration had any spine at all, it would get rid of Barnett immediately.

I have said it over and over again, SMU should sue the NCAA for selective enforcement.

CU is a dirty program, plain and simple.

Really makes you question how clean Northwestern was when Barnett took them to the Rose Bowl.

That a high school coach could receive $150,000 from a booster to direct one of his football players to Alabama is all you need to know about the current state of NCAA amateur athletics.

Question – is the CU director of football operations David Hansburg implying that the 16 or 17 cash boxes only contained a grand total of $2,500? Loved his quote…’that up to $2,500 could be missing, but not missed.’

If this program does not get the DEATH PENTALTY - THE NCAA SUCKS.

Yes I am made- let's see some JUSTICE.

Rayburn wrote:I have said it over and over again, SMU should sue the NCAA for selective enforcement.

CU is a dirty program, plain and simple.

Would be a waste of time and money to sue the NCAA, they would win. Plus after 18 years I'm thinking there may be a limitations problem.

Not to worry. CU is toast. The NCAA will perform up to their usual high standards and devastates CU. Columbia University will have the death penalty in less than a year. Everyone knows when the going gets rough for the big boys; the NCAA punishes the little boys. On top of it all, the NCAA will wait until after a criminal investigation is completed, charges filed, arrest made, trails held, convictions returned and sentences passed before the NCAA will step in. One can never be too careful and jump to conclusions before all the facts are known.

Maybe JT,

But as much as I disdain our litigious society, sometimes a lawsuit is the only way to the truth.

SMU might very well lose the court case battle, but win the overall war by exposing to what depths the NCAA amateur system has been corrupted.

During our heyday, we were hardly the exception. We were the norm. We excelled because the Eric Dickerson’s of the world would rather drive their Trans-Am through the streets of Dallas than College Station or Norman. Truth is, who could blame him.

SoCal_Pony wrote:Maybe JT,

But as much as I disdain our litigious society, sometimes a lawsuit is the only way to the truth.

SMU might very well lose the court case battle, but win the overall war by exposing to what depths the NCAA amateur system has been corrupted.

Well that's just wrong, I think. Under a statute of limitations defense, we'd get booted long before the merits of any claim could even be considered. 18 years is a long time to wait to file your meritorious lawsuit.

Sorry about your disdain, but a guy's gotta eat....

Actually if you are sueing for selective enforcement couldn't you claim that there wasn't a bias on the NCAA's part until recent schools were let off the hook when/if they were death penalty eligible? I have to admit that I am unfamiliar with the requirements for the death penalty punishment, but if Alabama, and now Colorado are eligible for it and are being punished for similar infractions as was SMU then couldn't you say that the bias on the part of the NCAA was recent and therefore not past any statute of limitations?

abezontar wrote:Actually if you are sueing for selective enforcement couldn't you claim that there wasn't a bias on the NCAA's part until recent schools were let off the hook when/if they were death penalty eligible? I have to admit that I am unfamiliar with the requirements for the death penalty punishment, but if Alabama, and now Colorado are eligible for it and are being punished for similar infractions as was SMU then couldn't you say that the bias on the part of the NCAA was recent and therefore not past any statute of limitations?

That's an interesting argument. But first, an admission: I have no idea whether "selective enforcement" is a cause of action (which I doubt, maybe Stallion can help me out with something analogous), and if so, what the elements of the claim are. You suggestion that the wrong wasn't apparent until recently would require an application of the so-called "discovery rule"--i.e., the claim was not reasonably discoverable by SMU until much later than the "selective enforcement" actually occurred, so the statute of limitations should be tolled during that period. I don't really know how to answer, except it would be unusual to argue that your tardy discovery was reasonably based on later "inaction" by the NCAA towards other schools. My head is starting to spin.

Maybe I'm jaded by my rudimentary understanding of the law on private associations. The NCAA is one, and the price of membership is that you play by the association's rules. Now there are exceptions, anti-trust laws come to mind, but generally the remedy for dissatisfaction with a member's treatment by a private association is to just stop being a member.

Look, though, this is an intersting intellectual excercise, but a dumb proposition to be kicking around for too long. Nobody is going to sue the NCAA for giving SMU the death penalty, no matter what happens to any other schools. When it happened, an alum tried to sue on behalf of other alums and cheerleaders and the band and such, and was poured out immediately (for lack of standing, as I recall). We got the DP, it's over. Just because somebody else who areguably deserves it doesn't get it does not mean we didn't deserve it.