Investigation centers on Stallings role with Langham and agent

(c) Copyright the News & Observer Publishing Co. and The Associated Press, 1994

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) -- Gene Stallings admittedly knew his star player had signed something for someone. Now the question is: Was the Alabama coach diligent enough in getting to the bottom of the whole Antonio Langham affair?

The NCAA apparently doesn't think so.

Langham's eligibility was one of two potentially "major" violations cited Thursday by the NCAA in its official letter of inquiry, delivered to the school nearly two years after another former player, Gene Jelks, accused the Crimson Tide of wrongdoing.

The school, which has won six national championships and is ranked 11th in the country this season, could be facing probation for the first time.

Langham and his uncle, Clyde Goode, both say Langham told Stallings about his dealings with a sports agent in a New Orleans bar just hours after Alabama won the national championship at the 1993 Sugar Bowl.

"I told him to call his coach and tell him what he had done," Goode said. "He said he did."

Stallings, though, said he was never told by Langham that an agent was involved and put the matter aside when the player said he wanted to return for his senior year. However, the coach's comments in an interview with The Atlanta Journal-Constitution raised questions about his judgement in not pursuing the matter further.

"(Langham) told me the guy (sports agent Darryl Dennis of Washington, D.C.) wouldn't leave him alone," Stallings said, "that he was trying to celebrate and so forth after the (Sugar Bowl) game, and he just sort of basically signed to get rid of the guy."

Langham played the first 11 games for Alabama last season before his dealings with the agent came to light. He was declared ineligible for the Southeastern Conference championship game and the Gator Bowl and now plays for the NFL's Cleveland Browns. Langham declined comment Friday.

Stallings refused to discuss the matter further when questioned Friday by The Associated Press as he headed off the practice field in Tuscaloosa after the Tide's final preparation for Saturday's game against Tulane.

"I'm not going to talk about Antonio Langham," Stallings said. "I've said all I'm going to say. I told the NCAA all I know about it."

Other Alabama officials also declined to comment on the case Friday, standing by a four-paragraph statement released the previous day by university president Roger Sayers.

There was a sense that Alabama has escaped the investigation without serious damage to its reputation, which has been tarnished only by a public reprimand two decades ago. Indeed, the Tide seems assured of escaping the most damaging sanctions: a ban on television and post-season play and a loss of Southeastern Conference revenues for one year.

Under NCAA bylaws, Alabama is subject to two years probation, a reduction of scholarships and expense-paid recruiting visits by prospects, and a ban on off-campus recruiting by coaches.

Loss of TV games was not a possible penalty listed by the NCAA. And bowl trips could be off-limits only if the NCAA finds the dreaded "lack of institutional control." However, enforcement director David Berst said in the inquiry letter, "We did not uncover systematic abuses."

The other issue is Stallings. A coach can be fired, suspended or reassigned within the athletic department if he is "known to have engaged in or condoned a major violation," the NCAA rulebook says. Or, if a coach remains active with the program after breaking the rules, his school is subject to a ban on post-season play.

Asked whether he was worried about his job security in light of the NCAA charges, Stallings said, "I think everybody is always concerned about that. I'm going to do the best I can. I'm concerned about my job every week."

The other allegation made by the NCAA involves sports agent and admitted Alabama fan Jerry Albano, who arranged loans totaling $10,000 for Jelks in January 1990, shortly after he had played his last game for the Tide.

Albano said he still can't understand why he was cited since sports agents routinely loan money to players after their college careers are over.

"I'm sorry I did it, but I swear I'm still not sure I did anything wrong," he said. "I went out of my way to make sure he got those loans after his eligibility was up."

Albano said he used to be a season ticket holder and member of Alabama's booster club, but he cut his ties to the university at least five years ago when he became a sports agent.

"I let everything go because I didn't want to cause the university any trouble," he said.

However, NCAA rules say a booster is still considered a "representative of athletic interests" even if he cuts all financial ties to the school. "Once an individual is identified as such a representative, the person retains that identity indefinitely," the bylaw says.

Such a person is barred from dealing with athletes who are still enrolled in school -- even if they have completed their eligibility, said Rich Hilliard, another NCAA enforcement official.

Report of the National Collegiate Athletic Association

Infractions Appeals Committee

November 29, 1995


Report No. 2-95 University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa

Report No. 3-95 Tom Jones


This report is organized as follows:

* Introduction
* Violations of NCAA Legislation
* Penalties Imposed by the Committee on Infractions
* Issues Raised on Appeal
* Appellate Procedures
* Infractions Appeals Committee's Resolution of Issues Raised on Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction

On January 17, 1995, following a lengthy investigation, the University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, and the NCAA enforcement staff jointly submitted to the Committee on Infractions a summary disposition report under the provisions of NCAA Bylaw 32.6. That report contained a description of two violations in the institution's football program that the institution and enforcement staff agreed had occurred, the corrective actions taken by the university, and the penalties self-imposed and proposed by the institution.

On February 20, 1995, the Committee on Infractions notified the institution and the enforcement staff that it was unable to accept the findings in the summary dispostition report. The committee directed the institution and the enforcement staff to reconsider the information provided to the committee to determine the nature of individual responsibility as a factor in the institution's failure to properly investigate and report significant violations of NCAA legislation.

On March 20, 1995, the institution and enforcement staff submitted an amended summary dispostion report identifying the individual responsibilities of the head football coach (Gene Stallings), the director of athletics (Cecil Ingram), the director of compliance (Gary White) and the faculty athletics representative (Tom Jones) for the athletics certification failures. These four individuals signed and submitted summary disposition agreement forms indicating their agreement with the violations.

On April 24, 1995, the Committee on Infractions notified the institution, the four individuals and the enforcement staff that it had again rejected the findings in the amended summary under the official inquiry and hearing procedures as set forth in Bylaws 32.5 and 32.7. Accordingly, on April 28, 1995, the enforcement staff sent a revised official inquiry to the institution, the head football coach (Gene Stallings), the director of athletics (Cecil Ingram), the director of compliance (Gary White) and the faculty athletics representative (Tom Jones). The allegations essentially were the findings acknowledged by the institution and involved individuals in the amended summary disposition report submitted March 20, 1995.

On May 15, 1995, the institution submitted its response to the amended official inquiry. On June 3, 1995, repsresentative of the institution and the enforcement staff appeared at a hearing before the Committee on Infractions. The head football coach (Gene Stallings), the director of athletics (Cecil Ingram), the director of compliance (Gary White) and the faculty athletics representative (Tom Jones) were included among the intitution's representatives.

On August 2, 1995, the Committee on Infractions issued Infractions Report No. 120, in which the committee found three violations of NCAA legislation in Alabama's football program. On the basis of these findings, the Committee on Infractions determined that this was a major infractions case and imposed penalties accordingly.

After the Committee on Infractions issued its infractions report, the institution and its former faculty athletics representative (Tom Jones) filed seperate timely notices of appeal August 17, 1995. The institution and the former faculty athletics representative (Tom Jones) submitted additional information in support of their appeals to the Infractions Appeals Committee September 20 , 1995. The Committee on Infractions submitted its response in the form of an expanded infractions report October 20, 1995. The institution and the former faculty athletics representative (Tom Jones) filed rebuttals to the Committee on Infractions' response November 6, 1995.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Violations of NCAA Legislation as Determined by the Committee on Infractions

Violations found by the Committee on Infractions are set forth in Appendix A of this report. The violtions were summarized by the committee as follows:
* A football student-athlete (Gene Jelks) obtained six impermissible deferred-payment loans, totaling $24,400, that were based on his future earnings as a professional athlete. These loans were facilitated by representatives of the institution's athletics interests. The institution failed to obtain the required documentation for the student-athlete's purchase of disability insurance. These records would have revealed the existence of at least one impermissable loan.
* The institution lacked institutional control in the review, investigation and communication of information concerning the amateur status of a second football student-athlete (Antonio Langham). By failing to obtain exxential information, corroborate it and share it with one another, the head football coach (Gene Stallings), director of athletics (Cecil Ingram), director of compliance (Gary White) and faculty athletics representative (Tom Jones) permitted the student-athlete to participate in 11 regular-season football games when he was ineligible.
* The institution's faculty athletics representative (Tom Jones) violated NCAA standards of ethical conduct by providing false and misleading information to the NCAA eligibility appeals staff.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Penalties Imposed by the Committee on Infractions

Prior to the hearing before the Committee on Infractions, the institution took several steps to strengthen its administrative policies and procedures. The instituion reduced by four the total number of permissible financial aid awards in football during the 1995-96 academic year, issued a written letter of admonishment to the head football coach (Gene Stallings) and written letters of reprimand to the former director of athletics (Cecil Ingram) and the former facutly athletics representative (Tom Jones), and disassociated two representatives of the institution's athletics interests. The director of compliance (Gary White) previously had retired.

In addition to the disassociation of the two representatives of the institution's athletics interests, the penalties adopted by the Committee on Infractions are listed in Appendix B of this report. The penalties imposed by the committee were summarized as follows:

* Public reprimand and censure;
* Three years of probation;
* Prohibition from participating in postseason competition in football during the 1995-96 academic year;
* Reduction by four in the total number of permissible financial aid awards in football during each of the 1995-96 and 1996-97 academic years. (The institution had self-imposed this reduction for the 1995-96 academic year.);
* Reduction in the number of initial financial aid awards in football by 13 during the 1996-97 academic year, and by nine during the 1997-98 academic year;
* Forfeiture of 11 regular-season football games in which an ineligible student-athlete participated during the 1993-94 academic year;
* Requirement that the institution develop a comprehensive athletics compliance education program, with annual reports to the committee during the period of probation;
* Reuqirement that the instituion send four individuals to an NCAA rules seminar each year of the probation; and
* Recertification of current athletics policies and practicies.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Issues Raised on Appeal

* Both the institution and the former faculty athletics representative (Tom Jones) appealed the finding that the letter to the eligibility staff requesting restoration of a football student-athlete's (Gene Jelks) eligibility "violated NCAA standards of ethical conduct by providing false and misleading information to the NCAA eligibility appeals staff."
* The institution appealed the following penalties imposed by the Committee on Infractions:

1. The third year of probation;
2. Prohibition from participating in postseason competition in football during the 1995-96 academic year; and
3. Reduction in the number of initial financial aid awards in football by nine during the 1997-98 academic year

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appellate Procedures

In considering the appeals of the institution and the former faculty athletics representative (Tom Jones), the Infractions Appeals Committee reviewed the notices of appeal; the transcript of the institution's June 3, 1995, hearing before the Committee on Infractions; responses submitted by the institution and the former faculty athletics representative (Tom Jones); the Committee on Infractions' response in the form of an expanded report; rebuttals submitted by the institution and the former faculty athletics representative (Tom Jones); and two amicus filings. The hearing on the appeal was held by the Infractions Appeals Committee November 16, 1995, in Atlanta, GA. The president (Roger Sayers), president's executive assistant (who also serves as the interim faculty athletics representative) (E. Culpepper Clark), interim director of athletics (Glen Tuckett), university general counsel (Stanley Murphy and Glenn Powell) and independent legal counsel (Michael Glazier) appeared on behalf of the institution. The former faculty athletics representative (Tom Jones) appeared through legal counsel (leon Ashford, Mike Ermert and Bruce McKee) and was available upon call by the Infractions Appeals Committee. The chair of the Committee on Infractions (David Swank), another member of that committee (Richard Dunn) and the administrator for the committee (Robin Green) appeared on behalf of the Committee on Infractions.

The chair of the Infrctions Appeals Committee recused himself form this matter after the notices of appeal were filled because he is being represented in an unrelated personal legal matter by a member of the same law firm with which the institution's independent legal counsel is associated. The chair took no part in the consideration or decision of the appeals. In his absence, the hearing before the INfractions Appeals Committee was chaired by another member of the committee.

In the course of the hearing before the Infractions Appeals Committee, questions and concerns were voiced about the summary disposition process and its application in this instance. That subject will be addressed in Section No. VI-C of the report.

Following the hearing, the parties and all staff were excused. The Infractions Appeals Committee then deliberated and reached its decision.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Infractions Appeals Committee's Resolution of Issues Raised on Appeal

*

Appeal of Finding
. Although phrased somewhat differently, the institution and the former faculty athletics representative (Tom Jones) urged the Infractions Appeals Committee to set aside the unethical conduct finding on each of the three grounds specified in Bylaw 32.10.2.

1. That a procedural error affected the reliability of the information that was used to support the findings. specifically, that no notice was given that Bylaw 10.1-(d) (unethical conduct) was at issue and, as a result, there was no opportunity to present a defense to such a charge.

2. That the facts found by the Committee on Infractions did not constitute a violation of the Association's rules; specifically, that the committee's findings did not state that the former faculty athletics representative (Tom Jones) acted "knowingly" and, absent such a finding, there was no violation of Bylaw 10.1-(d).

3. That thefinding clearly was contrary to the evidence presented to the committee.



The Infractions Appeals Committee first considered the assertion that a procedural error -- lack of notice -- affected the reliability of the information that was used to support the finding. It is agreed that the former faculty athletics representative (tom Jones) never was formally charged with a possible violation of the Bylaw 10.1-(d). The summary disposition reports submitted by the institution and the enforcement staff to the Committee on Infractions January 17 and March 20, 1995, did not include an allegation of an unethical conduct violation. To the contrary, the institution and the enforcement staff reported that the evidence did not support a conclusion that the actions of university officials were willful or intentional. The revised official inquiry that was sent by the enforcement staff April 28, 1995, set forth allegations that essentially were the findings set forth in the amended summary disposition report submitted March 20, 1995. That revised official inquiry, which was the basis for the Committee on Infractions hearing June 3, 1995, did not allege an ethical conduct violation. At no point during that hearing were the parties specifically advised that a possible unethical conduct violation by the former faculty athletics representative (tom Jones) or any other individual wa at issue. The first unequivical statement that his case included such a violation was made by the Committee on Infractions in its August 2, 1995, Infractions Report.

The Committee on Infractions asserted that it had provided notice that this case could result in an unethical conduct finding. It pointed to several communications in which it advised the parties that it was concerned about individual responsibility for the violations agreed upon in the summary disposition reports, that the committee's authority to find violations of NCAA rules is not limited to allegations in an official inquiry, and that the committee is empowered under Bylaws 19.5.3 (new findings) and 32.7.5.6 (scope of inquiry) to find violations resulting from information developed or discussed during a hearing, particularly those that relate to compliance with the principles of ethical conduct and institutional control. The Committee on Infractions also noted that member institutions and their officers and employees are charged with knowledge of NCAA regulations, including those cited.

Counsel for the institution and the former faculty athletics representative (Tom Jones) questioned the adequacy of the notice relied on by the Committee on Infractions. They noted that a representative of the institution and a representative of the institution and a representative of the inforcement staff made a specific inquiry to the chair of the Committee on Infractions as to the basis for the committe's Feruary 20, 1995, rejection of the initial summary dispostition report and were told that the "letter was self-explanatory." As discussed in Section No. VI-C of this report, the Committee on Infractions is an adjudicatory body. It is not an investigative or sharging body; however, its response in this instance to the request for clarification. though not inappropriate, was not sufficient to give adequate notice of a possible ethical conduct violation. Counsel for the institution and the former faculty athletics representative (Tom Jones) emphasized that the communications from the Committee on Infractions referred tp in the preceding paragraph also encouraged parties to limit their presentation to the allegation in the official inquiry. In this case, as previously noted, the official inquiry did not include an unethical conduct allegation. Also, the Committee on Infractions prehearing expression of concern regarding individual responsibility referred to four individuals, with no indication that the former faculty athletics representative (Tom Jones) might be singled out as the subject of an unethical conduct finding.

The NCAA is required by Constituion 2.7.2 to provide "fair procedures in the consideration of an identified or alleged failure in compliance." Numerous provisions in Bylaw 19 (enforcement) and in Bylaw 32 (enforcement policies and procedures) emphasis the importance of notice. Bylaw 19.5.1 specifically requires that:

"A member under investigation for major violations shall be given the following:


"(a) Notice of any specific charges against it and the facts upon which such charges are based, and


"(b) An opportunity to appear...to answer such charges by the production of evidence."


Although the NCAA is not bound by the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourtenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, there was agreement by all parties present at the Infractions Appeals Committee's hearing that the enforcement program, as a matter of policy, should provide those protections that generally are necessary to fairness. That policy is reflected in Constituion 2.7.2 and Bylaws 19 and 32. notice and an opportunity to defend are especially important in cases involving a possible violation of Bylaw 10 (ethical conduct). A finding that an individual's action orinaction constitutes unethical conduct under Bylaw 10.1 is, in and of itself, a severe sanction. If an individual is to be found in violation of Bylaw 10.1, he or she must first be given notice of the specific charge and an opportunity to appear and answer that charge by the production of evidence. The various communications from the Committee on Infractions to the institution and to the former faculty athletics representative in this case did not include actula notice of a specific Bylaw 10.1-(d) charge. The references by the Committee on Infractions to Bylaws 19.5.3 and32.7.5.6 and the obligation of institutional staff members to be knowledgeable about NCAA legislation, including those bylaws, did not remedy that absence of actual notice of a specific charge.

The findings by the Infractins Appeals Committee regarding the effect and application of Bylaws 19.5.3 and 32.7.5.6 are limited to the facts of this case. In other situations that do not involve a failed summary disposition effort and a subsequent finding of a Bylaw 10.1-(d) violation, these "new findings" bylaws will be applied as written.

For the reasons stated, the Infractions Appeals Committee concludes that in the present case, a procedural error (i.e., lack of adequate notice) affected the reliability of the information that was used to support the finding that the institution's faculty athletics representative (Tom Jones) violated NCAA standards of ethical conduct by providing false and misleading information to the NCAA eligibility appeals staff. For the reason, it hereby vacates that finding.

Having vacated the finding, the infractions Appeals Committee does not find it necessary to decide the questions of whether the facts found by the Committee on Infractions constituted a knowing violation of NCAA rules and whether the committee's finding clearly was contrary to the evidence presented to it.

*

Appeal of Penalties
In the summary disposition reports submitted by the institution and the enforcement staff to the Committe on Infractions, the institution admitted the two violations that ultimately were found by the Committee on Infractions and not appealed by the instituion. In those summary dispostition reports the institution also proposed, as appropriate penalties for those violations, the following sanctions: public reprimand and censure; probation for one year; report to the Committee on Infractions prior to the end of the probationary period; disassociation of specified representatives of the institution's athletics interests; written admonishments to the head football coach (Gene Stallings), the director of athletics (Cecil Ingram) and the faculty athletics representative (Tom Jonesx); and a limitation of 81 total football grants-in-aid during the 1995-96 academic year. That proposal was part of the summary disposition reports that were rejected by the Committee on Infractions, which directed that the case by submitted under the official inquiry and hearing procedures of Bylaws 32.5 and 32.7.

Following the hearing before the Committee on Infractions, the committee imposed penalties that were more severe in several respects than those proposed early by the instituion, as follows:

1. Three years probation rather than one;


2. Limitation of 81 on the total number of financial aid awards in football for two years (1995-96 and 1996-97) rather than one year (1995-96);


3. A reduction in the number of initail financial aid awards in football as follows:

a. 1996-97 -- a reduction of 13 awards; and


b. 1997-98 -- a reduction of nine awards



4. Forfeiture of all 1993-94 football contests in which an ineligible student-athlete participated.


The institution appealed the penalties imposed by the Committee on Infractions on the ground that they are excessive and inappropriate based on all the evidence and circumstances. However, as previously noted, the institution limited its appeal to the following penalties:

1. The thrid year of probation;


2. Prohibition from participating in postseason competition in football during the 1995-96 academic year; and


3. Reduction in the number of initial financial aid awards in football by nine during the 1997-98 academic year


The institution and the Committee on Infractions were in agreement "that the NCAA membership approved the current penalty structure, including the presumptive penalties, to provide the committee greater flexibility in imposing penalties for each infractions case." In this case, the committee applied some, but not all, of the presumptive penalties. The instituion and the Committee on Infractions were not in agreement regarding the severity of the penalties imposed by the committee.

The Committee on Infractions described this case as "extremely unique" because the admitted lack of institutional control resulted from failures on the part of the head football coach (Gene Stallings), the director of athletics (Cecil Ingram), the compliance officer (Gary White) and the faculty athletics representative (Tom Jones). It characterized the case as one that "demonstrates the consequences of a distrssing failure of institutional control,: noting that "had the institution acted proactively, the violations might have been resolved in a timely manner" rather than evolving into a moajor infractions case. In the judgement of the committee, this "distressing failure" warranted the sanctions imposed.

The Committee on Infractions also argued that the penalties should stand even if the findings of unethical conduct on the part of the former faculty athletics representative (tom Jones) is overturned on appeal. The committee stated in its response to the appeal that:

"Those penalties were imposed in direct response to the lack of institutional control and the competitive advantage dexcribed in Finding II-B."


This institution acknowledged that this cse involved a serious breakdown in institutional control but pointed to the conclusion reached jointly by the institution and the enforcement staff that the evidence did not support a conclusion that the mistakes were willful or intentional, or that they represented a systemic absence of institutional control. In the view of the institution, the sanctions imposed by the Committee on Infractions would be appropriate in a case involving willful violations or malfeasance, but not in a case such as this involving negligence or nonfeasance.

In determining whether the specific penalties imposed in a case are "excessive or inappropriate," the Infractions Appeals Committee must consider factors such as the nature, number and seriousness of the violations; the conduct and motives of the individuals involved in the violations; corrective action taken by the institution; proporsionality of the penalty or penalties imposed; institutional cooperation in the investigation; the impact of penalties on innocent student athletes and coaches; and the purposes of the NCAA enforcement program. In its earlier decisions, such as those involving appeals from the University of New Mexico and the University of Mississippi, this committee considered those factors and upheld severe penalties imposed by the Committee on Infractions. Those penalties included probationary periods that exceeded the two-year probationary period specified in Bylaw 19.6.2.1 as one of the presumptive penalties for a mojor violation. Considering this case in the context of those earlier decisions, the committee notes that those cases involved numerous or repeated violation, active participation of head coaches or other staff members in those violations of recruiting rules that were intended to provide the institution a competitive advantage. The failure of institutional control in this case, while serious, did not present those elements. Also, the institution in this case took appropriate corrective action and cooperated fully in the investigation, as seen in its efforts to resolve the case through the summary dispostition process.

After weighing all of these considerations, the Infractions Appeals Committee concludes that the third year of probation (1997-98) and the reduction in the number of initial financial aid awards in football by nine during the academic year (1997-98) are excessive and inappropriate. It, therefore, sets aside the third year of probation and the 1997-98 limitation on initial financial aid awards.

The Infractions Appeals Committee also concludes that the third penalty appealed by the institution -- prohibition from participating in postseason competition in football during the 1995-96 academic year -- is neither excessive nor inappropriate. Bylaw 19.6.2.1-(f) provides that one of the presumptive penalties for a major violation shall be:

"Sanctions precluding postseason competition in the sport, particularly in those cases in which:

1. Involved individuals remain active in the program;


2. A significant competitive advantage results from the violation(s); or


3. The violation(s) reflect a lack of institutional control."


Any one of these factors would be adequate to warrant a one-year prohibition on postseason competition. In this case, all three factors were present.

Except as otherwise provided in this report, the penalties imposed by the Committee on Infractions remain in full force and effect.

*

Summary Disposition Process
As indicated in Section No. V of this report, questions and concerns regarding the summary disposition process, and its appllication in this case, where voiced during the hearing before the Infractions Appeals Committee. Most of those questions and concerns involved the role and function of the enforcement staff and the Committee on Infractons. The Infractions Appeals Committee's response to those questions and concerns, while not necessary to its disposition of this appeal, is intended to clarify the issues that might otherwise discourage continued use of the summary disposition process by member institutions.

Bylaw 32.6 (summary disposition and expedited hearing) was adopted by the NCAA membership to provide an alternative procedure for treating major violations that would eliminate the need for a full hearing before the Committee on Infractions. Since the summary dispostion process was adopted, 45 percent of all major infractions cases have been resolved as summary disposition cases. Under Bylaw 32.6.1.4, the Committee on Infractions, in each summary disposition case , must decide whether to approve the findings developed in the course of an investigation conducted jointly by the institution and the enforcement staff. This case was the first case in which the committee did not accept the findings in the summary dispostition report and directed that the case be presented under the official inquiry and hearing procedures of Bylaws 32.5 and 32.7.