• The KillerFrogs

Reggie Bush's Landlord to Testify

JimSwinkLives!

Active Member
<H1 class=headline>Landlord to testify in Reggie Bush case


By Brent Schrotenboer, UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER </H1>Tuesday, April 13, 2010 at 5:55 p.m.

The NCAA is expected to rule in the next several weeks on rules violation allegations at USC involving former running back Reggie Bush and basketball player O.J. Mayo. But there's still at least one piece of evidence the NCAA would like to have in the meantime — testimony from the Bush family's former landlord in Spring Valley, Michael Michaels.


Bush's family allegedly lived in his house rent-free during Bush's Heisman Trophy season in 2005. After two years of legal delays, on April 21 Michaels is scheduled to give his deposition in a civil suit filed by his former partner, Lloyd Lake, against Bush and his family. Michaels' testimony could boost the case the NCAA has built against Bush and USC football.

"They're waiting to hear from us," said Lake's attorney, Brian Watkins, said of the NCAA.

Watkins said Reggie Bush is scheduled to give his deposition April 23. Bush already has talked to the NCAA, unlike Michaels.



In February, USC officials met with the NCAA Committee on Infractions to face questions about evidence the NCAA compiled in the Bush and Mayo cases. USC already has self-imposed penalties against its men's basketball program related to the Mayo case, including a postseason ban this past spring. The NCAA soon will determine whether additional penalties are warranted for the basketball and football teams. Mayo and Bush allegedly received impermissible benefits, which would be a violation of NCAA rules.

In Bush's case, Lake and Michaels said they were former investors in a start-up sports marketing agency that sought Bush as a primary client. Lake has sued Bush and his family, seeking repayment of almost $300,000 in cash, a vehicle and goods he said he gave to Bush and his family while Bush played at USC.

Bush's parents reached an out-of-court settlement with Michaels in 2007, which included a stipulation that Michaels not talk about the case. That's prevented NCAA investigators from talking to him.

However, his court-ordered deposition next week is expected to force him to talk. If he corroborates allegations that Bush and his family received impermissible benefits, the transcript would strengthen the NCAA's case against Bush. Michaels' attorney didn't return a call seeking comment.

Bush's attorneys have been fighting this since 2007. They say there is no evidence of any payments and will attempt to have Lake's suit thrown out. Bush publicly has denied the allegations.
 

Johnnyhornedfrog

Full Member
QUOTE(JimSwinkLives! @ Apr 15 2010, 03:25 PM) [snapback]545017[/snapback]
<H1 class=headline>Landlord to testify in Reggie Bush case


By Brent Schrotenboer, UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER </H1>Tuesday, April 13, 2010 at 5:55 p.m.

The NCAA is expected to rule in the next several weeks on rules violation allegations at USC involving former running back Reggie Bush and basketball player O.J. Mayo. But there's still at least one piece of evidence the NCAA would like to have in the meantime — testimony from the Bush family's former landlord in Spring Valley, Michael Michaels.


Bush's family allegedly lived in his house rent-free during Bush's Heisman Trophy season in 2005. After two years of legal delays, on April 21 Michaels is scheduled to give his deposition in a civil suit filed by his former partner, Lloyd Lake, against Bush and his family. Michaels' testimony could boost the case the NCAA has built against Bush and USC football.

"They're waiting to hear from us," said Lake's attorney, Brian Watkins, said of the NCAA.

Watkins said Reggie Bush is scheduled to give his deposition April 23. Bush already has talked to the NCAA, unlike Michaels.



In February, USC officials met with the NCAA Committee on Infractions to face questions about evidence the NCAA compiled in the Bush and Mayo cases. USC already has self-imposed penalties against its men's basketball program related to the Mayo case, including a postseason ban this past spring. The NCAA soon will determine whether additional penalties are warranted for the basketball and football teams. Mayo and Bush allegedly received impermissible benefits, which would be a violation of NCAA rules.

In Bush's case, Lake and Michaels said they were former investors in a start-up sports marketing agency that sought Bush as a primary client. Lake has sued Bush and his family, seeking repayment of almost $300,000 in cash, a vehicle and goods he said he gave to Bush and his family while Bush played at USC.

Bush's parents reached an out-of-court settlement with Michaels in 2007, which included a stipulation that Michaels not talk about the case. That's prevented NCAA investigators from talking to him.

However, his court-ordered deposition next week is expected to force him to talk. If he corroborates allegations that Bush and his family received impermissible benefits, the transcript would strengthen the NCAA's case against Bush. Michaels' attorney didn't return a call seeking comment.

Bush's attorneys have been fighting this since 2007. They say there is no evidence of any payments and will attempt to have Lake's suit thrown out. Bush publicly has denied the allegations.


Whitewash used to be something you put on a picket fence.
 

ShadowFrog

Moderators
QUOTE(Johnnyhornedfrog @ Apr 15 2010, 06:55 PM) [snapback]545251[/snapback]
Whitewash used to be something you put on a picket fence.

Honor used to be something you were raised with.
:ph34r:
 

ricksterh

Full Member
Does anybody else think that it is ironic that those involved in this especially the hc and player have moved on and the ones who will get penalized if they do were not even involved in what happened? :angry:
 

joejordan

Member
QUOTE(ricksterh @ Apr 16 2010, 10:41 AM) [snapback]545444[/snapback]
Does anybody else think that it is ironic that those involved in this especially the hc and player have moved on and the ones who will get penalized if they do were not even involved in what happened? :angry:

Yeah, penalties should follow a coach when he leaves a program under investigation, or some kind of statute of limitation time period. If found to be blatant cheating, DAC should ask for the trophy back, and void Bush from the list of winners.
 

ricksterh

Full Member
QUOTE(crunch @ Apr 16 2010, 03:06 PM) [snapback]545459[/snapback]
Yeah, penalties should follow a coach when he leaves a program under investigation, or some kind of statute of limitation time period. If found to be blatant cheating, DAC should ask for the trophy back, and void Bush from the list of winners.


I agree. I also think if a player accepts money or financial advantages of some kind and hasn't reported it to the IRS they should file charges on him and put him in federal prison. That might pretty much eliminate the cheating and illegal activities.

For the most part the actual school is usually not involved in the cheating and yet they and the future and current players get penalized for what their prior players and sometimes coaches and alums did. :angry:
 

froginaustin

Active Member
It strains credibility to think that USC, acting through its coaches and athletic administrators, was not "involved" in the Bush and McKnight situations.
 

JimSwinkLives!

Active Member
Its kinda amusing to read the USC football message boards. They are absolutely furious that the NCAA would even dare to punish them, let alone even investigate them. They are engaged in all kinds of character assasinations over there regarding the "witnesses" in the case. Some are even suggesting that the NCAA is involved in a conspiracy with Notre Dame to make USC irrelevant again. :wacko:
 

BABYFACE

Full Member
It is all politics. You can go down to UT and look what the FB players are driving as their cars and would know something is up. But that has been happening for decades and is not going to change. Most of the big state school elite don't have to face the harshness of the NCAA. Alabama was really out of bounds so the NCAA had no choice to levy sanctions but they weren't as harsh as what a TCU or a SMU would have got. IF you are not in the political elite in college athletics, then you follow the rules closely and hope any violations are minor when they occur.
 

desmith03

Active Member
QUOTE(ricksterh @ Apr 16 2010, 10:21 AM) [snapback]545470[/snapback]
I agree. I also think if a player accepts money or financial advantages of some kind and hasn't reported it to the IRS they should file charges on him and put him in federal prison. That might pretty much eliminate the cheating and illegal activities.

For the most part the actual school is usually not involved in the cheating and yet they and the future and current players get penalized for what their prior players and sometimes coaches and alums did. :angry:



Well, the school hired the crook-of-a-coach who recruited the crook-of-a-player who both committed the violations, assuming that guilt is proven on both counts. If the penalty situation were different, there would be incentive for schools to intentionally go out and find the crooks and just move them along to the next train stop before the violations are discovered. The real sad part of the story is for the student athletes who were recruited to the violating school with no knowledge of what went on; I feel sorry for them...

BTW, if the school were to, say, replace one crook with another, maybe it is warranted even more... :ph34r:
 

JimSwinkLives!

Active Member
QUOTE(BABYFACE @ Apr 16 2010, 12:23 PM) [snapback]545552[/snapback]
It is all politics. You can go down to UT and look what the FB players are driving as their cars and would know something is up. But that has been happening for decades and is not going to change. Most of the big state school elite don't have to face the harshness of the NCAA. Alabama was really out of bounds so the NCAA had no choice to levy sanctions but they weren't as harsh as what a TCU or a SMU would have got. IF you are not in the political elite in college athletics, then you follow the rules closely and hope any violations are minor when they occur.



I'm quite familiar with the Alabama case from 2002. In fact, the enforcement staff argued for the death penalty, but the Infractions Committee decided not to issue it. At the end of the day, they (committee members) just can't bring themselves to do that to another one of their peers. Which, in my mind, makes the death penalty option meaningless. If you don't have the spine or the stomach do dish it out to one of your fellow members, then don't hold it out there as a deterrent because everyone knows you're (committee members) aren't going to use it.
 

BABYFACE

Full Member
I a surprised that some thought about the death penalty.

Didn't TCU lose 35 ships where as Bama only lost 25.

It didn't take Bama long to rebound from the sanctions.
 

joejordan

Member
QUOTE(BABYFACE @ Apr 16 2010, 02:18 PM) [snapback]545601[/snapback]
I a surprised that some thought about the death penalty.

Didn't TCU lose 35 ships where as Bama only lost 25.

It didn't take Bama long to rebound from the sanctions.

Without UoAlabama, the state has nothing, is nothing and would never be thought of. They went through some lean years, got desperate, cheated, caught, sanctions, money, coach...back on top. It is imperative to most in the state that their football program remain at the top echelon. The space camp doesn't help, the Mobile Bowl, Mardi Gras, Civil Rights Trail, Talladega, Auburn or the Bobby Jones Golf trail...none of that brings the prestige of UA Football and the memory of the Bear. It's sickening how much black and white plaid crap is out here.
 

JimSwinkLives!

Active Member
QUOTE(BABYFACE @ Apr 16 2010, 01:18 PM) [snapback]545601[/snapback]
I a surprised that some thought about the death penalty.

Didn't TCU lose 35 ships where as Bama only lost 25.

It didn't take Bama long to rebound from the sanctions.



In the 1986 case, TCU lost a total of 25 initial athletic grants-in-aid (10 in 87-88, and 15 in 88-89), plus 1 year post-season ban, 3 years probation, forfeiture of all television revenue from the 83 and 84 seasons, and dissociation of six boosters.

In the 2002 case, Alabama lost a total of 21 initial grants-in-aid (8 in 02-03, 7 in 03-04, and 6 in 04-05), plus 2 year post-season ban, 5 years of probation, loss of 44 official visits over a three-year period, prohibition of boosters from travelling on football team charters and attending football team practices, and dissociation of four boosters.
 
Top