PDA

View Full Version : Bomar sent a letter to the NCAA



setem
10/4/2006, 09:21 AM
It will not do any good. They are a bunch of pinko bastards!

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2612449

Updated: Oct. 4, 2006, 9:45 AM ET
Report: Ex-OU QB Bomar apologizes in letter to NCAA
ESPN.com news services

In an effort to get reinstated, former Oklahoma quarterback Rhett Bomar sent a letter to the NCAA apologizing for his actions which led to his dismissal from the Sooners football team, The Dallas Morning News reported.

Rhett Bomar
Bomar

"I know the difference between right and wrong," Bomar wrote, according to The News. "I had no intention of taking money for not working. I got caught up in a situation and listened to the wrong person. I made a very bad mistake."

Bomar reportedly wrote that he "got caught up in the limelight" and embarrassed himself, his family and the University of Oklahoma by accepting money from a booster.

The Dallas Morning News received the letter as part of an open records request from Sam Houston State, Bomar's new school. Sam Houston State athletic director Bobby Williams said he initiated the paperwork to get Bomar reinstated to play and the university hopes to hear an answer later this month.

Bomar and offensive lineman J.D. Quinn were kicked off the team at Oklahoma for violating NCAA work rules by accepting payment for more work than they performed at a car dealership.

Bomar, a high school star in the Dallas suburb of Grand Prairie, set an Oklahoma freshman record with 2,018 passing yards last season. He has three years of eligibility remaining.

Boomer.....
10/4/2006, 09:24 AM
He is dead to me

caphorns
10/4/2006, 09:25 AM
He'll get to play next year if he pays the money back. It would be wrong to punish him further than he's already received on this. The question is what punishment is there for the booster who pushed this deal? I still don't get that part.

sooner518
10/4/2006, 09:27 AM
I'm glad he was punished severely for it. But I am also glad that he will get another chance. There's no reason that this should wreck his entire football career.

caphorns
10/4/2006, 09:30 AM
Why should he be punished for a few more years? I thought this was less than a criminal action? Do you guys not agree with this?

He was involved with a form of cheating, but the real issue is the program and boosters involved who have not been punished at all - especially given the way PT has played. Bomar lost a HUGE opportunity already and it's permanent. He WILL suffer the consequences of this for a long time no matter what happens with the NCAA. Having seen Sam Houston State's OL this past weekend, he's certainly not in for an easy ride.

TUSooner
10/4/2006, 09:34 AM
"I know the difference between right and wrong," Bomar wrote, according to The News. "I had no intention of taking money for not working. I got caught up in a situation and listened to the wrong person. I made a very bad mistake."


I dont see much "mea culpa" in there. Seems like he's still trying to squirm out of trouble and blame somebody else. Stupid kid's got a looong way to go before he's a man. <shakes head>

1stTimeCaller
10/4/2006, 09:42 AM
Why should he be punished for a few more years? I thought this was less than a criminal action? Do you guys not agree with this?

He was involved with a form of cheating, but the real issue is the program and boosters involved who have not been punished at all - especially given the way PT has played. Bomar lost a HUGE opportunity already and it's permanent. He WILL suffer the consequences of this for a long time no matter what happens with the NCAA. Having seen Sam Houston State's OL this past weekend, he's certainly not in for an easy ride.

you baffle me. The program took appropriate and timely action when they found out about this. Why should OU be punished? How can the NCAA punish the boosters themselves?

He should be punished because he could have taken down one of the premier programs in the NCAA by his selfish actions.

caphorns
10/4/2006, 09:42 AM
"I made a VERY BAD mistake". Not a mea culpa per se, but it does show that he understands what he did was wrong - regardless of the reasons. I think he is being honest otherwise. He did get caught up in the situation without thinking about the consequences and there was obviously somebody leading him to taking the money. I am assuming that would be the booster, but who knows. I'm sure the NCAA investigation will feret this out for us all.

caphorns
10/4/2006, 09:46 AM
you baffle me. The program took appropriate and timely action when they found out about this. Why should OU be punished? How can the NCAA punish the boosters themselves?

He should be punished because he could have taken down one of the premier programs in the NCAA by his selfish actions.

Thinking about it, I think the booster probably does suffer alot of consequence. I assume he can no longer buy season tickets or be affiliated with the program. I also assume that if he mullet-head shows up at an OU game there will be a line of fratboys ready to beat him to the ground.

The program does suffer the loss of a player.

So I guess I retract what I said until further information is developed.

Bomar has been punished enough though. He did not have the ability to take down OU by himself. That would require coach or further program involvement in this deal - obviously - which would mean the punishment would be properly directed at OU.

Again, I'm thinking from an outsiders perspective on this and have no real reason to want Bomar back playing -- other than I think he's suffered enough for what he did ASSUMING HE PAYS BACK ALL OF THE MONEY.

fadada1
10/4/2006, 09:48 AM
who is this, and why should i care about it anymore?

TexasLidig8r
10/4/2006, 09:53 AM
"I know the difference between right and wrong," Bomar wrote, according to The News. "I had no intention of taking money for not working. I got caught up in a situation and listened to the wrong person. I made a very bad mistake."


Let's look at this a LITTLE more closely...

"I had no intention of taking money for not working."

Let's see.. he clocked in, he left the dealership and went to practice, he received a check for the hours he was NOT at the dealership, he cashed the paycheck. His actions are sure contradicting his hollow words.

"I got caught up in a situation and listened to the wrong person."

Spit it out homeslice. Who did you listen to? What person would have said, "Hey Homie, we can "work" at this place and instead of working, we can go to practice.... it's like.. free money!" Is THAT the situation about which you speak? Please.

"I made a very bad mistake."

A mistake is a single decision and when faced with two choices, an incorrect choice is made. You engaged in a systematic scheme to obtain money for not working, to violate NCAA rules, to disgrace yourself, your team and your former university. That is not a mistake. That is a conscious, horrendous decision. If indeed you knew right from wrong, then you knowingly and intentionally, committed "wrong" acts. THAT is not a mistake.

As for football, try an NAIA school.

The only thing he appears to be sorry for is that he got caught.

jkm, the stolen pifwafwi
10/4/2006, 09:57 AM
Thinking about it, I think the booster probably does suffer alot of consequence. I assume he can no longer buy season tickets or be affiliated with the program. I also assume that if he mullet-head shows up at an OU game there will be a line of fratboys ready to beat him to the ground.

The program does suffer the loss of a player.

So I guess I retract what I said until further information is developed.

Bomar has been punished enough though. He did not have the ability to take down OU by himself. That would require coach or further program involvement in this deal - obviously - which would mean the punishment would be properly directed at OU.

Again, I'm thinking from an outsiders perspective on this and have no real reason to want Bomar back playing -- other than I think he's suffered enough for what he did ASSUMING HE PAYS BACK ALL OF THE MONEY.

holy crap. what happened to USC for dwayne jarrett? what happened to the arizona basketball program for the multiple players that have been caught doing this over the last decade? the only reason they punish a program for this is a) they knew about it or b) they are texas a&m and texas is sucking at the time...

fadada1
10/4/2006, 10:02 AM
unfortunately lid, in this most hated of weeks, we must and do agree with you.:mad: :mad:

toast
10/4/2006, 10:08 AM
holy crap. what happened to USC for dwayne jarrett? what happened to the arizona basketball program for the multiple players that have been caught doing this over the last decade? the only reason they punish a program for this is a) they knew about it or b) they are texas a&m and texas is sucking at the time...


jkm, that's not fair in bringing other schools and situations into this discussion, these are ut fans and their myopic view of OU's program.

OUTrumpet
10/4/2006, 10:24 AM
Thinking about it, I think the booster probably does suffer alot of consequence. I assume he can no longer buy season tickets or be affiliated with the program. I also assume that if he mullet-head shows up at an OU game there will be a line of fratboys ready to beat him to the ground.

The program does suffer the loss of a player.

So I guess I retract what I said until further information is developed.

Bomar has been punished enough though. He did not have the ability to take down OU by himself. That would require coach or further program involvement in this deal - obviously - which would mean the punishment would be properly directed at OU.

Again, I'm thinking from an outsiders perspective on this and have no real reason to want Bomar back playing -- other than I think he's suffered enough for what he did ASSUMING HE PAYS BACK ALL OF THE MONEY.

After how much partying Bomar did at my apt building last year and how what his attitude was and everything...I almost hope the NCAA goes the Mike Williams route.

sooneron
10/4/2006, 10:29 AM
Again, I'm thinking from a rival's perspective on this and have no real reason to to keep bringing this up by throwing around key words like "program" -- other than starting weak smack. Please be prepared for another Lexus post in the coming hour.
fixed

Who gave cap the extra helping of **** bag cereal this week?

FaninAma
10/4/2006, 01:22 PM
Lid,counselor, with all due respect, sit down and be quiet or you'll be in contempt of court! The one thing that ****es me off more than anything on this board is whorns who come around and try to preach on moral issues.

Guess what? UTerus has no more, and probably less, ethical integrity that any other program in D-1.

Chrissakes, how long do some of you want Bomar to twist in the wind? There are a lot of D-1 players who did the same thing, or worse, and got a one game suspension. Are you listening Pete Carrol and USC?

Crap, the kid is disgraced. He's finishing out his career at SHSU instead of OU. He problably blew any legitimate shot at the pros. Yet that's not enough?

Good lord. Glass houses gentlemen(and whorns), glass houses.

jwlynn64
10/4/2006, 02:02 PM
I do think that the NCAA's action cause this "Kill the Bum" attitude.

When players get away with taking extra benefits one week and then the next week you hear about some coach or program in trouble because they buy a kid a suit to attend his dads funeral, it makes people crazy. If the good kids get in trouble for doing what 99.9% of the country thinks is OK, we get caught up in wanting too harse a penaty for those that are obviously in the wrong.

I personally think that sitting one year out (losing a year of elegibility), repaying the money and the humiliation is probably plenty of punishment. Let's keep the "Lock them up and throw away the key" attitude directed at the child molesters and women beaters and try and have a little compasion for kids who make bad decisions (even if they have demonstated that they are arrogant a$$ hats).

sooner1129
10/4/2006, 02:19 PM
I lurk here quite often, I just felt a need to key in here

If you are on the outside looking in and say that what Bomar has went through so far is enough and his slate should be wiped clean after he repays his dues.. then you are not completely informed. This kid is NOT a team player, he doesn't have the same team morals that everyone else seems to have. This wasnt his first slap on the wrist... have we forgotten the other check marks next to his name.. mip's and other team rules.. really the only thing in his letter that made complete sense was the part where he said he got caught up in the limelight.. and that is an understatement. This kid thought himself superior to everyone else and didnt think the rules applied to him.... he made his bed, now he has to lie in it and I dont feel sorry for him at all.

OK2LA
10/4/2006, 02:19 PM
"I know the difference between right and wrong," Bomar wrote, according to The News. "I had no intention of taking money for not working. I got caught up in a situation and listened to the wrong person. I made a very bad mistake."


Let's look at this a LITTLE more closely...

"I had no intention of taking money for not working."

Let's see.. he clocked in, he left the dealership and went to practice, he received a check for the hours he was NOT at the dealership, he cashed the paycheck. His actions are sure contradicting his hollow words.

"I got caught up in a situation and listened to the wrong person."

Spit it out homeslice. Who did you listen to? What person would have said, "Hey Homie, we can "work" at this place and instead of working, we can go to practice.... it's like.. free money!" Is THAT the situation about which you speak? Please.

"I made a very bad mistake."

A mistake is a single decision and when faced with two choices, an incorrect choice is made. You engaged in a systematic scheme to obtain money for not working, to violate NCAA rules, to disgrace yourself, your team and your former university. That is not a mistake. That is a conscious, horrendous decision. If indeed you knew right from wrong, then you knowingly and intentionally, committed "wrong" acts. THAT is not a mistake.

As for football, try an NAIA school.

The only thing he appears to be sorry for is that he got caught.


I hate it when I agree with him:mad:

caphorns
10/4/2006, 02:27 PM
holy crap. what happened to USC for dwayne jarrett? what happened to the arizona basketball program for the multiple players that have been caught doing this over the last decade? the only reason they punish a program for this is a) they knew about it or b) they are texas a&m and texas is sucking at the time...

I retracted my position in the post you cited. I guess you missed that. I agree with you although I find the equities kind of strange. The program presumably benefits by the cheating. "This goes on everywhere". I've heard that multiple times. Clearly it's not being caught and the incentives for the "programs" are not strong enough for them to seriously police this. It's not one incident, but clubbing the truly undercompensated player over the head while the wealthy football program who this wealthy boneheaded booster supports skates free of charge? I have to wonder about the equities in that.

I understand the absolutist - it was wrong damnit - position espoused by Lid. I also understand that Bomar's words did not impart the level of admission of cupability you guys want. But the NCAA makes money off of guys - and more money than they get in benefit. If these were unionized paid players? Don't get me started on the NFL. Something strikes me wrong that college kids get hammered over a few thousand bucks while grown men making millions are given one game suspensions for stomping their cleats on someone's face. Haynesworth's CRIME is 10X worse than what Bomar did.

jkm, the stolen pifwafwi
10/4/2006, 02:40 PM
cap, i don't agree its right. heck, i don't even agree with what stoops did, which was beyond overkill. i'm just saying that all of these wrath of NCAA people out there need to face the facts - this is not something the NCAA punishes teams for UNLESS they are really trying to drive them into the ground (see SMU).

jwlynn64
10/4/2006, 02:42 PM
Of course Haynesworth got a five game suspension. :D

The sentiment on this board is why sentencing should be carried out by an impartial party.

Remember, we are talking about 18 - 21 year olds. Maybe in the old west and in the military that is plenty old enough to be considered a man but in the insulated world that most of these athletes grow up in, there are still quite immature in many areas.

For knowing doing something wrong, he deserves to be punished. I think that banning him from college sports is overkill. Again, just my opinion.

jwlynn64
10/4/2006, 02:45 PM
Speaking of SMU. A person here at work told me that they gave themselves the death penalty. Can anyone substantiate that or refute it?

caphorns
10/4/2006, 02:45 PM
I agree jkm, but at some point you have to start punishing the program if you want to stem the tide. Kids are going to continue to be swayed - especially when they are unpaid (yes I know they get a free ride, so do feel the need to lecture me on it). There are boosters of these programs that are not watched carefully and allowed to interact regularly with players. At some point, you have to start forcing the programs to work this harder - particularly in following up on compliance with summer job matters and other allowed perks. It might be unfair to a program (just like SMU was probably unfairly singled out), but I just don't think the NCAA will get its message across otherwise. Another Bomar type case and the next program probably goes down hard. They need to at least make this clear.

Looking at it another way, who cares? They and the NFL are making killer money right now with all the bs going on.

Bottom line is there's alot wrong here underneath the surface and while the player should suffer the consequence, they should not be blacklisted for a few thousand bucks of wrongdoing.

Petro-Sooner
10/4/2006, 02:54 PM
Has anyone heard about or seen ol mullet since all this went down?

TJKDone
10/4/2006, 03:01 PM
He'll get to play next year if he pays the money back. It would be wrong to punish him further than he's already received on this. The question is what punishment is there for the booster who pushed this deal? I still don't get that part.

I'd consult an aggy fan if I were you. They have a lot of experience with this sort of thing.

Hook'em

caphorns
10/4/2006, 03:11 PM
I'd consult an aggy fan if I were you. They have a lot of experience with this sort of thing.

Hook'em

nut wrenching?

TexasLidig8r
10/4/2006, 03:20 PM
Speaking of SMU. A person here at work told me that they gave themselves the death penalty. Can anyone substantiate that or refute it?

The NCAA gave them a one year death penalty. IN addition, they were limited to seven (7) games the next year.. with none to be played at home.

Instead of playing 7 road games with what would essentially be a "club team," (since all football players were allowed to transfer with no loss in eligibility), SMU voluntarily extended the death penalty for one additional year.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spe/2004/feb25football/smu.html

justanotherguy
10/4/2006, 03:21 PM
Speaking of SMU. A person here at work told me that they gave themselves the death penalty. Can anyone substantiate that or refute it?

IIRC, SMU was banned from playing conference games, so they went ahead and cancelled all games, rather than play just 4 games a year.

justanotherguy
10/4/2006, 03:23 PM
The NCAA gave them a one year death penalty. IN addition, they were limited to seven (7) games the next year.. with none to be played at home.

Instead of playing 7 road games with what would essentially be a "club team," (since all football players were allowed to transfer with no loss in eligibility), SMU voluntarily extended the death penalty for one additional year.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spe/2004/feb25football/smu.html

... or what he said...

:)

BajaOklahoma
10/4/2006, 04:15 PM
Bomar isn't sorry and is not ready for forgiveness.

jkm, the stolen pifwafwi
10/4/2006, 04:50 PM
I agree jkm, but at some point you have to start punishing the program if you want to stem the tide. Kids are going to continue to be swayed - especially when they are unpaid (yes I know they get a free ride, so do feel the need to lecture me on it). There are boosters of these programs that are not watched carefully and allowed to interact regularly with players. At some point, you have to start forcing the programs to work this harder - particularly in following up on compliance with summer job matters and other allowed perks. It might be unfair to a program (just like SMU was probably unfairly singled out), but I just don't think the NCAA will get its message across otherwise. Another Bomar type case and the next program probably goes down hard. They need to at least make this clear.

you are thinking about this from an oklahoma or texas point of view. lets think about this logically. sure, these two athletic departments could implement an ERP type system that could track all of this crap (players have to fax their time cards in, expense reports showing where all the money came from that they spent that week, copies of their vehicle registrations, copies of their bank statements, boosters have to notify the athletic department of where they work, companies they own, etc.). but you just blew whatever profit that two of the most profitable ADs in the country would have made that year. what about the ones in the red? how in the heck are they going to keep track of all of this crap? the obvious answer would be that the NCAA would implement it and the burden would be on them to maintain it, secure it, administer it. never gonna happen.

why do you think they come down so hard on recruiting violations? the rules have been set up in such a way that they are quickly able to identify violaters off of expense reports (airline tickets, contact logs, phone records, etc.) via an open records request.

TheLurker
10/4/2006, 05:08 PM
Here's the full letter.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/img/10-06/1004bomar.pdf

caphorns
10/4/2006, 05:26 PM
you are thinking about this from an oklahoma or texas point of view. lets think about this logically. sure, these two athletic departments could implement an ERP type system that could track all of this crap (players have to fax their time cards in, expense reports showing where all the money came from that they spent that week, copies of their vehicle registrations, copies of their bank statements, boosters have to notify the athletic department of where they work, companies they own, etc.). but you just blew whatever profit that two of the most profitable ADs in the country would have made that year. what about the ones in the red? how in the heck are they going to keep track of all of this crap? the obvious answer would be that the NCAA would implement it and the burden would be on them to maintain it, secure it, administer it. never gonna happen.

why do you think they come down so hard on recruiting violations? the rules have been set up in such a way that they are quickly able to identify violaters off of expense reports (airline tickets, contact logs, phone records, etc.) via an open records request.

those would be some seriously overpaid administrative dudes. Look, I don't think it costs much and I highly doubt that people are going to pay players to play for the University of Buffalo OR that it would matter.

The NCAA wouldn't have to do anything other than hand out some nasty noticeable sanction. The problem would very quickly fix itself. Kind of like what they are trying to do with graduation rates (ok I'll duck now).

Jello Biafra
10/4/2006, 05:27 PM
He'll get to play next year if he pays the money back. It would be wrong to punish him further than he's already received on this. The question is what punishment is there for the booster who pushed this deal? I still don't get that part.

yeh true true.....what happens to all of those judges that got all those "discounted" tickets to the DKR anyway? could they be put on trial?

caphorns
10/4/2006, 05:30 PM
Ok, so he seems a bit more contrite reading the full letter, does he not? It also is clearly his words. He's trying to be all smart and wordsy like Lid (and probably could have used some editing from Lid). But how many ways can the guy say I'm sorry and it's all my fault?

caphorns
10/4/2006, 05:31 PM
yeh true true.....what happens to all of those judges that got all those "discounted" tickets to the DKR anyway? could they be put on trial?

Source?

goingoneight
10/4/2006, 05:33 PM
goingoneight letter to Rhett Bomar...

[clears throat] ah-ah-hem [/clears throat]
























...























[edited] you, whorn...




Sincerely, goingoneight :)

Jello Biafra
10/4/2006, 05:42 PM
Source?


look up cheating judges in the dallas moron news about 45 days ago.

birddog
10/4/2006, 06:03 PM
why the sam hill would he not wait to play for a good team? come on, shsu? this guy doesn't have a clue.

caphorns
10/4/2006, 06:21 PM
look up cheating judges in the dallas moron news about 45 days ago.

Care to elaborate as I don't plan to look this up? Are you talking about officials who had tickets given to them by the State and then resold them (which is improper action by them)? I don't see what this has to do with our program at all.

jkm, the stolen pifwafwi
10/4/2006, 06:25 PM
those would be some seriously overpaid administrative dudes. Look, I don't think it costs much and I highly doubt that people are going to pay players to play for the University of Buffalo OR that it would matter.

The NCAA wouldn't have to do anything other than hand out some nasty noticeable sanction. The problem would very quickly fix itself. Kind of like what they are trying to do with graduation rates (ok I'll duck now).

so you would discriminate against the bigger schools? or better yet, not apply it to ALL SPORTS? paging lid, paging lid, class action lawsuit on aisle 3. the graduation rate thing was phased in for ALL school over a period of time that allowed schools to get a pass on the first couple of runs. it was also fairly cheap to implement as schools have had grading systems since the days of punch cards. if they wanted this kept track of, they'd have to do the same with this, but it would bankrupt 75% of the athletic departments in division 1.

Jello Biafra
10/4/2006, 07:06 PM
Care to elaborate as I don't plan to look this up? Are you talking about officials who had tickets given to them by the State and then resold them (which is improper action by them)? I don't see what this has to do with our program at all.

ok dumb arse, your wish is my command. your comment was what happens to the booster blah blah blah.....i insinuated nothing just like the judges that took the tickets.....read on

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/news/article_full.cfm?eventid=2837



September 02, 2006


FREE FOOTBALL TICKETS? JUDGES SAY YES


Legal scholars say UT's offers raise ethical concerns; justices say practice is no big deal

By Ralph K.M. Haurwitz

Thirty judges accepted free or discounted tickets to University of Texas football games during the past five seasons, according to records obtained by the Austin American-Statesman under the Texas Public Information Act.

The recipients included some members of the state's highest civil and criminal courts, as well as federal trial and appellate judges. The judges typically attended pregame receptions sponsored by the UT System with free food and beverages, including beer and wine.

UT System records show the university supplied 449 tickets to the judges from the 2001 through 2005 seasons. Of those tickets, 280 were free. The judges paid face value for the rest but did not make a contribution to UT athletics required of ordinary fans for the right to buy tickets. Some judges took two tickets for a single game, while others accepted as many as 44 distributed among 23 games.

Legal scholars say the practice raises ethical questions.

The scholars note that state and federal judicial conduct codes say judges generally should not accept gifts from parties whose interests have come or are likely to come before them. The university is frequently involved in litigation, and a few of the judges have handled cases involving the school.

However, the conduct codes permit judges to accept "social hospitality." The occasional ticket could be regarded as such, especially if the judge in question is not presiding over a university-related case. But a steadier supply of tickets probably does not qualify as ordinary hospitality, the scholars say.

"It seems to me that something like this, particularly when you're talking about 30 or 40 tickets, which are worth a lot of money, is improper for a judge to accept," said Jeffrey Shaman, a law professor at DePaul University in Chicago and co-author of a textbook on judicial ethics.

"It looks as if the university is trying to curry favor with the judge, and it looks as if the judge is accepting this attempt to curry favor. I think it's wrong for the university to do this, and judges should know better."

The judges, nearly half of whom earned at least one degree at UT, and university officials say there is nothing improper about the practice.

The judges say that the tickets are a social courtesy, that the practice would not affect their treatment of the university in court and that they sometimes donate money or time to the university. School officials and officials of the UT System, which oversees the campus, say they have long offered tickets to judges, lawmakers and other public officials to maintain good relations.

"It's a small favor for the time I know we over here in the federal courthouse give the university," said U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks, referring to panels he and other judges serve on regularly at the UT School of Law. Sparks was the recipient of 34 tickets, of which 30 were free.

"I personally don't think there's anything there that's improper. Of course, if I did I wouldn't have gone to the receptions and received the tickets," added Sparks, who has presided over a trade secret case involving the university since 2001 and who previously oversaw litigation concerning race as a factor in admissions to the law school. His rulings in these and other cases have sometimes gone against the university and sometimes in the school's favor.

Judge Barbara Hervey of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals said she accepted 26 tickets, including 10 for free, "to support the University of Texas as another state agency. I felt like they were doing a hospitable social thing by including members of state government."

UT-Austin President William Powers Jr. said judges "are important public officials, and it benefits us to have them included in our activities. I think what we're doing is appropriate. We certainly would take advice from the judges if they felt otherwise."

The overarching question in judicial ethics is whether a judge's actions could undermine public confidence in the integrity and independence of the courts, said George Kuhlman, ethics counsel for the American Bar Association.

Kuhlman declined to address the Texas matter, but said that in the Chicago area, where the association is based, tickets to University of Notre Dame football games "are considered gold ingots from Fort Knox more than they are ordinary social hospitality."

Longhorn tickets, at least during the team's recent winning seasons, would also seem to have a 24-karat quality. The face value of tickets during the past five years has ranged up to $175 for the Rose Bowl contest in January between UT and the University of Southern California.

But an ordinary fan wishing to sit near where the judges watch games at Royal-Memorial Stadium — between the goal and the 50-yard lines — might have to contribute hundreds or even thousands of dollars to UT's Longhorn Foundation, which raises money for athletics, for the right to purchase tickets at face value. Several judges said they were not aware of that rule.

Highly prized tickets, such as those for the Sept. 9 game against Ohio State University, can fetch a couple of thousand apiece on Internet resale sites.

The UT System cut back in 2003 on the number of judges to whom tickets are offered and began providing them at face value only this season, which begins with today's home game against the University of North Texas.

Mark Yudof, chancellor of the UT System, declined to comment. Michael Warden, a spokesman for the system, said making tickets available to judges, lawmakers and other public officials is a longstanding and legal practice, "and there is nothing inappropriate or unethical in that practice."

The Texas penal code allows judges and other public servants to accept an item issued by a governmental entity for use of the entity's property. That includes tickets to a public university's athletic venues, according to the Texas Ethics Commission. The tickets do not have to be disclosed on personal financial statements filed with the commission, but a few judges do so anyway.

Determining whether any state judge's acceptance of tickets violated the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct is a complex matter that would involve the number of tickets, whether the university was a litigant before the judge, whether the judge disclosed the tickets and other factors, said Seana Willing, executive director of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct.

The code of conduct for federal judges and a related set of gift regulations also would require a judge-by-judge, point-by-point review before anyone could conclude that a particular gift is right or wrong, said Karen Redmond, a spokeswoman for the Administrative Office of the United States Courts.

One judge in Texas got in trouble several years ago for his handling of complimentary UT tickets. Steve Mansfield, then a member of the state Court of Criminal Appeals, was arrested by campus police in 1998 for trying to scalp his tickets. He pleaded no contest to trespassing and was reprimanded by the Commission on Judicial Conduct.

Judges in other states have been disciplined for accepting tickets to professional sports events.

The Ohio Supreme Court publicly reprimanded a judge in 2002 for taking tickets to Pittsburgh Steelers football games from a lawyer handling cases in his court. Two years earlier, the Florida Supreme Court issued a public reprimand against a judge for accepting tickets to Florida Marlins baseball games from a law firm whose lawyers appeared before him.

Those decisions, while not binding in Texas, show that the courts concluded that tickets did not amount to ordinary social hospitality, said Steven Lubet, a law professor at Northwestern University who specializes in judicial ethics.

Donald Burnett Jr., dean of the University of Idaho College of Law and a former judge, said even tickets that arguably fall within ordinary social hospitality should be declined if the donor has a matter pending before the judge. A judge who accepted dozens of tickets might have to recuse himself or herself in a case involving the university, he and other scholars said.

"I'd worry more about the recidivist, the repeat offender, than a judge who accepts the occasional ticket," said James Alfini, president and dean of the South Texas College of Law and a member of an American Bar Association panel on judicial conduct. "On the other hand, I'd have to ask if there really is mischief here."

The judges in Texas say it's simply not a big deal.

James Nowlin, a senior U.S. District Court judge who received 28 tickets, including 20 that were free, said he has made $26,100 in contributions to the university since 2000. Nowlin said that far exceeds the value of the complimentary tickets, which, in recent years, he has given to a law clerk and the clerk's spouse.

"My view is if anybody gives $26,000 to the university, they ought to get a few tickets," Nowlin said.

Harry Lee Hudspeth, a senior federal judge who accepted 44 tickets, all but three for free, said: "I just never viewed it as a transaction that would trigger that concern. If the University of Texas at Austin were a plaintiff or defendant in some case before me, I might have reservations," but that's never happened.

Dale Wainwright, a state Supreme Court justice who accepted five tickets, of which four were free, rejected any suggestion of impropriety. "There are no actions I take that violate the law or ethics," he said.

The Supreme Court's chief justice, Wallace Jefferson, has not accepted Longhorn tickets — not because he has any queasiness about the ethics of doing so but because he reserves weekends for his son's soccer games and other family activities.

"I don't see a gift like that as influencing a judge one way or another," Jefferson said. "Reasonable people I suppose could differ on that."

Recipient Position Number of tickets*

Harry Lee Hudspeth senior U.S. district judge 44
William Wayne Justice senior U.S. district judge 44
Marilyn Aboussie former chief justice, Texas 3rd Court of Appeals 36
Sam Sparks U.S. district judge 34
James Baker former Texas Supreme Court justice 28
Mike Keasler Texas Court of Criminal Appeals judge 28
James Nowlin senior U.S. district judge 28
Barbara Hervey Texas Court of Criminal Appeals judge 26
Lawrence Meyers Texas Court of Criminal Appeals judge 25
Carl Dally former Texas Court of Criminal Appeals judge 16
Jack Onion Jr. former presiding judge, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals 16
Mack Kidd deceased justice, Texas 3rd Court of Appeals 14
Tom Price Texas Court of Criminal Appeals judge 13
David Puryear Texas 3rd Court of Appeals justice 12
Bea Ann Smith Texas 3rd Court of Appeals justice 10
Fortunato Benavides 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judge 9
Cheryl Johnson Texas Court of Criminal Appeals judge 9
Orlando Garcia U.S. district judge 8
Guy Herman Travis County probate judge 8
Charles Holcomb Texas Court of Criminal Appeals judge 7
Craig Enoch former Texas Supreme Court justice 6
Xavier Rodriguez U.S. district judge 6
Dale Wainwright Texas Supreme Court justice 5
Priscilla Owen 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judge 4
Nathan Hecht Texas Supreme Court justice 3
Paul Green Texas Supreme Court justice 2
Sharon Keller presiding judge, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals 2
Tom Phillips former chief justice, Texas Supreme Court 2
Steven Wayne Smith former Texas Supreme Court justice 2
Don Willett Texas Supreme Court justice 2
Total tickets 449

*A discounted ticket includes one for which the judge paid face value but not the contribution to University of Texas athletics required of ordinary fans for the right to purchase a ticket at face value. Source: University of Texas System



Esqwire Blackboard Registration Webmail Directories Contact Us Site Map NU Home Law Home
Admissions | Academics | Faculty & Research | Our Community
Facilities & Resources | Law Library | News & Events
Northwestern Home | Northwestern Calendar: Plan-It Purple | Northwestern Sites A-Z | Northwestern Search
Northwestern University School of Law 357 East Chicago Avenue Chicago, IL 60611
Phone: 312-503-3100 E-mail: [email protected]
Last updated 09/03/2004 World Wide Web Disclaimer and University Policy Statements
© 2004 Northwestern University

Search
Northwestern
Search Help Northwestern Law

SoonerJason
10/4/2006, 08:03 PM
He is dead to me


yep. same here :mad:

Vaevictis
10/4/2006, 11:03 PM
cap, i don't agree its right. heck, i don't even agree with what stoops did, which was beyond overkill.

Heh, yeah, I've been wondering about this. Either Stoops just wants to run a no tolerance program in this regard (which, IMO, is reasonable), or this was the final thing after a long string of events that finally made (or let) Stoops say, "You know what? We're sick of your ****. Get the **** outta here."

Jello Biafra
10/5/2006, 07:10 AM
ok dumb arse, your wish is my command. your comment was what happens to the booster blah blah blah.....i insinuated nothing just like the judges that took the tickets.....read on

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/news/article_full.cfm?eventid=2837



September 02, 2006


FREE FOOTBALL TICKETS? JUDGES SAY YES


Legal scholars say UT's offers raise ethical concerns; justices say practice is no big deal

By Ralph K.M. Haurwitz

Thirty judges accepted free or discounted tickets to University of Texas football games during the past five seasons, according to records obtained by the Austin American-Statesman under the Texas Public Information Act.

The recipients included some members of the state's highest civil and criminal courts, as well as federal trial and appellate judges. The judges typically attended pregame receptions sponsored by the UT System with free food and beverages, including beer and wine.

UT System records show the university supplied 449 tickets to the judges from the 2001 through 2005 seasons. Of those tickets, 280 were free. The judges paid face value for the rest but did not make a contribution to UT athletics required of ordinary fans for the right to buy tickets. Some judges took two tickets for a single game, while others accepted as many as 44 distributed among 23 games.

Legal scholars say the practice raises ethical questions.

The scholars note that state and federal judicial conduct codes say judges generally should not accept gifts from parties whose interests have come or are likely to come before them. The university is frequently involved in litigation, and a few of the judges have handled cases involving the school.

However, the conduct codes permit judges to accept "social hospitality." The occasional ticket could be regarded as such, especially if the judge in question is not presiding over a university-related case. But a steadier supply of tickets probably does not qualify as ordinary hospitality, the scholars say.

"It seems to me that something like this, particularly when you're talking about 30 or 40 tickets, which are worth a lot of money, is improper for a judge to accept," said Jeffrey Shaman, a law professor at DePaul University in Chicago and co-author of a textbook on judicial ethics.

"It looks as if the university is trying to curry favor with the judge, and it looks as if the judge is accepting this attempt to curry favor. I think it's wrong for the university to do this, and judges should know better."

The judges, nearly half of whom earned at least one degree at UT, and university officials say there is nothing improper about the practice.

The judges say that the tickets are a social courtesy, that the practice would not affect their treatment of the university in court and that they sometimes donate money or time to the university. School officials and officials of the UT System, which oversees the campus, say they have long offered tickets to judges, lawmakers and other public officials to maintain good relations.

"It's a small favor for the time I know we over here in the federal courthouse give the university," said U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks, referring to panels he and other judges serve on regularly at the UT School of Law. Sparks was the recipient of 34 tickets, of which 30 were free.

"I personally don't think there's anything there that's improper. Of course, if I did I wouldn't have gone to the receptions and received the tickets," added Sparks, who has presided over a trade secret case involving the university since 2001 and who previously oversaw litigation concerning race as a factor in admissions to the law school. His rulings in these and other cases have sometimes gone against the university and sometimes in the school's favor.

Judge Barbara Hervey of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals said she accepted 26 tickets, including 10 for free, "to support the University of Texas as another state agency. I felt like they were doing a hospitable social thing by including members of state government."

UT-Austin President William Powers Jr. said judges "are important public officials, and it benefits us to have them included in our activities. I think what we're doing is appropriate. We certainly would take advice from the judges if they felt otherwise."

The overarching question in judicial ethics is whether a judge's actions could undermine public confidence in the integrity and independence of the courts, said George Kuhlman, ethics counsel for the American Bar Association.

Kuhlman declined to address the Texas matter, but said that in the Chicago area, where the association is based, tickets to University of Notre Dame football games "are considered gold ingots from Fort Knox more than they are ordinary social hospitality."

Longhorn tickets, at least during the team's recent winning seasons, would also seem to have a 24-karat quality. The face value of tickets during the past five years has ranged up to $175 for the Rose Bowl contest in January between UT and the University of Southern California.

But an ordinary fan wishing to sit near where the judges watch games at Royal-Memorial Stadium — between the goal and the 50-yard lines — might have to contribute hundreds or even thousands of dollars to UT's Longhorn Foundation, which raises money for athletics, for the right to purchase tickets at face value. Several judges said they were not aware of that rule.

Highly prized tickets, such as those for the Sept. 9 game against Ohio State University, can fetch a couple of thousand apiece on Internet resale sites.

The UT System cut back in 2003 on the number of judges to whom tickets are offered and began providing them at face value only this season, which begins with today's home game against the University of North Texas.

Mark Yudof, chancellor of the UT System, declined to comment. Michael Warden, a spokesman for the system, said making tickets available to judges, lawmakers and other public officials is a longstanding and legal practice, "and there is nothing inappropriate or unethical in that practice."

The Texas penal code allows judges and other public servants to accept an item issued by a governmental entity for use of the entity's property. That includes tickets to a public university's athletic venues, according to the Texas Ethics Commission. The tickets do not have to be disclosed on personal financial statements filed with the commission, but a few judges do so anyway.

Determining whether any state judge's acceptance of tickets violated the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct is a complex matter that would involve the number of tickets, whether the university was a litigant before the judge, whether the judge disclosed the tickets and other factors, said Seana Willing, executive director of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct.

The code of conduct for federal judges and a related set of gift regulations also would require a judge-by-judge, point-by-point review before anyone could conclude that a particular gift is right or wrong, said Karen Redmond, a spokeswoman for the Administrative Office of the United States Courts.

One judge in Texas got in trouble several years ago for his handling of complimentary UT tickets. Steve Mansfield, then a member of the state Court of Criminal Appeals, was arrested by campus police in 1998 for trying to scalp his tickets. He pleaded no contest to trespassing and was reprimanded by the Commission on Judicial Conduct.

Judges in other states have been disciplined for accepting tickets to professional sports events.

The Ohio Supreme Court publicly reprimanded a judge in 2002 for taking tickets to Pittsburgh Steelers football games from a lawyer handling cases in his court. Two years earlier, the Florida Supreme Court issued a public reprimand against a judge for accepting tickets to Florida Marlins baseball games from a law firm whose lawyers appeared before him.

Those decisions, while not binding in Texas, show that the courts concluded that tickets did not amount to ordinary social hospitality, said Steven Lubet, a law professor at Northwestern University who specializes in judicial ethics.

Donald Burnett Jr., dean of the University of Idaho College of Law and a former judge, said even tickets that arguably fall within ordinary social hospitality should be declined if the donor has a matter pending before the judge. A judge who accepted dozens of tickets might have to recuse himself or herself in a case involving the university, he and other scholars said.

"I'd worry more about the recidivist, the repeat offender, than a judge who accepts the occasional ticket," said James Alfini, president and dean of the South Texas College of Law and a member of an American Bar Association panel on judicial conduct. "On the other hand, I'd have to ask if there really is mischief here."

The judges in Texas say it's simply not a big deal.

James Nowlin, a senior U.S. District Court judge who received 28 tickets, including 20 that were free, said he has made $26,100 in contributions to the university since 2000. Nowlin said that far exceeds the value of the complimentary tickets, which, in recent years, he has given to a law clerk and the clerk's spouse.

"My view is if anybody gives $26,000 to the university, they ought to get a few tickets," Nowlin said.

Harry Lee Hudspeth, a senior federal judge who accepted 44 tickets, all but three for free, said: "I just never viewed it as a transaction that would trigger that concern. If the University of Texas at Austin were a plaintiff or defendant in some case before me, I might have reservations," but that's never happened.

Dale Wainwright, a state Supreme Court justice who accepted five tickets, of which four were free, rejected any suggestion of impropriety. "There are no actions I take that violate the law or ethics," he said.

The Supreme Court's chief justice, Wallace Jefferson, has not accepted Longhorn tickets — not because he has any queasiness about the ethics of doing so but because he reserves weekends for his son's soccer games and other family activities.

"I don't see a gift like that as influencing a judge one way or another," Jefferson said. "Reasonable people I suppose could differ on that."

Recipient Position Number of tickets*

Harry Lee Hudspeth senior U.S. district judge 44
William Wayne Justice senior U.S. district judge 44
Marilyn Aboussie former chief justice, Texas 3rd Court of Appeals 36
Sam Sparks U.S. district judge 34
James Baker former Texas Supreme Court justice 28
Mike Keasler Texas Court of Criminal Appeals judge 28
James Nowlin senior U.S. district judge 28
Barbara Hervey Texas Court of Criminal Appeals judge 26
Lawrence Meyers Texas Court of Criminal Appeals judge 25
Carl Dally former Texas Court of Criminal Appeals judge 16
Jack Onion Jr. former presiding judge, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals 16
Mack Kidd deceased justice, Texas 3rd Court of Appeals 14
Tom Price Texas Court of Criminal Appeals judge 13
David Puryear Texas 3rd Court of Appeals justice 12
Bea Ann Smith Texas 3rd Court of Appeals justice 10
Fortunato Benavides 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judge 9
Cheryl Johnson Texas Court of Criminal Appeals judge 9
Orlando Garcia U.S. district judge 8
Guy Herman Travis County probate judge 8
Charles Holcomb Texas Court of Criminal Appeals judge 7
Craig Enoch former Texas Supreme Court justice 6
Xavier Rodriguez U.S. district judge 6
Dale Wainwright Texas Supreme Court justice 5
Priscilla Owen 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judge 4
Nathan Hecht Texas Supreme Court justice 3
Paul Green Texas Supreme Court justice 2
Sharon Keller presiding judge, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals 2
Tom Phillips former chief justice, Texas Supreme Court 2
Steven Wayne Smith former Texas Supreme Court justice 2
Don Willett Texas Supreme Court justice 2
Total tickets 449

*A discounted ticket includes one for which the judge paid face value but not the contribution to University of Texas athletics required of ordinary fans for the right to purchase a ticket at face value. Source: University of Texas System



Esqwire Blackboard Registration Webmail Directories Contact Us Site Map NU Home Law Home
Admissions | Academics | Faculty & Research | Our Community
Facilities & Resources | Law Library | News & Events
Northwestern Home | Northwestern Calendar: Plan-It Purple | Northwestern Sites A-Z | Northwestern Search
Northwestern University School of Law 357 East Chicago Avenue Chicago, IL 60611
Phone: 312-503-3100 E-mail: [email protected]
Last updated 09/03/2004 World Wide Web Disclaimer and University Policy Statements
© 2004 Northwestern University

Search
Northwestern
Search Help Northwestern Law





***crickets chirping****


your silence is deafening WHORENS

OU-HSV
10/5/2006, 07:54 AM
He is dead to me
word

Jason White's Third Knee
10/5/2006, 08:23 AM
Why should he be punished for a few more years? I thought this was less than a criminal action? Do you guys not agree with this?

He was involved with a form of cheating, but the real issue is the program and boosters involved who have not been punished at all - especially given the way PT has played. Bomar lost a HUGE opportunity already and it's permanent. He WILL suffer the consequences of this for a long time no matter what happens with the NCAA. Having seen Sam Houston State's OL this past weekend, he's certainly not in for an easy ride.


The booster should be banned from playing in all ncaa events for the rest of his career. Word.

Guy like Bomar should not be allowed to play D1 imho. It jerks the schools around and the kids know the rules. It wasn't an accident. It was a decision. I DO believe that many of the rules are stupid though.

I employ D1 athletes from time to time and they aren't allowed to earn more than $2000 in a year while on scholarship. That's gotta suck if you don't have help from home.

caphorns
10/5/2006, 09:57 AM
Jello - what the hell does that crap have to do with football or the NCAA. Do you think supreme court justices are residing over the Terrell Brown case? Give me a break. It has nothing that calls into question the integrity of our football program. The ONLY reason this became an issue this year is that our tickets have become so much more valuable than they once were - which calls into question whether this has become more than a nominal gift for a judge to accept - thus disqualifying these judges from presiding over a matter involving The University. NOTHING to do with the football program.

Jello Biafra
10/5/2006, 06:40 PM
Jello - what the hell does that crap have to do with football or the NCAA. Do you think supreme court justices are residing over the Terrell Brown case? Give me a break. It has nothing that calls into question the integrity of our football program. The ONLY reason this became an issue this year is that our tickets have become so much more valuable than they once were - which calls into question whether this has become more than a nominal gift for a judge to accept - thus disqualifying these judges from presiding over a matter involving The University. NOTHING to do with the football program.



mmmhhhmm keep telling yourself that. let us know how it works out far ya.

stoops the eternal pimp
10/5/2006, 06:56 PM
I m waiting for my letter of apology for not being able to take a snap from center for the first 5 games last year

Stoop Dawg
10/5/2006, 07:27 PM
NOTHING to do with the football program.

Football tickets have nothing to do with the football program?

That's an, ummmm, "interesting" perspective.