On  4 Aug 96 at 11:00, John Forsyth wrote:
 
> The following are excerpts from an article by Roberta Scruggs, a
> staff writer for the Portland Papers (Sunday Telegram and Press
> Herald), which appears in today's (August 4) Maine Sunday Telegram.
> If I can get permission, I'll post the entire article on my web page
> later this week.
 
I have to comment on this article, basically because I laughed out
loud when I read it.  It's simply one person pushing their agenda and
no less by someone who hasn't covered hockey in years, if ever.
 
Roberta Scruggs is the "Outdoors" columnist for the Portland Papers
for those who don't know.  While she's entitled to her opinions, so
am I.. so here we go!  :-)
 
> "Shawn, you've been insulted.  The NCAA says you displayed 'an
> appalling lack of knowledge' of its rules.  For 10 solid years, you
> couldn't comprehend even the NCAA's most basic concept - that
> student athletes can't receive special benefits." "I guess the NCAA
> doesn't know you like we do.  Every sports writer who ever covered
> Maine's hockey team heard you brag you were the master of the NCAA
> rule book.  It was a point of pride that you had studied it like a
> Bible student searching for salvation."
 
The NCAA said the University of Maine displayed an "appalling lack of
knowledge" of the rules.  This is part of the problem many of the
new-found Walsh bashers (the same people who supported Walsh in many
cases before the NCAA report.. which is much less critical of Walsh
than we expected).  The NCAA's report does not single Shawn Walsh out
as the problem, or the root of all problems.  This is important for
us all to understand, Shawn Walsh alone did not cause the mess at
Maine.  Certainly he played a large role in the problems in the
hockey program, but he wasn't given anything to work with and he was
forced by the University of Maine to make his own interpretations of
the rules because nothing existed for him to check with.
 
I'm sorry folks but Shawn Walsh is not the root of all evil here.
He's a player in the game, but he's not the end all.  Anyone who says
that he is obviously hasn't read Maine's report or the NCAA's
findings.  They are critical of Maine, the people who hired,
supervised and in many cases approved/agreed with Shawn Walsh.  Yes, Shawn
Walsh was wrong, but so was the University of Maine.  Let's be clear,
the blame is not on his shoulders alone, it began well over 10 years
ago and went through several athletic administrations.  No one wanted
to try and fix the problem, they just enabled it.  We need to
remember that the whole system was flawed, and it's just now being
corrected.
 
> "You trusted your own interpretation of NCAA rules more than the
> NCAA's itself.  That's why you recruited Jeff Tory even with the
> NCAA letter in your hand saying he was academically ineligible.  And
> when you were suspended for keeping that letter to yourself, you
> said you still believed you were right and the NCAA was wrong. So
> when the NCAA says you broke their rules because you didn't know any
> better, they must be wrong again."
 
If Ms. Scruggs has such valuable information regarding Walsh and the
Tory situation perhaps the NCAA Committee on Infractions missed that.
 The Jeff Tory situation was part of the investigation and the NCAA
did not conclude Walsh committed an intentional violation here.
Where is Ms. Scruggs facts?  This is the same unsubstainated venom
people have been throwing at Maine, but the facts are out now.  I'm
sorry to disappoint here but the NCAA Committee on Infractions report
does not say, at any time, that Walsh acted either unethically or
intentionally in any case.  Period.  Remember, the Committee on
Infractions accused Walsh of acting unethically.. however they did
not conclude he was guilty of that.  In other words, the evidence
wasn't there.
 
I'm actually disgusted that someone can print accusations like this
without backing them up with fact.  I'm a journalism student, and
that's the first thing you learn.  Scruggs says Walsh broke the rules
intentionally, I've produced NCAA evidence that says no, where is her
facts?  Some supposed letter?  If the NCAA wrote Walsh a letter and
he had it before Tory played don't you think that would have turned
up in their investigation?  The NCAA keeps very, very accurate
records and I'm fully confident that had such a letter existed it
would be in the NCAA report I've already read.
 
> "You were just too dumb to know the rules."
> "Shawn, I know how much that must hurt.  You've always prided
> yourself on the ability to outthink the opposition.  You made A's in
> college. And the first time I met you, you told me you made a
> perfect score on the math portion of the SAT." "So which is it,
> Shawn?" "Has the NCAA insulted your intelligence?" "Or have you
> insulted ours?"
 
I'm sorry but this paragraph just reeks of someone with a personal
problem with Shawn Walsh obviously incapable of being objective on
the subject.  It's clearly evident that Ms. Scruggs has tried to use
saracsm in order to humilate Shawn Walsh for whatever personal
reason.
 
It's her right to do this, however where are the facts?  It's just
venom and it's the same thing that others have said over the last
three years.  I'm not sure why, because while there are no winners
only losers in the NCAA's report if one person should have come out
better it's Shawn Walsh.  In essence all the venom people have spewed
over the years came down the very little when the final verdict and
the final findings were released.
 
Please keep in mind that I don't absolve Shawn Walsh of
responsibility I just want to talk about the facts, not people's
personal problems and agendas.  Walsh played a large role in the
problems at UMaine.  He didn't do it alone, but he was a large
player.  Walsh has been suspended by the University of Maine, and
while you can disagree with that the NCAA in essence did not.
 
Socrates said that a big part to an argument is being able to look at
what's missing.  What is missing here?  The NCAA stopped short of
finding Shawn Walsh guilty of unethical conduct, of intentionally
breaking NCAA bylaws, of misleading witnesses.  Those are three large
charges levied against Walsh and often used as reasons for his
dismissal.  The NCAA is the judge and the jury here, and while we all
might disagree it's the final word.
 
Also missing is a "Show Cause".  A "Show Cause" is what the NCAA uses
to inquire why an institution (Maine in this case) should not be
subject to further penalties because of their own action.  The NCAA
could have asked Maine why Walsh shouldn't deserve further penalties,
a "Show Cause".  I fully expected a "Show Cause", I believe Maine
administrators did as well, but where is it?  The simply fact is the
NCAA was content in the penalties Shawn Walsh received.
 
These are all straight-forward facts missing from Ms. Scruggs piece.
They are all important facts relevant to the point but simply were
omitted because they contradict her personal agenda.
 
We all know Shawn Walsh is arrogant, brash and outspoken.  John
served as a student-manager, as did my best friend for the last
couple years so we know Shawn Walsh in many cases talks a good game,
but we also know not to believe everything he says.  I'm not saying I
agree with the NCAA nor am I offering an opinion above saying that
Ms. Scruggs' article is unimpressive.  What I am saying is that if
the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) didn't find
enough evidence, then I'm sorry but it's going to take more than some
piece filled with sarcasm, obvious bias and unsubstainated
accusations for me to believe it.
---
Deron Treadwell - [log in to unmask]
Orono, Maine
INFO-HOCKEY-L Administrator
ME-HOCKEY Administrator