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