NCAA Responds to Miami, Haith's Motions to Dismiss Case
COLUMBIA -- Nearly two-weeks after current Missouri basketball coach Frank Haith and the University of Miami filed motions to dismiss the NCAA case against them, the NCAA is responding. Current Interim Vice President of Enforcement Jonathan Duncan responded to the motions filed to drop the nearly two-year long investigation against the University of Miami and Frank Haith. The investigation stems from allegations made by former booster and convicted felon Nevin Shapiro, who masterminded a $930 million Ponzi scheme at Miami.
In the 42-page document, Duncan states that both Haith and Miami claimed: "the enforcement staff pre-judged Shapiro's truthfulness before obtaining any corroborating evidence and they point to a letter written by Ameen Najjar (Najjar), then director of enforcement, to a judge in support of Shapiro's credibility." He responded with, "had the enforcement staff rushed to judgment, as stated by the institution and Haith, it would be doubtful that there would be information reported by Shapiro that was left on the table and not formally alleged as a violation."
According to the letter from Duncan, Haith and the University of Miami mentioned media leaks as another reason to dismiss the case. Both are claiming the enforcement staff leaked information to ESPN that lead to this article being published by Andy Katz on April 4, 2013.
They also claim they leaked information to CBS Sports which lead to this article being published by Jeff Goodman on January 21, 2013. Duncan stated, "Haith correctly mentioned that the notice of allegations issued February 18 did not match information that Goodman reported, but he failed to mention that Goodman's information also did not match the notice of allegations that was drafted and discussed with Haith's attorneys January 14."
Finally, the response from the NCAA addressed the claim that Haith was mislead during his interview on September 5, 2012 by then Assistant Director of Enforcement Abby Grantstein. In his motion Haith claims that, "Grantstein "continuously" advised him that the interview would contain "no surprises" and "new issues" and argues that Grantstein "communicated the purpose of the interview was to permit the enforcement staff to wrap-up details from the first interview."
The NCAA stated: "Haith signed the NCAA Interview Notice Form, acknowledging that the purpose of the interview was to determine whether Haith had any knowledge of or involvement in violations of NCAA legislation. Additionally, during the interview, Grantstein verbally reviewed the purpose of the interview with Haith again, specifically asking Haith on the record if he understood the purpose of the interview, to which he replied he did. Again, Haith had two attorneys present during his second interview, and there was no objection at that time to the purpose of the interview as stated by Grantstein."