2) The Final Project PowerPoint should include the following…Rules-education PowerPoint presentation that addresses the violations in your case
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Running head: FINAL PROJECT
Final Project: The University of Louisville Men’s Basketball sex scandal 2015
Recently incidences of violation of the NCAA laws and regulations have been on rise.
This has necessitated the agency to be bold in its work and has since formulated new
enforcement guidelines to ensure there is discipline in sports (Amato, 2019). The most recent is
the University of Louisville infraction case involved the institutions program for the basketball
team. it was alleged that the former director of the program had organized for ‘prostitutes and
strippers to give strip dances and sex to a group of 17 students athletes and prospective
candidates as well as two non-scholastic basketball team coaches and a friend to one of the
prospects. It was further alleged that some of the prospects minors (Epstein & Osborne, 2017).
According to the NCAA committee on the infraction, they had not encountered such a case
where a member of the men basketball program staff organizes for prostitutes and strippers for
the student’s athletes, prospects and their friends some of whom are said to have been on a
campus visit. The sexual conduct is said to have occurred in one of the institution’s dormitories
which were occupied by the men basketball team and other people who were affiliated to the
Statement of Purpose
The dormitory where the sex issues are said to have taken place was occupied exclusively
by the student-athletes and other people who were connected to the men basketball program. It
was not clear whether the head of the men basketball program was aware of the sexual activities,
but on his side, he did not demonstrate that he had exercised due diligence in his work. In this
regard, he did not satisfactorily play his role in preventing the violation of NCAA regulations.
The investigations established that the prostitution and striptease dances occurred although with
a few exceptions. The university and the head of men basketball program did not agree with the
facts that they failed to monitor the operations of the former director. This paper does an analysis
University of Louisville Men’s Basketball sex scandal 2015 based on the NCAA legislations, the
background, investigations, and findings and make recommendations to avoid similar cases
(Turpin & Koven, 2019).
Background Information of the Case
The genesis of the University of Louisville Men’s Basketball sex scandal 2015 was in
August 21 if the same year when a former student-athlete contacted the institution about the
former media house which had asked him about the adult entertainment and parties in Minardi
hall which hosted the students’ athletes and other associated parties (Turpin & Koven, 2019).
The information from the media house was that the former director of men basketball program
had actively participated in the organization of the parties and about entertainment. Ten days
after the student made the report, the media house contacted the institution directly over the
matter seeking interviews with the head of the direct of athletics and the head coach for the men
basketball team. The university declined the media requested but proceeded to begin
investigations into the matter based on the little information it had. The NCAA enforcement
officials were also informed about the allegations. On October 3, 2015, the media house in which
was inquiring about the sex scandal published a book which is titled ‘’Breaking the cardinal
Rule’’ which detailed the story. The book told the story as it was detailed to them by a selfproclaimed escort. According to the book, the self-proclaimed escort gave details about the acts
of prostitution and stripteases dance which she alleged that they organized with the former direct
for over four years (Amato, 2019).
The enforcement officers notified the University of the Inquiry verbally on October 21,
2015. On October 17, 2016, which almost a year, the NCAA enforcement officials give the
institution, the head coach, the former director of the men’s basketball program and his assistant
at the institution a notice about the allegations (Amato, 2019). On January 17, 2017, the
institution and the head coach filed their response to the allegation while the assistant program
director filed his response 13 days later. The former director of the program declined to file any
response or participate in the process. The enforcement officials from NCAA filed their
statement of the case as well as the reply in written form on March 17, 2017. This was followed
by the supplementary reply by the heads coach and the assistant director later in the same month.
ON April 17, 2017, a penal of the NCAA officials from the Division 1 Committee on Infractions
(CIO) conducted a hearing. The institution had its representatives as well as the head coach and
the assistant director. The case was heard and determined based on merit by the penal (Turpin &
The head coach, in this case, is a person who has over 40 years of experiencing
overseeing basketball as a coach in institutions which are members of NCAA. He had worked in
this university since 2001 and had managed many programs in the institutions successfully
(Fortunato, 2019). The former director had been residing in Minardi hall which was associated
occupied by other individuals associated with the men’s basketball program. The Mardi hall was
an on-campus dormitory where the members associated with the men’s basketball resided and
where the violations I the present case are said to have been committed. During the hearing, the
head coach and representatives of the institutions informed the panel that the hall has a resident
assistant who used to make reports of any problems in the hall to the housing department by the
institution policy. As a matter of courtesy, in some cases, the hall resident assistant used to report
indiscipline cases concerning the students’ athletes to the athletic staff. The hall also has a
security desk which was always manned and those who reside there only access it through a
card. Any visitor has to sign in and sign out.
The former director of operations had only four years’ experience in the job. He was
charged with the responsibility of managing the students’ athlete schedules, and liaising with the
academic advisors, he integral in the recruitment and interacted with the prospects who visited
the institution (Lens, 2018). He has a residential room in Minardi hall, but there were questions
as to the exact time when he resided there. Whereas the hall had a resident assistant, the
institution admitted before the panel that the former director resided there to act as a ‘’watchdog”
over the basketball athlete students. He was appointed to the position by the head coach who felt
that he was competent and committed to the program. According to the head coach the former
director had been placed to the hall to watch over the students athletes in the program and he was
expected to adhere to the NCAA rules. The head coach informed the panel that he had charged
the assistant coaches to supervise the former director. This position was not supported as some
assistant coaches stated that the supervisory role was on the head coaches and could not have
been delegated. It was also established from the oral submissions that the institution allowed
prospects in an unofficial visit to sleep in the hall (Epstein & Osborne, 2017). The university had
a policy which allowed prospects to speed the night as the hall as guests but by the set
guidelines. The basketball official was supposed to allocate the prospects to the room. Anyone
spending the night with a minor in the room had to get approval from at least four people. It was
established that several prospects had spent time in the hall with some being minors. The letters
from the institution showed that the procedure of admitting the minors in the hall was not
followed. Besides by his admission, the head coach was not aware of what used to happen in the
hall from 10.pm. He also admitted to not being available in of the instances when the prospects
On the late night activities in Mardi hall, the head coach questioning of the prospect did
not reveal the prostitution and stripteases dances which used to happen. Between December 2010
and July 2014, the former had arranged around 14 entertainments and prostitutions events for the
athlete students, athletes, prospective, visiting friends of the prospective athletes and nonscholastic coaches (Turpin & Koven, 2019). He used to organize and pay the escorts who used to
provide intercourse, oral sex, and striptease dances. These events used to take place at night after
the visiting prospects had spent the day in the field with the students’ athletes. The former
director used to organize for the events through the escorts. The penal was also informed that
none of the visiting prospects had prior knowledge that such activities would occur and neither
did they expect prostitutes and strippers to join them at night. Most of them were surprised and
very discomfort with what was happening. The head coach told the panel that he was not aware
that prostitution and striptease were taking place. The penal was not able to make a finding
whether he was aware of any of the coaching staff were aware. None of those who appeared
before the penal happened to suggest that the head coach was aware of the escort activities.
After the expose by the media, the investigating officials wanted to establish the truth by
interviewing several people mentioned. Those who were of great interest were the former
director and the assistant. The NCAA officials tried to establish whether the assistant director
was involved in the incident. The evidence available according to the investigators did not
suggest the involvement of the former assistant program director (Epstein & Osborne, 2017). On
further probe, the assistant program director declines to cooperate with the investigators accusing
them of engaging in a fishing expedition. He specifically refused to produce his bank statements
and phone records for the period in question as requested by the panel. On his second interview
with the panel he appeared annoyed and informed them that his continued cooperation with the
NCCA demands were threatening his job. The former director was at the center of investigations,
and the enforcement panel was interested in interviewing him. All their attempts to get him were
unsuccessful. When then panel contacted his attorney he informed them that the former director
would not consent to an interview with them and neither would he provide any of the records
requested (Turpin & Koven, 2019).
Analysis of the Case
The information available showed that for close to three and half years the former
director of the men basketball program had organized with the local escort for prostitutes and
strip dancers to be brought in the Minardi hall on the days when the prospects were staying there.
The women engaged in sex acts and striptease dances with the prospects and some athletestudents (Long, 2015). In about ten occasions, the prostitutes engaged in sexual acts with the
students’ athletes, prospects or their friends. About 7 of the prospect athletes who had sex with
the prostitutes were minors. There are situations when the former director of the men basketball
program organized for the prostitutes to have sex with the non-scholastic coaches who had been
recruited by the institution in the hotels.
The Act of the former director to organize and facilitate such actions violated the NCAA
legislation as well as its code of ethical conduct. The director did not respond to the allegations
and neither did he participate in the hearing. The former assistant director of the men basketball
program also violated NCAA regulations when he declines to furnish the NCAA investigation
officials with the phone records (Gibson, 2015). The refusal to provide the phone recorded as
requested amounted to a refusal to cooperate in the investigations. The head of the men
basketball program coach also violated the NCAA regulation by not rebutting the presumption
that he was responsible for all the activities which were planned and facilitated by the former
director. It is assumed that the former director is the agent of the head coach and keeps watch on
his behalf on the activities which were happening in the dormitory where the students’ athletes
and the prospects were sleeping (Turpin & Koven, 2019).
The violations, in this case, occurred in the men’s basketball program where an official
brought prostitutes and strippers to the institution’s hostel where the students’ athletes and
prospective students’ athletes were sleeping. In this case, the violation of the NCAA legislation
and regulations occurred in four different ways (Hunter, 2017). First was the act of the former
director to bring the prostitutes and strippers to the school hall where the students’ athletes,
prospective students and other people associated with the basketball program were residing. The
second violation was the failure to cooperate with the NCAA enforcement panel during the
investigations which were from the face of it unethical conducted. Third, the violation occurred
was the failure by the assistant director to cooperate with the enforcement officials panel in the
investigation. The fourth violation occurred where the head coach did not fully supervise the
former director who was under him. From the analysis of the submissions and evidence, the
enforcement panel established that the former director brought prostitutes and stripers who had
oral sex, intercourse, and stripteases to the athletes’ students, prospective students and other
associated persons who were a violation of the NCAA legislation and regulations (Turpin &
Koven, 2019). The act violated the NCAA regulations related to the impermissible inducements,
benefits, and unethical conduct. The unethical conduct and failure to cooperate by the former
director and assistant director were also in direct violation of the NCAA regulations which
requires them to provide the relevant information to the NCAA investigation officials.
From the above analysis, it is clear that the University of Louisville Men’s Basketball sex
scandal 2015 took place in blatant disregard of the NCAA regulations. The welfare of the
students was also disregarded. It was more shocking that a person perpetrated the violation in
authority. The violation which was arranged and cordoned by a person in authority caused
ineligibility of the student’s athletes in the institution. The enforcement panel after considering
several aggravating factors found that the mitigation factors were weak. In this regard, several
penalties were prescribed on the university and individuals involved. First, the panel censured
and reprimanded the university. The institutions were also fined and ordered to return to the
NCAA all the monies it had received. This is simply because the violation made all the students
who participate in the sex and stripteases became ineligible for any competitions. The former
director also violated the NCAA knowingly. Other penalties were the banning of the institution
from participating in the NCAA competitions, restriction on the recruitment and reduction of its
scholarships. The head coach due to failure in his duty was issued with show cause orders and
restricted from any coaching activities.
From the above case, it is clear that the cases of unethical conduct and violation of the
NCCA laws and regulations can go to the extreme. In this regard for the institutions and
individuals to prevent such cases from taking place, several measures can be put in place. First,
institutions should take precaution to ensure that their internal policies and NCAA regulations
are not violated. This includes those in authority doing regular inspections of the operations in
the institutions. Secondly, there is a need to teach ethics to sports. This will improve the ethical
conduct of the coaches, directors and students athletes. The institution, also, should vet the
people who are placed to be in charge of the students. Finally, the institutions in their policy need
to ensure that no visitors are allowed to access where the students’ athletes, prospective students’
athletes, and their coaches are residing once they retire to sleep.
Amato, L. (2019). Rising Above the Madness: Profiles of the Greatest NCAA Basketball Coaches
of All Time. Ulysses Press.
Epstein, A., & Osborne, B. (2017). Teaching Ethics with Sports: Recent Developments. Marq.
Sports L. Rev., 28, 301.
Fortunato, J. A. (2019). The NCAA Commission on College Basketball: Institution Maintenance
and Reputation Management in Practice. Journal of Global Sport Management, 1-20.
Gibson, J. (2015). The Parthenon, October 6, 2015.
Hunter, H. (2017). Strike Three: Calling out College Officials for Sexual Assault on Campus.
Tex. Tech L. Rev., 50, 277.
Lens, J. (2018). NCAA Head Coach Responsibilities Legislation. DePaul J. Sports L. &
Contemp. Probs., 14, 33.
Long, J. M. (2015). Does a Self-Imposed Post-Season Ban Trigger Promissory Estoppel Claims
for Affected Student-Athletes: The 2015-2016 Louisville Basketball Season. Va. Sports
& Ent. LJ, 15, 173.
Turpin, N., & Koven, S. G. (2019). Balancing Athletic Revenues with Ethical Behavior:
Dilemma of NCAA. Public Organization Review, 1-17.
Purchase answer to see full