I have seen it discussed numerous times, and it is obvious that most don't bother to read the actual documents. So, I abbreviated the NCAA response to Allegation 16 for the message board, but you can read through the whole thing at the link (starts on page 77). It is apparent that the texts are coming from Farrar's and the 2 boosters' phones.
It seems to me that for Student Athlete 39 to be lying would have required him to steal Barney's, John Doe's, and John Doe's assistant's cell phones, hack in and place 2 year old texts in there, and return the phones, like Ethan Hunt in Mission Impossible. Please, keep in mind, this is where The Black Bear hopes lie and the Rebel Rags lawsuit hinges.
Enjoy:
https://www.scribd.com/document/355930115/Enforcement-Staff-Reply-Redacted
It seems to me that for Student Athlete 39 to be lying would have required him to steal Barney's, John Doe's, and John Doe's assistant's cell phones, hack in and place 2 year old texts in there, and return the phones, like Ethan Hunt in Mission Impossible. Please, keep in mind, this is where The Black Bear hopes lie and the Rebel Rags lawsuit hinges.
Enjoy:
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 77
...
XVII ALLEGATION NO. 16 - Between April 2014 and February 3, 2015, [REDACTED], then representative of the institution's athletics interests, assisted the institution in its recruitment of [REDACTED] by engaging in recruiting activities that promoted the institution's football program. [REDACTED] activities included engaging in impermissible recruiting contact and communication with [REDACTED] and providing him between $13,000 and $15,600 in impermissible cash payments. In addition to his recruiting activities, [REDACTED] arranged for [REDACTED] to make recruiting contact with [REDACTED] and deliver multiple cash payments. Further, Farrar initiated and facilitated [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] recruiting contact and communication with [REDACTED] and knew at the time that [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] provided [REDACTED] WITH cash payments.
...
C. Enforcement staff's review of facts related to the allegation.
1. Background information.
a. Origin of the allegation.
In April 2016, the enforcement staff's football development group received information from a confidential source, unaffiliated with any institution in the Southeastern Conference, that [REDACTED] received a significant amount of cash from institutional representatives during his recruitment. Other confidential sources subsequently reported similar information. Accordingly, an investigative team was assigned in late July 2016 to review these reports. Prior to April 2016, [REDACTED] recruitment had never been under review by the enforcement staff.
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 77
...
XVII ALLEGATION NO. 16 - Between April 2014 and February 3, 2015, [REDACTED], then representative of the institution's athletics interests, assisted the institution in its recruitment of [REDACTED] by engaging in recruiting activities that promoted the institution's football program. [REDACTED] activities included engaging in impermissible recruiting contact and communication with [REDACTED] and providing him between $13,000 and $15,600 in impermissible cash payments. In addition to his recruiting activities, [REDACTED] arranged for [REDACTED] to make recruiting contact with [REDACTED] and deliver multiple cash payments. Further, Farrar initiated and facilitated [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] recruiting contact and communication with [REDACTED] and knew at the time that [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] provided [REDACTED] WITH cash payments.
...
C. Enforcement staff's review of facts related to the allegation.
1. Background information.
a. Origin of the allegation.
In April 2016, the enforcement staff's football development group received information from a confidential source, unaffiliated with any institution in the Southeastern Conference, that [REDACTED] received a significant amount of cash from institutional representatives during his recruitment. Other confidential sources subsequently reported similar information. Accordingly, an investigative team was assigned in late July 2016 to review these reports. Prior to April 2016, [REDACTED] recruitment had never been under review by the enforcement staff.
The institution, certain involved individuals and others have speculated that [REDACTED] fabricated statements implicating the institution to redirect attention away from his current institution. These suggestions are baseless and should be disregarded by the hearing panel. The enforcement staff finds [REDACTED] to be credible and notes his various incentives to provide truthful information in the infractions process. Furthermore, when possible the enforcement staff tested [REDACTED] information shared and found it to be reliable.
...
...
2. Witness credibility.
The enforcement staff asserts that [REDACTED] is a credible and reliable source of information and showed himself to be materially correct and consistent regarding the information he reported. Conversely, the enforcement staff asserts that [REDACTED] Farrar [REDACTED] and lack credibility entirely. The enforcement staff also highlights the institution's similar assessment as to their lack of credibility. Although each denied any knowledge of and/or involvement in this allegation, the enforcement staff asserts that their denials are
contrary to the body of credible and reliable information in the record from various sources. Accordingly, the enforcement staff respectfully suggests that the hearing panel assign their statements little or no weight.
...
...
a. [REDACTED]
During her January 11, 2017, interview, [REDACTED] denied (1) discussing prospects or recruiting with Farrar, (2) meeting or becoming acquainted with prospects whom Farrar recruited, (3) that Farrar involved her in [REDACTED] recruitment or (4) that she communicated with [REDACTED]. Each statement was contradicted by credible and reliable information in the record. The enforcement staff presented this information to [REDACTED] and sought her response, but she consistently failed or refused to provide a credible explanation or plausible theory. Her explanations for the following text messages with Farrar illustrate her lack of credibility.
April 21, 2014
Farrar: Don't Want to bother you. Just need to ask you a couple of questions about [REDACTED]
[REDACTED]: K. I'm gonna call. Gotta a meet pastor.
Farrar: Do ur thing. Ill Text and see if you are available when I leave this practice at Shannon.
August 17, 2014
Farrar: He's in & wants to keep it quiet
[REDACTED]: Yep. I kno
Farrar: Awesome!!!
[REDACTED]: Godmom is great.
[REDACTED]: Lol Is it done, yet
Farrar: He's in & wants to keep it quiet. That's what I meant yes it is done he committed. Just wants to keep it quiet
...
...
c. [REDACTED]
[REDACTED] reported that he communicated with Farrar as his attorney, but denied talking about football prospects, including [REDACTED] [REDACTED] stated that any recruiting conversations with Farrar were "general" in nature.
The enforcement staff notes [REDACTED] denials are contradicted by credible and reliable information in the record, as well as [REDACTED] own statements. For example, the enforcement staff highlights a February 3, 2015, text message [REDACTED] sent to Farrar at 4:04 p.m. Central time. [REDACTED] lack of credibility is illustrated in the following claim as to the message's meaning and his rationale for sending it:
"[REDACTED] [REDACTED] I need you to call me immediately. We met and agreed upon things and now I see a former coach of yours on the LSU board saying he spoke with you after school and you are going to LSU? What is going on? You swore to me on your daughter. Please call me. You owe me that. Thanks"
[REDACTED] claimed the message concerned a purported encounter with [REDACTED] at the institution in the summer or fall of 2014 and a telephone call he received from [REDACTED] shortly thereafter in which supposedly sought guidance about a domestic issue concerning his newborn daughter and the child's mother. [REDACTED] stated that he had no specific purpose for sending the message other than to be a "smart ***" and use "his [REDACTED] words back at him." Regarding the statement in the message of "we met and agreed upon things," [REDACTED] offered no explanation other than it concerned his claimed encounter with [REDACTED] in Oxford several months prior and
he used a "poor choice of words." Regarding the statement in the message "give me a call, you owe me that," [REDACTED] stated that it concerned his willingness to refer [REDACTED] to an attorney to address these purported domestic concerns. [REDACTED] offered no credible explanation as to why [REDACTED] needed to contact him "immediately" or what "[REDACTED] owed" him. [REDACTED]reported that he never called to discuss a domestic issue and his telephone records showno calls to during this time period. [REDACTED] also reported that he received this text message andmultiple phone calls from [REDACTED] approximately an hour or two after receiving the $10,000 from [REDACTED] but never replied or answered. [REDACTED] explained that the text message concerned their meeting inBMW that day and asked [REDACTED] for him to promise on his daughter's life he would sign with the institution. [REDACTED] also indicated his intention at the time was to obtain the $10,000 from [REDACTED] and then sign with another institution. Farrar texted another individual at 6:44 p.m. February 3 "ounds like went south to me on[REDACTED] which shows his awareness that would be signing elsewhere. The enforcement staff asserts that the message clearly shows referencing his meeting with [REDACTED] that day and belief they had arranged terms securing[REDACTED] commitment to the institution. The
message also shows[REDACTED] expressing surprise and dismay in reading online that [REDACTED] was flirting with other schools and he likely had wasted $10,000.
...
...
2. Witness credibility.
The enforcement staff asserts that [REDACTED] is a credible and reliable source of information and showed himself to be materially correct and consistent regarding the information he reported. Conversely, the enforcement staff asserts that [REDACTED] Farrar [REDACTED] and lack credibility entirely. The enforcement staff also highlights the institution's similar assessment as to their lack of credibility. Although each denied any knowledge of and/or involvement in this allegation, the enforcement staff asserts that their denials are
contrary to the body of credible and reliable information in the record from various sources. Accordingly, the enforcement staff respectfully suggests that the hearing panel assign their statements little or no weight.
...
...
a. [REDACTED]
During her January 11, 2017, interview, [REDACTED] denied (1) discussing prospects or recruiting with Farrar, (2) meeting or becoming acquainted with prospects whom Farrar recruited, (3) that Farrar involved her in [REDACTED] recruitment or (4) that she communicated with [REDACTED]. Each statement was contradicted by credible and reliable information in the record. The enforcement staff presented this information to [REDACTED] and sought her response, but she consistently failed or refused to provide a credible explanation or plausible theory. Her explanations for the following text messages with Farrar illustrate her lack of credibility.
April 21, 2014
Farrar: Don't Want to bother you. Just need to ask you a couple of questions about [REDACTED]
[REDACTED]: K. I'm gonna call. Gotta a meet pastor.
Farrar: Do ur thing. Ill Text and see if you are available when I leave this practice at Shannon.
August 17, 2014
Farrar: He's in & wants to keep it quiet
[REDACTED]: Yep. I kno
Farrar: Awesome!!!
[REDACTED]: Godmom is great.
[REDACTED]: Lol Is it done, yet
Farrar: He's in & wants to keep it quiet. That's what I meant yes it is done he committed. Just wants to keep it quiet
...
...
c. [REDACTED]
[REDACTED] reported that he communicated with Farrar as his attorney, but denied talking about football prospects, including [REDACTED] [REDACTED] stated that any recruiting conversations with Farrar were "general" in nature.
The enforcement staff notes [REDACTED] denials are contradicted by credible and reliable information in the record, as well as [REDACTED] own statements. For example, the enforcement staff highlights a February 3, 2015, text message [REDACTED] sent to Farrar at 4:04 p.m. Central time. [REDACTED] lack of credibility is illustrated in the following claim as to the message's meaning and his rationale for sending it:
"[REDACTED] [REDACTED] I need you to call me immediately. We met and agreed upon things and now I see a former coach of yours on the LSU board saying he spoke with you after school and you are going to LSU? What is going on? You swore to me on your daughter. Please call me. You owe me that. Thanks"
[REDACTED] claimed the message concerned a purported encounter with [REDACTED] at the institution in the summer or fall of 2014 and a telephone call he received from [REDACTED] shortly thereafter in which supposedly sought guidance about a domestic issue concerning his newborn daughter and the child's mother. [REDACTED] stated that he had no specific purpose for sending the message other than to be a "smart ***" and use "his [REDACTED] words back at him." Regarding the statement in the message of "we met and agreed upon things," [REDACTED] offered no explanation other than it concerned his claimed encounter with [REDACTED] in Oxford several months prior and
he used a "poor choice of words." Regarding the statement in the message "give me a call, you owe me that," [REDACTED] stated that it concerned his willingness to refer [REDACTED] to an attorney to address these purported domestic concerns. [REDACTED] offered no credible explanation as to why [REDACTED] needed to contact him "immediately" or what "[REDACTED] owed" him. [REDACTED]reported that he never called to discuss a domestic issue and his telephone records showno calls to during this time period. [REDACTED] also reported that he received this text message andmultiple phone calls from [REDACTED] approximately an hour or two after receiving the $10,000 from [REDACTED] but never replied or answered. [REDACTED] explained that the text message concerned their meeting inBMW that day and asked [REDACTED] for him to promise on his daughter's life he would sign with the institution. [REDACTED] also indicated his intention at the time was to obtain the $10,000 from [REDACTED] and then sign with another institution. Farrar texted another individual at 6:44 p.m. February 3 "
message also shows
[REDACTED] made other dubious claims ostensibly to downplay his connection to Farrar, including denying that he had Farrar's telephone number. As shown in the record [REDACTED] and Farrar began communicating
March 29, 2014, (the day before[REDACTED] first contacted [REDACTED] and exchanged 12 calls between then and June 7, 2015. [REDACTED] initiated five of those calls to Farrar's number.
Relatedly, Farrar and [REDACTED] began communicating April 10, 2014, and exchanged 10 calls between then and December 13, 2014. The enforcement staff notes Farrar may have exchanged other calls with [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] through his use of disposable cellphones.
Link:March 29, 2014, (the day before[REDACTED] first contacted [REDACTED] and exchanged 12 calls between then and June 7, 2015. [REDACTED] initiated five of those calls to Farrar's number.
Relatedly, Farrar and [REDACTED] began communicating April 10, 2014, and exchanged 10 calls between then and December 13, 2014. The enforcement staff notes Farrar may have exchanged other calls with [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] through his use of disposable cellphones.
https://www.scribd.com/document/355930115/Enforcement-Staff-Reply-Redacted
Last edited:
