Something Fishy about this opening paragraph

[wtw2400]

From the opening paragraph

"According to the NCAA enforcement process, the University had 90 days to formally respond, and we submitted our Response to the Notice of Allegations (“Response”) in April. Around that same time, another involved party requested and received a 30-day extension. Because that extension has now elapsed, we are releasing our Response and the NOA to the public."

- http://athleticsworking.wp2.olemiss.edu/

What was the point of the 30 day extension if they already sent the response to the NCAA in April? Didnt Steve say that Ole Miss was not obligated to show their response and the NOA to the public? Im just a little lost on that paragraph that may have unintentionally deceived me.

 

[tatedog]

I have no idea how to answer your question, but boy did some lawyer earn his money polishing that turd in that letter.

 

[121Josey]

3 things:
1. What difference does the 3rd party make if you have the ability and thus choose to redact the names?
2. Someone does not know how to use "because" properly. The author uses "and" in the first sentence" but "because" in the third sentence. There is no causality in the third sentence.
3. The extension elapsed a week ago. But who is counting "because" there was nothing barring them from releasing either the NOA or their Response to the public in the previous 120 days?

 

[EAVdog]

They wanted to push it out past the Spring Semester for many reasons. And they wanted to bury it on the Friday before a Holiday.