Play Fantasy Use your Fantasy skills to win Cash Prizes. Join or start a league today. Play Now
Blog Entry

Sidney now "not certified due to non response"

Posted on: September 10, 2009 7:56 pm
Edited on: September 10, 2009 8:07 pm

The NCAA has declared Renardo Sidney "not certified due to non response" and promised to keep him that way until it receives copies of the financial documents it has requested, the Los Angeles Times reported Thursday.

"We've asked for additional information and have not received it," NCAA spokeswoman Stacey Osburn said. "When and if we get it, we'll review those documents. If we don't, he remains not certified."

This development marks the strongest indication yet that the NCAA is determined to make the Sidney family explain how it moved from a modest home in Mississippi to a house in the Fairfax District of Los Angeles valued at more than $1 million. It has been reported that the family paid a rent of between $4,000 and $5,000 per month despite there being no obvious way for them to afford such a luxury.

Predictably, an investigation was launched.

As part of that investigation, the NCAA has asked for tax returns and bank statements, but the lawyer representing the family (Don Jackson) has refused to provide either. Put simply, that's the problem. And there doesn't seem to be an imminent solution, because Jackson hinted again Thursday that he will file a lawsuit against the NCAA before he turns over the financial documents requested.

"The bottom line is, they are not going to get income tax returns or bank statements," Jackson told the Clarion-Ledger . "And if this ultimately means that this case has to wind up in court, it will just have to wind up in court."

(Click this link for a July column in which Gary Parrish challenged the NCAA to do exactly what it is doing.)

Since: Mar 21, 2008
Posted on: September 13, 2009 10:16 pm

Sidney now "not certified due to non response"


Your statement is ludicrous, except that we are talking about the court system. Still, every case of certification, just like every case in a court of law is different.

Unless the NCAA is now asking for financial statements from every student-athlete (ha!) receiving a scholarship, clearance and certification, any first year law student could win this case.  It is so far outside of the NCAA's scope that it is ridiculous to even have this article written. In most cases, the NCAA would probably start with the idea, or presumption, that the athlete is an amateur, sort of like the athlete is innocent of wrong doing, unless there is something that brings that presumption into question, and thus would not normally ask for financial records, duh!!! If they asked for them in every situation, then I think that would be intrusive, and would lead to litigation faster than you can say certify. 

In the case of the Sidneys, they moved from Mississippi to LA, from modest means, to having to pay rent in the range of $4,000 per month, when neither parent had a job, or any other financial means that would cover that kind of expense, and thus without the seeming means to secure the property lease/rent based on current income, or assets. Guess what, the lender probably required some proof of ability to pay the rent. I would wonder what that 'proof of ability to pay' consisted of. Was it based on the understanding that the son was an almost sure-fire first round draft pick in 18-24 months??? It probably isn't that cut and dried, but those circumstances, to me, would cause me to raise the idea of reasonable doubt. Under these circumstances, it is reasonable to doubt that the athlete has maintained his amateur standing, and not received some current financial benefit based primarily on future earning potential, unless he, or his family can show that he has not compromised his amateur standing. The burden of proof would seem to have shifted because of the circumstances.

I'm no lawyer, but I don't think that "any first year law student" could win this case, representing the Sidneys. If you are an attorney, I would be surprised that you would make that kind of statement. It sounds like something a first year law student might say, or someone even more clueless.

I like learning, and it would be interesting to see how and what a lawyer for the Sidneys would, or could argue.

Does the NCAA have the professional responsibility to 'certify' the amateur standing of college-bound athletes?

Do they have the right to request 'reasonable information' to make such a determination?

If the amateur standing is in question because the athlete and/or his family may have received financial rewards for his athleticism, then, would financial records be pertinent to a determination of amateur standing?

If the Sidneys bring a lawsuit, won't they have the higher standard of proof of harm? The NCAA isn't going to take this to court.

I think the NCAA's position is seemingly relatively simple and straight forward (with the caveat that nothing is ever simple and straight forward in a court of law). They have information that brings into question the amateur standing of an athlete. They have asked for financial records because, that is the info needed to try to determine whether Sidney's amateur standing has been compromised, due to receiving financial rewards. They have sent a statement to the Sidneys saying that the athlete's amateur standing is that he is not certified as being an amateur, because the family has refused to provide the info that would give the NCAA a better understanding, and in their professional capacity as the 'certifying body', enough info to make a proper detemination of amateur standing.

Anything is possible in the courts, it seems, but I think you are possibly wrong about monetary damages, although that would probably depend under what jurisdiction the case is brought to court. I think there would have to be some proof of harm caused by the actions of the other party, and that would have to be associated with some right. Athletes don't have a right to be certified, it is their actions that determine whether they are an amateur or not. Certification is based on the information provided by the athletes, and the NCAA uses that information to make the determination. In simple cases, less information is required, in more complicated cases, more info is reasonably required. Just as the difference in what would be required to 'prove' jay-walking, and murder would be quite different.

Doesn't the harmed party also need to show that they didn't contribute or cause the harm they are litigating? I think they have a responsibility to mitigate any harm. The NCAA is not recklessly endangering the Sidneys. They are acting in their professional capacity, and it certainly seems that what they have asked for is reasonable. They have given the Sidneys plenty of time to comply, they are not waiting until just before games are being played.

I wonder how other 'certifying' bodies handle similar situations? The Olympics, or FIFA??? I guess that if the NCAA is doing something that is unusual (I doubt it) or inconsistent with other certifiers, then there might be some grounds. If their actions are reasonable and relatively consistent, then I don't see that the Sidneys would have a reasonable argument.

But the court system sometimes gives wacky results, and that is why any organization that has 'deep pockets' is always concerned with litigation. My favorite head-scratcher is how the woman won the big reward from McD's for putting a cup of hot coffee between her legs while she was driving. I don't know all of the details of that case, but I would bet that part of McD's problem was that they did not take the lawsuit as seriously as they should. They probably thought the woman would get laughed out of court, and didn't try to mitigate or offer a reasonable settlement, and their actions leading up to and during the litigation probably led the jury to think that they were a big bully that needed to be shown that they needed to do more to insure the safety of the drinkers of their coffee. The NCAA does not seem to be bullying the Sidneys. They seem to be taking this very seriously, especially as the Sidneys already have a lawyer representing them.

I think it will be interesting to see what will happen. The NCAA will definitely be trying to avoid litigation, but at the same time, if they don't make a reasonable effort to stand up for their certification process, then college athletes will truly no longer be amateurs.

The ball is now in the Sidney's court. They have the next move. Now we will see if they are 'bluffing' or whether their attorney really feels he has a case he can bring to court, or reasonably start to bring it to court. My guess is that he will go through some of the legal motions of starting a lawsuit to see if that will shake the NCAA. Then that would put the ball back in the NCAA's court. That is when this whole thing will reach the tipping point. Another question is whether there is really time to bring it to court, with just two months left before the season starts, although the season itself is about 4 months long, so that would mean there is up to about a 6 month window. The thing is if it goes much more than 2 months, then will it be worth it to the Sidneys? If they push, will the NCAA cave???

To me, this is better than a soap opera!

Sorry for the length, but there are quite a few issues, and I try to make my statements as complete as possible, to provide grounds for rebuttal. I certainly admit that I do not know everything. I've just enough education about our law system to be dangerous. That is why many of my comments have been stated as questions. I think I understand the situation in a general sense, but certainly not to the degree that an attorney or judge would understand it.

Are there any attorneys out there who can comment on this??? Or would that be 'improper'?

I'm always interested in knowing whether my thoughts and statements are valid. If not, then I like to be told how they are wrong, so that I don't make the same mistake twice, if I can avoid it! Thanks for reading!

Since: Apr 16, 2008
Posted on: September 13, 2009 8:22 am

Sidney now "not certified due to non response"

Unless the NCAA is now asking for financial statements from every student-athlete (ha!) receiving a scholarship, clearance and certification, any first year law student could win this case.  It is so far outside of the NCAA's scope that it is ridiculous to even have this article written.  As far as paying for the lawyer, an enterprising person or firm could make a name for themselves and win a pretty penny against the financial juggernaut of the NCAA by winning this case and collecting damages.  The NCAA would never pursue the case after they lost because of the dangerous precedent it would set in their practices.  I am not saying the situation isn't dirty and that the coach who set most of this up (the move to SoCal) isn't covered in slime either, but you cannot start investigating a single person in that manner and not require the same from each and every person receiving the same benefits.

Since: Jul 8, 2007
Posted on: September 12, 2009 7:57 pm

Sidney now "not certified due to non response"


awesome story

Since: Jan 11, 2007
Posted on: September 12, 2009 2:11 pm

Sidney now "not certified due to non response"

"My, we are being petulant, aren't we?"

"And while we're at it, watch the CAPS and the profanity.  We're not impressed by either."

How come you don't have "His Majesty" in your screen name?  Either that or you've got a mouse in your pocket.

Oh...I'm ARE the "Prince of Punkdom" aren't you?  All shall bow to your 'Punkedness".

Since: May 3, 2007
Posted on: September 12, 2009 9:10 am

Sidney now "not certified due to non response"

I thought this article was about Sidney and Mississippi State. How did this turn into a UK - Calipari bashing? Even when there is no     &nb
sp;   mention of Uk in the article there is always someone who wants to try and discredit Calipari. Seems to me that there is a lot of fear, anger,  or jealousy about the direction that UK is headed. And its not coming from the UK fans. Time will reveal all things. Either the program will return to the lofty standards that the UK fans yearn for or there will be tough times ahead. Either way, every wrong in college basketball does not start at UK or with Calapari. Let's just wait and see what happens.

Since: Sep 12, 2009
Posted on: September 12, 2009 4:43 am

Sidney now "not certified due to non response"

What would you know about a holler biglebowski1128?

Since: Sep 12, 2009
Posted on: September 12, 2009 4:26 am

Sidney now "not certified due to non response"

in response to kakalaki kidd must be kidding.  Kentucky had an elite 8 appearance in both 2003 and 2005 and has had 4 SEC regular season titles and 4 SEC tournament titles since 98.  Is that not relevant enough for you?  They were a double overtime loss away from the final four in 2005 and a triple double by Wade in 2003.  They were also the overall number one seed in 05 tournament.  Not relevant since 98?  We need a reason to be blind when it comes to Coach Cal?  We are UK and will be UK long after Cal is gone.  Unfreakinbelievable!  UK has 7 national championships, 13 final fours, 44 SEC regular season titles(more than all the other 11 SEC schools combined!), 26 SEC tournament titles, all time leader in wins, most NCAA tournament appearances, most NCAA tournament wins and you can some how find a way to minimize this kind of history as if anyone here in the Bluegrass State is desperate.  LMAO...not relevant my aZZ.  You don't build numbers like that without being relevant most every year.  Wrong team to post that diatribe about pal:)

Since: Jul 26, 2007
Posted on: September 12, 2009 2:35 am

Sidney now "not certified due to non response"

My, we are being petulant, aren't we? 

In the words of the Bard, from Hamlet (it's a play, not a town back in the hollers), "Methinks the lady doth protest too much." 

Calipari leaves a trail of vacated Final Four appearances behind him, and you try to say its just coincidence or something?  I can hardly wait for the next edition of "UK Whoppers".

And while we're at it, watch the CAPS and the profanity.  We're not impressed by either.

Since: Apr 6, 2007
Posted on: September 12, 2009 12:13 am

Sidney now "not certified due to non response"

In your second paragraph, you stated that UK was notified during the season that there was a serious question about Rose's test.  Why would the NCAA notify UK?  You also said that Rose lied when Memphis questioned him about taking the test.  Can you prove it or do you "just have a gut feeling"?  I'm not a big fan of UK or Calipari but it irks me to read the drivel and hate that is spewed out on this guy.  By the way, when Marcus Camby was found to have dealings with an agent while at UMass, do you know who turned him in to the NCAA?  It was Calipari himself!  Not the way a "stupid" or "cheating" coach would handle himself, if you ask me.

Since: Dec 5, 2008
Posted on: September 11, 2009 11:40 pm

Sidney now "not certified due to non response"

Can't we all agree that USC is dirty and now UK is the dirtiest of them all in college basketball?  Just imagine all the dirty crap that's going to come out about Calamari and UK down the road?  Kentucky's desperation is going to turn them in to a modern day UNLV.

The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or