[pefloresjr]

Garvin was right on point when he noted that the problem is that there is insufficient evidence tying Auburn or any Auburn booster to Newton or any money given to his father.  There is reason for suspicion, but I\'m not sure there is even enough reasonable suspicion to support getting a search warrant.  There is nothing close to a preponderance of the evidence (50.1% the common civil standard) that Auburn or Newton did anything wrong.  

Do I think there is something fishy there?  Absolutely.  Can I prove anything?  Absolutely not.  Without proof, nobody can be held accountable.  

I don\'t think the NCAA was really changing precedent, it was just trying to justify itself for not taking any action.  If they had proof of a payment to Newton\'s dad, they would have done something.  (I\'m not sure of the impact the SEC bias would have had on that something.)

Cheers,
Pete F.

[pefloresjr]

Garvin was right on point when he noted that the problem is that there is insufficient evidence tying Auburn or any Auburn booster to Newton or any money given to his father.  There is reason for suspicion, but I\'m not sure there is even enough reasonable suspicion to support getting a search warrant.  There is nothing close to a preponderance of the evidence (50.1% the common civil standard) that Auburn or Newton did anything wrong.  

Do I think there is something fishy there?  Absolutely.  Can I prove anything?  Absolutely not.  Without proof, nobody can be held accountable.  

I don\'t think the NCAA was really changing precedent, it was just trying to justify itself for not taking any action.  If they had proof of a payment to Newton\'s dad, they would have done something.  (I\'m not sure of the impact the SEC bias would have had on that something.)

Cheers,
Pete F.