In the fourth section of the NCAA’s report on Syracuse University, titled “Analysis,” the NCAA details the exact violations committed by the university.

The NCAA began by detailing how athletes received impermissible extra benefits, both academic and monetary. In addition, the NCAA wrote that the university failed to follow its self-written drug-testing policy, showed a lack of institutional control and that the men’s basketball head coach failed to promote an atmosphere of compliance in the program, among other violations.

These violations were not limited to one particular program in the athletics department, or limited to one particular university or non-university employee. Rather, these problems were widespread and occurred over a long period of time, according to the report.

The report classifies each violation as a Level I, II or III violation. The NCAA report defines the levels of violation this way:

Level I – Severe breaches of conduct that seriously undermine or threaten the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model.

Level II – Significant breaches of conduct that may compromise the integrity of the Collegiate Model.

Level III – Less serious breaches of conduct that are isolated or limited and provide no more than minimal benefit or advantage.

Below is a breakdown of the exact infractions detailed in subheads A-D of the Analysis section (click here for subheads E-H, and click here for subheads I-L), including the violated NCAA Bylaws, level of violation, whether the NCAA and Syracuse agreed on the infraction and abridged explanations.

A. Providing impermissible extra benefits

Explanation: Over the course of approximately a 14-month period from the 2002-03 academic year through the 2004-05 academic year, five student-athletes received payments totaling $8,335, according to the report. The payments came from a man who the report refers to as “the representative,” who represents the institution’s interests. The representative remains unnamed, like the rest of individuals referenced in the report, but has been identified by The Post-Standard as Jeff Cornish.

The representative paid three football and two men’s basketball student-athletes for their involvement in YMCA events, which included mentoring or working at clinics, camps or tournaments, according to the report. However, they were paid for what was considered volunteer work. The representative also provided impermissible transportation and impermissible meals to student-athletes, according to the report.

Bylaws violated: NCAA Bylaw 16, which defines extra benefits. An extra benefit refers to any special arrangement made by an institutional employee or representative of the institution’s athletics interests to provide the student-athlete or his or her relatives or friends with a benefit not expressly authorized by NCAA legislation.

Level of violation: The infractions panel determined that the payments given to student-athletes constituted a Level I violation. The transportation provided to student-athletes constituted a Level II violation because it involved multiple Level III violations, according to the report.

Consensus: SU and the NCAA enforcement staff “substantially agreed” that violations of the bylaws occurred in regards to impermissible extra benefits, according to the report.

B. Unethical conduct: academic fraud

Explanation: This violation covers two separate instances.

The first involves a part-time tutor, who remains unidentified throughout the report but who The Post-Standard has identified as Hank Leo. During the 2005-06 academic year, two football student-athletes carried out an internship at the YMCA for academic credit, and during the 2006-07 academic year, another football student-athlete did the same.

The part-time tutor and three football student-athletes engaged in academic fraud when they provided false or misleading information regarding the student-athletes’ completion of an internship at a YMCA in Oneida, New York. While the student-athletes did not actually complete the requirements of the internship, the part-time tutor and student-athletes provided information to the student-athletes’ professor that suggested otherwise. As a result, the student-athletes received academic credit.

The second instance occurred when the director of basketball operations and the basketball facility receptionist completed academic coursework on behalf of student-athlete 7, who The Daily Orange believes to be former SU center Fab Melo, with the intent of restoring his eligibility. The report reads that the two employees engaged in unethical conduct by completing the student-athlete’s work for him. The academic fraud occurred, in part, because the university “lacked oversight, control and monitoring over the process aimed at restoring student-athlete 7’s eligibility,” according to the report.

Bylaws violated: NCAA Bylaw 10.1, which defines unethical conduct. It defines knowing involvement in arranging for fraudulent academic credit for a student-athlete as unethical conduct.

Level of violation: Both instances were found to be Level I violations.

Consensus: SU and the NCAA enforcement staff are in agreement with the conduct and that violations occurred, according to the report. However, the part-time tutor contested allegations about him.

C. Academic extra benefits

Explanation: During the 2010-11 and 2011-12 academic years, the report reads that the support services tutor and the support services mentor provided extra academic benefits to three men’s basketball student-athletes. Together, the two impermissibly made revisions, created or wrote assignments for three student-athletes.

The support services mentor, who later became the basketball facility receptionist, has been identified by The Post-Standard as Debora Belanger. The support services mentor provided impermissible assistance to two men’s basketball student-athletes, who are identified in the report as student-athletes 8 and 9. As of now, the names of student-athletes 8 and 9 have not been identified. This included making revisions to or creating midterm assignments and other papers for the student-athletes. The university self-reported that in the spring 2012 semester the support services tutor wrote a portion of student-athlete 10’s midterm exam, according to the report.

Bylaws violated: NCAA Bylaw 16, which does not permit student-athletes to receive extra benefits unless it is expressly authorized by NCAA legislation.

Level of violation: Level I

Consensus: SU and the NCAA enforcement staff disagreed that the mentor provided academic extra benefits to two student-athletes.

However, the parties agreed that the support services tutor provided an academic extra benefit. But, the university disagreed that it should be included in the case, because the student-athlete “made a charitable contribution as restitution,” according to the report.

D. Failure to follow written drug testing procedures

Explanation: The report details multiple failures to follow Syracuse’s self-written drug procedures concerning student-athletes who tested positive for banned substances.

Syracuse both acknowledged and self-reported drug policy violations for “numerous men’s basketball student-athletes.” The drug policy, which was written by the university in May 2000, is summed up in the report:

“In short, after a positive drug test a student-athlete became ineligible until specific requirements were met. After a first positive drug test, the policy declared the student-athlete ineligible until the student-athlete’s head coach notified the student-athlete’s parents. After a second, the policy declared the student-athlete ineligible until a counselor declared that the student-athlete was no longer using the banned substances. Finally, after a third positive drug test, the policy called for the student-athlete’s eligibility to be terminated and for the institution to withdraw all athletically related financial aid at the conclusion of the semester.”

SU head coach Jim Boeheim admitted that he did not follow this policy and, according to the report, the director of athletics “accepted this practice.” The director of athletics, according to the report, claimed that Syracuse followed an “unwritten policy” because the written policy was confusing. The NCAA wrote in the report, “The suggestion that an ‘unwritten policy’ should supersede a written policy was considered incredible by the panel and contrary to virtually all sense of reason, as the reasons policies are in writing is to ensure that they are clear and followed.”

Bylaws violated: NCAA Bylaws 10, 14, 31 and 32 from 2001 to 2009. Bylaw 10, which is referenced in the report’s explanation of the drug policy violations, “requires institutions to follow their institutional procedures dealing with drug abuse when athletics staff members have knowledge of student-athletes use of substances on the banned list.” Bylaw 10 continues that any failure to follow the institutional policies “shall subject the institution to penalties.”

Level of violation: Level I

Consensus: Violations of its own institutional drug policy were self-reported but, according to the report, SU’s director of athletics said the policy was “confusing” at Syracuse’s NCAA hearing in October.

Published on March 8, 2015 at 8:51 pm

Contact Justin: [email protected] | @jmattingly306