OT: NCAA investigator & OSU alum Abigail Grantstein allegedly fired by NCAA
OSU alum Abigail Grantstein was the lead investigator who was in charge of the Shabazz Muhammad case and reportedly was the investigator responsible for disclosing confidential information about the case and prejudging Muhammad & UCLA before full investigation complete. The OSU kidding stuff aside, the more you learn about NCAA investigations, the more you realize what a shammockery they are.
Whoa. RT @BaxterHolmes: Sources say the NCAA has fired Abigail Grantstein, its lead investigator in the Shabazz Muhammad case.
Summary of the whole UCLA investigation debacle:
December 20th, 2012 at 8:26 PM ^
Looks like they should have put her on that Oregon case too.
December 20th, 2012 at 8:35 PM ^
Or that Auburn case.
December 20th, 2012 at 9:00 PM ^
December 20th, 2012 at 9:30 PM ^
I read that BruinsNation article, and talk about an axe to grind.... It's just stupid.
First, that they'd be so incensed that they stalk this person and cross-triangulate other information to somewhat try and figure out who the schmuck was on that flight... ok, I'm impressed they figured it out. But, the effort is pointless. "Hey! We figured out who someone is who you don't care about and don't know!"
But all it means is, the schmuck on the plane was showing off and should have kept his mouth shut. I don't blame a person for talking about her job with her BF. Srsly. Then, trying to claim she's 'biased" because she has "ties to Kansas," and godforbid, Kansas (and the rest of the planet) tried to recruit Shabazz? Wow, that's just... like... duhhhh. So what's that mean, new rule -- the investigator can't have any ties to any school that recruited a kid? You really want investigators all coming from small D3 schools or something? And what, she's supposed to have an axe to grind because he didn't go to Kansas? It's idiotic.
Really, I don't know why she was fired, but it's not because she was inexperienced or because she went to Kansas. If the NCAA is mad she talked to her BF, well, that's just the NCAA being the NCAA. I mean, I'm SURE none of the NCAA brass talks to their wives about their work when they get home, right.
Humanity depresses me sometimes.
December 21st, 2012 at 12:05 AM ^
The major issue here was her disposition much more so than revealing details of the investigation to her boyfriend. The BruinsNation article may have not been the best one to link here, but they reference the LA Times story that first broke the story.
The bigger problem is she prejudged the case. The boyfriend's comments were made in August when the case was in its infancy and before many of the people involved in the case had even been interviewed. An investigator should never make the statements that were attributed to her, but it is even more incriminating to make them before you have even really started the investigation.
I suggest reading the LA Times article:
P.S. If this was done to a Michigan athlete, do you really think this blog and its readers wouldn't have done the same legwork as BruinsNation?
December 20th, 2012 at 10:12 PM ^
December 20th, 2012 at 10:34 PM ^
So you want people who are only qualified to be a fry cook at McDonald's running NCAA investigations?
December 20th, 2012 at 10:50 PM ^
...that status would differentiate them from the current investigators?
Exactly how?
 (1).gif)
December 20th, 2012 at 11:22 PM ^
Well, fry cooks with tOSU degree <<< fry cooks without tOSU degree.
December 21st, 2012 at 5:15 AM ^
December 20th, 2012 at 10:26 PM ^
When the NCAA said one of the reasons they couldn't really act on UNC was because academic fraud was somehow out of their jurisdiction, it cemented their joke status. I can't take any sanctions or investigations very seriously since.
December 20th, 2012 at 11:31 PM ^
Was anyone under the illusion that the employees of the NCAA were either professional or competent?
December 20th, 2012 at 11:52 PM ^
Emmert bypassed Ms Grantstein all together when he dropped the hammer on PSU.
December 21st, 2012 at 3:51 AM ^
Two words for UCLA: "Sam Gilbert."
December 21st, 2012 at 9:58 AM ^
will give her a job; as long as she doesn't fire him if he does...
December 21st, 2012 at 6:17 PM ^
Second hand information from someone not working on a case is enough to get you fired? Who knows if he even understood the information he was passing along? We all have jobs but unless your partner works with you they don't totally understand the stuff you are talking about. Blank stare head shake doesn't mean they understand the ins and outs of the things you do. They might have a conversation with someone explaining your job but it doesn't mean the story has any basis in fact.
December 22nd, 2012 at 9:58 AM ^
If you read the LA Times article that broke this story, the timing of the conversation, the subject matter, and the tone are very incriminating.
1. The overheard plane conversation took place in August well before the investigation had really started. No inteviews had been conducted at that point and this conversation took place only 8 days after the NCAA requested documentation from the Muhammad's family and UCLA. This documentation (over a thousand pages worth of evidence) didn't get filed until the end of September. For an investigator to have the attitude that a player is dirty, guilty, and guarantee he is not going to play before the investigation has even started is a really big deal. An NCAA investigator is not a prosecutor. The NCAA investigation is supposed to be an impartial fact finding enterprise. No charges had been filed at this point. Her impartiality was definitely in question.
2. The boyfriend spoke with enough detail that a woman with no knowledge of college sports understood the identity of the player and school involved. It's one thing to tell a partner that you are investigating a high profile college basketball recruit. It's another thing to tell your partner the recruit's identity, the school involved, and that the recruit was dirty and taking money BEFORE the investigation had even started. And the boyfriend was the one who included the details about the investigator's connection and bias toward Kansas.
3. She got fired months later after this report. I can guarantee you there was an internal investigation that justified her firing and probably confirmed the facts disclosed by the boyfriend.