Hannibal.

April 14th, 2010 at 4:04 PM ^

Unfotunately, I think that you're right. Remember those big name recruits that hesitated to sign with USC until they knew whether the Trojans were going to get any sanctions? The fact that they went ahead and did it anyway leads me to believe that people in the know aren't worried at all and they were able to convince guys like Dillon Baxter and Seantrel Henderson that nothing is in the works.

Tater

April 14th, 2010 at 4:14 PM ^

Bush will settle this out of court with a confidentiality agreement and the NCAA will use the same excuse they used in the Clarett case: no direct testimony to NCAA or law enforcement officials. The confidentiality agreement will keep the agent from testifying to the NCAA.

Besides, if Bush is fighting this suit, he will deny everything. The best way for this to get done would be if the IRS were to get involved. They don't exactly use due process and they would produce the "smoking gun" that the NCAA has to have before punishing someone as powerful as USC.

Don

April 14th, 2010 at 4:14 PM ^

than ours. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if they get off with a milder set of sanctions. After all, it's far worse to over-practice by 20 minutes with a Grad Assistant impermissibly present than it is to provide tens of thousands of dollars in material benefits to star players.

CaliWolverine78

April 14th, 2010 at 5:48 PM ^

I Was saying that i didnt think he would, that i knew about. ofcourse with a subpoena he would have to...but im not sure they can force the point if he is no longer a college athlete....but i dont know....im kinda ignorant in regards to that matter...

Suavdaddy

April 14th, 2010 at 6:17 PM ^

is not the Reggie Bush testimony. Oh no. Its Lake's partner who already signed a confidentiality provision in his agreement. The court has already held that the provision does not prevent the deposition from occurring. That guy isn't pleading the 5th, because there is no criminal act.

Second, Reggie Bush can't plead the fifth either as there is no criminal act alleged or that could be alleged as a result. Tax fraud maybe. Nonetheless, a deposition, if I recall correctly and unlike a criminal trial, does not allow a person to avoid answering a question. The objection to the question is noted in the transcript, but the deposee is required to answer. it is then up to the judge to decide if the answer to the question is privileged. It just doesn't make as good of a television program. (sidebar - I kinda like the las vegas CSI, but the confession rate on those shows is hilarious).

Last, I have been following this on the internet since it broke. This has been going on for two or three years now. The lawyer fees must be through the roof. I don't think they settle at this point, but I could be wrong. I think if that was happening, it would have already. I even believe the plaintiff indicated that he just wants to see it through. I would be very interested to see if there isn't some UCLA alum paying his fees and some USC alums paying Bush's fees.