I guess this means Neuheisel won?
Here's the USA Today story. This thing is wrong on so many accounts, not just coach Neuheisel, but the UW and the NCAA.
Some noteworthy sections of the story-
"I feel fully vindicated," Neuheisel said outside the courtroom. "Obviously they're going to have their stories, too, but I feel like this is the best scenario. Nobody's nose gets bloodied."
"The legal system works," he added. "The players got together and found an amicable resolution. I'm thrilled to be moving on."
Last week, [Trial Judge Michael] Spearman left open the possibility of declaring a mistrial because the NCAA had failed to provide Neuheisel's legal team with an updated version of its bylaws during discovery. In a statement Monday, the university said it agreed to settle because a mistrial could be declared. The updated bylaws seem to bolster Neuheisel's argument that NCAA investigators acted improperly when they failed to tell him in advance that they planned to question him regarding his gambling.
It appears the case could have gone either way until the last-minute NCAA bylaws thing prompted a settlement in Neuheisel's favor.
Here is the NCAA's release concerning the situation-
Myles Brand Statement Regarding Settlement Agreement with Rick Neuheisel
For Immediate Release
Monday, March 7,2005
Wallace I. Renfro
Senior Advisor to the President
317/917-6117 (public and media relations main line)
“The NCAA has agreed to a settlement in the lawsuit brought against the Association by former University of Washington head football coach Rick Neuheisel. The settlement is in the amount of $2.5 million and includes Mr. Neuheisel’s attorney’s fees and costs.
“One of the issues in the lawsuit was the meaning of NCAA Bylaw 32.3.7 (Disclosure of Purpose of Interview). Editorial revisions to the bylaw were adopted effective approximately six weeks before Mr. Neuheisel was interviewed in June 2003. The NCAA's interpretation of Bylaw 32.3.7 is that the disclosures required by the bylaw may be made at any time before the staff asks questions of an interviewee. Moreover, the disclosures required do not include a disclosure of the specific NCAA bylaw that the interviewee may have violated. In the NCAA's view, a broader reading of the bylaw is contrary to the intent of the drafters of the bylaw, and inconsistent with the language and purpose of the bylaw.
“The settlement in this case is the result of restrictions placed on the NCAA by the court about how the Association could explain the bylaw and defend its rightful interpretation.
“I have complete confidence that the NCAA enforcement staff acted properly and in compliance with NCAA bylaws with regard to Mr. Neuheisel's interviews. Even so, an independent examination of procedures and processes employed by the national office staff to implement NCAA bylaws will be expanded to review this specific instance. In addition, the Association’s general counsel is reviewing all enforcement interviews subsequent to April 2003, where ethical-conduct concerns were being addressed and where the same interpretation was applied. The Association's member institutions hold themselves and their employees to a high standard of compliance with NCAA bylaws, and the NCAA staff will continue to hold itself to the same high standard.”