Columnist Dean Juipe: What’s fair is open to debate

Dean Juipe

Tuesday, Nov. 12, 2002 | 9:46 a.m.

Dean Juipe's column appears Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. His boxing notebook appears Thursday. Reach him at juipe@lasvegassun.com or (702) 259-4084.

Like the sign says, Violators will be Prosecuted.

But what's an appropriate penalty when an NCAA team or a professional athlete bends the rules to his or her benefit, only to later be caught and publicly humiliated?

UNLV has some experience in such matters, of course, having been on probation in men's basketball a couple of times and having had its best-ever football team stripped of its wins. In each case the Rebels settled with the NCAA and went on about their business.

But there's frequently a gray area when it comes to the appropriateness of the penalties, just as there is now that the University of Michigan has admitted to problems with its men's basketball program and an overly generous booster.

Guidelines exist in determining what's permissible and what isn't, yet when it comes to penalties for violating those guidelines there are surprisingly few specifics. Vindictiveness often comes into play.

UNLV -- with its outlaw image -- has felt its share of NCAA vindictiveness over the years, and has privately begrudged some of the penalties it has had to bear. You can argue this either way, but was it right for the 1984 UNLV football team to have its 11-2 record and California Bowl victory altered to 0-13 when it was ruled that numerous academically ineligible players had participated during the season?

In the team's annual media guide 1984's 11-2 record is listed with an asterisk, while coach Harvey Hyde's career record of 26-19-1 includes the 11 wins and contains no asterisk.

In some circumstances it's easy to affix blame and determine a worthy penalty.

Take, for instance, sprinter Ben Johnson and his 9.79 time in the 100 meters in the 1988 Olympics. When he tested positive for steroids the following day, he was rightfully stripped of his medal and his standing as the Olympic champion.

Or look at the current situation with boxer Fernando Vargas, who tested positive for a steroid derivative following his Sept. 14 loss to Oscar De La Hoya at Mandalay Bay. Had Vargas won it would only be fair to set aside the verdict in the fight, in that he (like Johnson in the Olympics) had a performance-enhancing drug in his system.

But the debate becomes especially subjective when you're talking about team sports, and, importantly, whether the violation(s) aided the participating players or their team. In the case of the Michigan basketball program, beyond the fact four players were paid a total of $616,000 over a five-year period and, as a result, were able to live comfortably, the team itself didn't gain a thing.

No ineligible players took part in any of those Michigan games, yet the university announced last week that it would forfeit each of its wins from a five-season period that ended in 1996, and that it would take down the championship banners those teams had won, as well as reimburse the NCAA for monies derived from NCAA Tournament games. (It's still within the NCAA's purview to add to the penalties Michigan self-imposed upon itself.)

Those penalties seem harsh, too harsh, perhaps, depending on your criteria. And it's the vagueness of the criteria that muddies one's perspective.

archive