PDA

View Full Version : The UAAP Board Decision



gameface_one
03-21-2006, 10:37 AM
Verdict on La Salle out March 30
By Joey Villar
The Philippine Star 03/21/2006

The UAAP board will convene next week where it is expected to finally rule on the eligibility scandal involving two La Salle players that had dragged on for months.

A source said the UAAP board has sent school representatives a letter calling for a meeting on March 30 where a decision on the recommendation of the ad hoc fact-finding committee is likely to be made.

"It may be on March 30. They (UAAP board) already informed the board members about it," said the source. "Although they didn’t mention the agenda, it seems that they are asking board members to free their schedule on that day."

UAAP board chair Fr. Max Rendon, CM, of Adamson has promised to come up with the verdict before the month ends after the completion of the investigation being conducted by the ad hoc committee.

Rendon stressed that the UAAP board will come up with a fair and just decision based on the findings of the five-man committee headed by Fr. Ermito de Sagon, OP, of Santo Tomas.

The same source said a one-year suspension looms for La Salle, which admitted last November that it unwittingly fielded in two ineligible players during the 2004-2005 UAAP seasons.

Adamson was also suspended in 1994 for fielding in Marlou Aquino despite academic deficiencies.

However, La Salle has hinted it might elevate the case to the court if it is suspended although a board insider said the school is not keen on resorting to such move.

"There are some quarters goading La Salle but I don’t think they will do that because it would really be detrimental to the league," said the source. "I know they will abide by whatever decision the UAAP board will make."

Top La Salle officials have already discussed possible actions it would take once the UAAP verdict is made.

La Salle decided not to file a leave of absence in all sports and instead reiterated its desire to take a leave of absence only in basketball.

A few days later, Malou Caluma, the school’s head of the Marketing and Communications Office, came out with a retraction and clarified that La Salle will only issue a statement after the UAAP board comes up with a final decision.

"DLSU will wait for the UAAP to conclude its investigation after which, DLSU will decide on the next course of action," La Salle said in a statement.

atenean_blooded
03-29-2006, 11:24 PM
I posted this in PEx.


This, I hope, is going to be my final word on my position on why La Salle should be suspended for at least a full year.

The question is not what will hurt La Salle more. The question is what will give the league due justice. While it will be easy to talk about justice as retribution, in which case the issue of "hurt" can be talked about, I think it is more appropriate to put this in the context of what is fair, and what the board and La Salle's duty to the league is.

We ask, what happened? La Salle fielded ineligible players over the course of 2-3 years. These players FAILED the government-made PEP Test, and submitted FAKE documents.

We ask, what are the options? The board can opt to suspend La Salle, or it can opt not to. If it suspends La Salle, we ask, for how long? A year? Two? Ten million? If it doesn't suspend La Salle, what can it impose as a sanction? A hefty fine (of how much? One million? Two? Equivalent to the assets of the entire DLSU system?)? Expulsion? Absolute UAAP Board control of recruitment and operations of the sports program?

Among the most publicized options is suspension. Why? In the 90s, Adamson's entire sports program was suspended for a year because it fielded an ineligible player, and doctored his records. Adamson was clearly party to this issue. After serving the suspension, they were back. Their sports program apparently hasn't recovered. But one thing is certain: the interests of one school have not been upheld over the interests of the entire league, and the spirit of amateur, collegiate sports. Adamson, at least as far as we know, has never fielded an ineligible player again.

Some people say that if this is the case, then La Salle should be suspended, because it fielded ineligible players. Some La Salle stalwarts say that this is not the case, because proof of complicity based on facts has yet to be established.

While I am inclined to agree, I do not. How can an institution, which prides itself in supposedly being excellent in academics and in organization, make such a crucial blunder? Is it possible that NO ONE could have known? The players could have known. The coaches, the team management. The office in charge of the sports program could have known. True, given the facts that have at least reached the public through media, perhaps complicity cannot be proven.

It is perhaps such a curious matter that when La Salle was caught by DepEd and informed in August, that they only decided to respond in October, the second game in a finals series in which they were at a disadvantage, and when they were wracked by the Manny Salgado Batok-Takbo scandal. I would like to think that such a matter as eligibilty is crucial. WHY, pray tell, did they only act then? And why, pray tell, did they continue to field Benitez even if red flags were raised? Is it also really possible that they never reviewed the documents of their players?

The matter is not merely complicity, but GROSS NEGLIGENCE. Because of the gross negligence, and the probable complicity, La Salle has hurt the league. The blunder is institutional: This happened in basketball only, as far as we know, perhaps. But what's to stop it from happening to other sports? Are the basketball players suddenly held to a different standard than all the other athletes?

La Salle has also demonstrated its bad faith on several occassions. First, there was the threat/bluff by Br. Armin Luistro FSC about going all the way to the Supreme Court if the league suspends La Salle. Then, there was the ridiculous LOA-but-from-men's-basketball-only proposal, which was clearly going to be a knowing violation of the rules.

We now ask, so what should the board do?

The board should do what is fair. Fairness is when the rules are so skewed so as to benefit most the least advantaged. This is the only way the playing field is leveled.

The board should do what is morally upright. Which means it must make a decision even if it is painful and difficult. Why? It is the only way that the board's action shall have any moral worth.

One Ateneo alumnus I got to spoke to said that La Salle should not be suspended. Instead, a hefty fine should be imposed on La Salle, and then the UAAP Board should be given control and oversight in their athletic recruitment process. How so? The Board will see if the athletes La Salle recruits conform to La Salle's standards. If they don't agree, then they'll be suspended.

My objections to this proposal were simple: First, a hefty fine? How hefty is hefty? And given La Salle's rather robust financial status, and the wealth of its alumni who are probably more than willing to give to La Salle, how hefty can a sum be? And will La Salle actually agree to the board having oversight? And what's to stop La Salle from defining "special standards for athletes?"

Aside from the matters of complicity, another objection to suspension is that it will hurt the league financially. The Ateneo-La Salle games, whose gate receipts alone are sufficient to pay for a year's UAAP operations, will not happen. In fact, should La Salle be suspended, no Ateneo-La Salle games, especially not in the fashion of the Dream Games or benefit friendship games or whatever can be played, because it'll be bad faith to the UAAP. The league will no doubt suffer financially for the duration of the La Salle suspension. We admit it, that some (but not all) games versus La Salle are crowd drawers (Although the ridiculous claim of a particular Pexer is that an NU-La Salle game is more profitable than an Ateneo-FEU game. Utot mo.).

The question is, is this league really just about profit? It isn't. In fact, the commercialization of the NCAA was one of the reasons the UAAP was founded. The UAAP is a UNIVERSITY ATHLETICS league. Before all else, it is about universities, places of learning, coming together. This is not a professional basketball or athletic league. Whether or not we get TV coverage, and whether or not we charge ticket prices doesn't matter. This is an AMATEUR league. These are supposed to be GOODWILL games. This is not about money or about profit.

How will the imposition of a heavy fine make the league look, if not profit-oriented? Will it not seem that La Salle can just pay for the offenses committed? If the worry about suspension is that a mere year will not make things change much, then I say that a fine will not change things at all.

Furthermore, this is not merely a matter of which school has "bearing" and impact on ticket sales. No school is indispensible. The UAAP needs members, true, but no member, not even the founding members, are indispensible. The fact is, one member has hurt a league of eight. The media has managed to give it much prominence because it concerns La Salle. Would the board decision take this long, and would it be as hyped, had it been Ateneo? Of course. What about schools like UP? UST? FEU? UE? NU? Adamson? I do not think it will sit well with other schools if La Salle is given special consideration, just because of the Ateneo-La Salle games' profitability. La Salle is not the UAAP. The UAAP does not need La Salle. And if La Salle decides to pursue legal action versus the league just because it won't get what it wants even if what it wants is contrary to the rules, then La Salle should just leave the UAAP.

The issue is not just La Salle. The issue is what the league ought to do to foster a spirit of amatueurism, good will, and student-athelticism, of olympism, if you will. At least, in my own opinion, which you are free to disagree with, a hefty fine, and any non-suspension option will is not the solution. It is unfair to the rest of the league, especially to other schools which might worry because of the possibility of their own having to pay hefty fines and this becoming a question of who's got the deeper pocket.

The board is duty-bound to suspend La Salle for fielding ineligible players and for gross negligence. This is a difficult decision, because of the short-term impact. But this decision, however difficult, is perhaps the strongest, and the most morally upright decision that the board can make. The rules ought to be upheld, and the decision must be fair to all UAAP members.

How long should La Salle be suspended? My simple take on it is, one year for every violation (or in this case, every fielded ineligible player, and every year that player was fielded). If the board says that's too harsh, and opts for a one-year suspension, then perhaps the imposition of a hefty fine, probation, and regimented monitoiring of recruitment practices for at least one to five years in addition to the suspension will be appropriate.

What is La Salle's duty? Compliance. Internal reform. Sincerity in apology.

The question has never been about what will hurt La Salle more. No matter what happens, La Salle will forever be hurt by this scandal. No matter what the board decision is (and in spite of Quinito Henson and Beth Celis), they will get flak from the media for letting this happen. The board perhaps will also get some flak. The question has always been what the ought to be done for justice and a spirit of fair play, amateurism, and olympism be fostered in the league.

LION
03-30-2006, 11:38 AM
^ Completely agree with you atenean_blooded. Minimum should be one year suspension. And they have to comply with UAAP requirements before they are given the clearance to participate under probationary status of course.

paralusi
03-30-2006, 11:59 AM
Judgment day? (http://www.philstar.com/philstar/NEWS200603301608.htm)
SPORTING CHANCE By Joaquin M. Henson
The Philippine Star 03/30/2006

"The scuttlebutt is some members of the Board are eager to put things to a head or in blunt terms, La Salle’s head on the chopping block. Whether the feeling of animosity is justified or not is debatable. But it’s widely speculated that at least three schools envy La Salle’s track record of academic and athletic excellence and can’t wait to pull the trigger.

x x x

"Surely, there will be much debate on what constitutes complicity and whether contracted team employees bind the school by their actions.

x x x

"If a suspension is slapped on La Salle, it will send a wrong message to the public that being transparent and honest doesn’t pay. You wouldn’t expect another school to voluntarily disclose something similar in the future."


---
wow. talk about subjectivity and bias. ;D
[emphasis all mine]

bugoy
03-30-2006, 04:22 PM
Any update on the Board meeting?

Kid Cubao
03-30-2006, 05:43 PM
yes, the latest coming from the bored, umm, board room is that the official promulgation will be set on a later date again.

bchoter
03-30-2006, 05:47 PM
yes, the latest coming from the bored, umm, board room is that the official promulgation will be set on a later date again.
Para daw hindi railroaded

atenean_blooded
03-30-2006, 08:54 PM
According to CNN (Chismax News Network),

The report was done in tagalog. The board is still looking for a qualified, beho, hit-and-run individual, with an IQ less than a jar of mayonnaise, with a degree of some sort, with honors, in translation. Basta maraming math. Basta mahirap.




Seriously speaking though...

The committee has completed its investigation. It will be transcribing and preparing its report (and presumably, its recommendations), which should be received by the individual board reps by no later than Holy Tuesday. The board will convene immediately after Holy Week (Easter Monday?) to DECIDE.

What will they decide on?

Several things:

- They can decide to suspend.

- They can decide to do a grave injustice and not suspend,

- Or they can decide to postpone the decision to a later date.


O, ha.

gameface_one
03-31-2006, 09:51 AM
UAAP ruling on DLSU out April 21

The Philippine Star 03/31/2006

Five months after La Salle admitted fielding two ineligible players for the 2004 basketball season, the University Athletic Association of the Philippines remained mum on what course of action it should take against the Green Archers.

The UAAP board yesterday met for the nth time since the scandal broke out last Oct. 12 but, as expected, deferred any action. An official release from the board said it will "act with finality" during the next board meeting on April 21.

The ad-hoc committee tasked to dig deeper into the controversy involving players Mark Benitez and Tim Gatchalian is still in the process of finishing its investigation, and needs a couple more sessions to wrap it up.

The investigative committee headed by Fr. Ermito de Sagun of Santo Tomas said it would meet for three consecutive days during the Holy Week to "summarize and complete" its recommendations to the board.

Ricardo Matibag of Adamson said the sensitivity of the issue deserves a thorough and complete investigation. Matibag is also part of the committee along with Arlyne Royo of National U, Josie de Leon of FEU and Atty. Rene Villa, the UAAP legal counsel. — Abac Cordero

gameface_one
03-31-2006, 09:55 AM
UAAP decision on Archers' eligibility case out April 21

First posted 07:07am (Mla time) Mar 31, 2006
By Jasmine W. Payo
Inquirer



Editor's Note: Published on page A34 of the March 31, 2006 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer


THE FIVE-MONTH-OLD La Salle eligibility case will be decided with finality on April 21.

The five-man fact-finding committee only needs to "summarize and complete" its findings and recommendations, according to a University Athletics Association of the Philippines statement released after the league's regular board meeting yesterday at Casino Español restaurant in Manila.

Noting that the "issue deserves thorough investigation," the UAAP board will still deliberate whether to impose "any sanction on individuals or groups."

"The committee is winding up on its task after it has interviewed witnesses and gathered voluminous documents," UAAP secretary general Dr. Ricardo Matibag said of the collegiate cage scandal involving Archers Mark Benitez and Tim Gatchalian.

An insider noted that most of the UAAP board members wanted to be "more prepared" and needed more time "to digest all the evidence and testimonials" before discussing on the possible sanctions.

The statement added that the investigating panel will meet for three consecutive days before the Holy Week break.

The decision will come four days before Adamson University turns over the hosting chores to the University of the East on April 25.

Suspension from the league is among the possible punishments La Salle could face for fielding Benitez and Gatchalian, who turned out to be ineligible, in the men's basketball tournament in the last three years.

gameface_one
03-31-2006, 10:01 AM
Archers’ D-Day: April 21
abs-cbnnews.com

By JOEL ORELLANA, The Manila Times Reporter

The fate of De La Salle University will be known on April 21. That’s when the University Athletic Association of the Philippines board will act with finality regarding the basketball eligibility scandal that La Salle got involved in last year.

UAAP secretary-treasurer Dr. Ricardo Matibag of Season 68 host Adamson University said Thursday that the league’s fact-finding committee was about to end its own investigation and will submit its recommendations in time for the new deadline, which was previously set for Friday.

Matibag, a member of the committee, added that they will convene for three straight days during the Holy Week to discuss the recommendations to be given to the board.

Besides the Adamson official, other members of the fact-finding body are chairman Fr. Emerito de Sagun of University of Santo Tomas, Arlene Royo of National University, Josie de Leon of Far Eastern University and the lawyer Rene Villa, the league’s legal counsel.

The board met on Thursday at the Casino Español in Manila, where the members of the committee updated the league on the controversy that saw two Green Archers, Mark Benitez and Tim Gatchalian, caught falsifying their academic documents to gain entry in La Salle.

That resulted in a purge in La Salle that saw Archers coach Franz Pumaren and several other officials resign owing to their apparent roles in the fiasco. The school also returned its 2004 UAAP men’s championship and 2005 runner-up trophies, then offered to take a leave of absence from the basketball event of the league’s 69th season starting June.

Matibag said the committee is winding up its probe after it interviewed witnesses and gathered documents since its creation in November. He maintained that the sensitivity of the issue deserves thorough investigation.

After the April 21 board meeting that will primarily tackle the La Salle controversy, the UAAP board will again meet officially four days later for the official turnover of the season hosting chores from Adamson to University of the East.

It is expected that only on April 21 would the league board decide if it would impose any sanction on individuals or groups who would be found to be at fault.

A possible one-year ban on La Salle looms if the committee finds any involvement of the institution in helping the two players secure fake documents.

But the Taft-based school maintained its position that it did not commit any crime, and slapping a one-year suspension on them is not acceptable.

La Salle officials previously wrote the UAAP Board that they were mulling to take a leave of absence just in men’s basketball to institute the changes and cleanse the sport in the university.

But the board turned down La Salle’s request, telling the school it is beyond the bylaws of the UAAP, as basketball and volleyball are mandatory sports that each member school should have representation to compete in other events.

La Salle then said it will wait for the board to release the recommendations of the fact-finding committee before deciding its next course of action.

green_minded
03-31-2006, 10:41 PM
FIRST:
Verdict on La Salle out March 30
By Joey Villar
The Philippine Star 03/21/2006

SECOND:
UAAP decision on Archers' eligibility case out April 21
First posted 07:07am (Mla time) Mar 31, 2006
By Jasmine W. Payo
Inquirer

CONCLUSION ----> Petsa lang talaga tama sa diyaryo hahahaha. :D

bchoter
04-20-2006, 01:43 AM
Two more days. And the verdict... will be announced after the season as the committee has yet to come up with a report :D

bigfreeze_bibby
04-20-2006, 07:36 AM
I doubt if they'll come up with anything on Friday.

5FootCarrot
04-20-2006, 08:52 AM
I have to agree. While a little part of me still hopes that the wait will be over for all UAAP watchers come Friday, the rest of me says to prepare for the worst.

Can someone please explain to me again why this is taking so long?

oca
04-20-2006, 09:08 AM
One thing for sure, walang makakapagsabi na minadali ang decision.

Also, consider this...

With the amount of time that has lapsed before a decision is voted upon, emotions should have died down. Kung sino man sila, by this time wala na yung inis o galit sa kalooban ng mga tao na magbibigay hatol.

That's how it should be...a judgement devoid of emotions.

As time passes, ultimately, rationale thinking prevails.

Paul of Bataan
04-20-2006, 10:17 AM
i still say they foot-dragged throughout the investigation. the board has got to render a verdict at the soonest. they've already run out of excuses to procrastinate. suspended ba o hindi? kung hindi, anong karampatang parusa sa mga nagkasala?

Fried Green Tomato
04-20-2006, 03:55 PM
A DECS official was interviewed but he invoked E.O. 464. :D

=============================

Transcript of the committee report was due last week for distribution to the members of the uaap board but allegedly it was only given this week.

If true, maybe a deliberation by the board is the agenda on April 21. But as for the actual votation to transpire on that day.... almost impossible.

We're hearing end of the month as the likely date for the promulgation of the decision but there are some saying that it might stretch till may.

btw, a flimsy excuse was given by a committee member for the delay --- they only have 1 secretary to do the work. :o

gameface_one
04-21-2006, 08:12 AM
UAAP verdict on DLSU final
By Joey Villar
The Philippine Star 04/21/2006

A member of the UAAP board said on the eve of the final deliberations on La Salle’s eligibility case that any decision the body would render would be final, dashing the Taft-based school’s hope of making an appeal if the league calls for its suspension for the coming UAAP season.

"Usually, when the board decides, its always final. That’s why all the members of the board are present and take part in the deliberations," said Ric Matibag, one of the 16 board members from Adamson who will deliberate on La Salle’s case.

The meeting is set at 10 a.m. at the Adamson campus.

The Adamson athletic director was reacting to the possibility that La Salle might appeal the case in the event the board decides to suspend the Taft-based school after it admitted to have fielded in ineligible players during the 2004-2005 seasons.

"We hope that it will be finished soon," said Bro. Bobby Casingal, La Salle’s Office of Sports Development head. "Once the UAAP makes its decision, only then will La Salle make its move."

Matibag, who is also a member of the five-man ad-hoc committee chaired by Fr. Ermito de Sagon, OP, of Santo Tomas that investigated the case, said they hope to finally put an end to the issue that has dragged on for seven months now.

"It will depend on the discussion, we’ll have to discuss the findings of the committee and hope to finish it tomorrow (today). But it’s up to the members of the board on what action shall be taken," he added.

Matibag, however, didn’t discount the possibility that the board might need two or three meetings before it could come up with a final verdict.

Sources said the board even reserved "future dates" next week in anticipation of a long-drawn-out deliberation.

"It depends if all the relevant issues are discussed and there is a consensus," said the league insider.

Fr. Max Rendon, CM, of Adamson will preside the meeting that will also be attended by La Salle representatives Danny Jose and Lito Tanjuatco.

Suspension in all events is the likely sanction to be meted out on La Salle, which admitted last year that it "unwittingly" used two players — Mark Benitez and Tim Gatchalian — with fake admission documents during the 2004-2005 seasons.

Adamson was also suspended in 1994 after it fielded Marlou Aquino despite academic deficiencies.

gameface_one
04-21-2006, 08:12 AM
La Salle expecting quick UAAP decision

First posted 02:39am (Mla time) April 21, 2006
By Jasmine W. Payo
Inquirer



Editor's Note: Published on page A30 of the Apr. 21, 2006 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer


DE LA Salle University hopes a decision will be reached quickly when the University Athletics Association of the Philippines (UAAP) board deliberates on the six-month-old cage controversy involving the Green Archers at 10 a.m. today at the Adamson University.

The league's fact-finding committee recently wrapped up its investigation on the case of the two Archers accused of submitting fake academic documents.

Copies of the report have been furnished to the representatives of the eight member-schools.

"We hope that it will be finished soon," Bro. Bobby Casingal, La Salle's sports development head, said yesterday. "Once the UAAP makes its decision, only then will La Salle make its move."

There's no assurance, though, that a final verdict will be made after today's deliberation.

"The board will meet and discuss the findings of the committee. It's up to the members of the board to decide on what actions will be taken," said league secretary general Dr. Ricardo Matibag of host Adamson University.

Casingal said the Archers' basketball program has been stalled since the university admitted last October that players Mark Benitez and Tim Gatchalian submitted spurious certificates of their Philippine Educational Placement Test to gain entry into the school.

"The team is in limbo," noted Casingal. "We cannot assure the 100 percent competitiveness of the men's basketball team since the UAAP is already in July."

La Salle filed a one-year leave of absence from the men's basketball tournament only. However, the UAAP board turned down the school's request, noting that basketball is one of two mandatory sports in the league.

Suspension from all sports is among the possible sanctions La Salle could face.

"Except for the basketball team, all the teams are running normally, so it would be a big letdown," said Casingal.

Benitez and Gatchalian were part of the Archers' 2004 championship team. Benitez still played in La Salle's team that placed runner-up in the 2005 season, while Gatchalian failed to make it last year.

Both cagers submitted fake certificates of their PEP Test, an exam taken in lieu of a high school diploma to gain entry in college.

In its own investigation, La Salle tagged Archers assistant team manager Manny Salgado and contractual statistician Raul Lacson as the team officials who helped secure the players' false records. The two officials had denied the accusations.

The UAAP investigating committee is headed by Fr. Ermito de Sagon of University of Santo Tomas. Matibag, Josie de Leon of Far Eastern University, Arlene Royo of National University and legal counsel Rene Villa complete the five-man panel.

gameface_one
04-21-2006, 08:17 AM
UAAP board to decide on La Salle fate
abs-cbnnews.com


By JOEL ORELLANA, The Manila Times Reporter

The University Athletic Association of the Philippines (UAAP) board convenes for the nth time Friday to discuss the eligibility scandal involving two men’s basketball players of De La Salle University.

They will meet at 10 a.m. at the President’s Office of Season 68 host Adamson University.

The board, in its meeting on March 30, said it will act with finality on the issue Friday based on the recommendations of the fact-finding committee formed by the league to investigate the case.

Members of the UAAP Board refused to divulge to media the details of the investigation conducted by the committee, chaired by Father Ermito de Sagun, OP of University of Santo Tomas.

A one-year ban could be imposed on La Salle if the committee establishes that the school had knowledge on how Mark Lester Benitez and Timoteo Gatchalian 3rd secured the faked documents that allowed them to gain entry in college.

According to Dr. Ricardo Matibag of host Adamson University, a member of the fact-finding committee, the decision of the Board will be final.

"Usually, when the Board decides, it’s always final. That’s the reason why all the members of the board are present and participating in the deliberations," Matibag told Sports Times.

La Salle, through its public relations officer Malou Caluma, has told the media the school will wait for the UAAP’s decision before taking its next course of action.

But whether the board could come up with a verdict today is still unclear, as reports have said that some members of the committee are requesting for a couple more meetings before releasing the final decision.

The board has a scheduled meeting on April 25 for the official turnover of the hosting chores from Adamson to University of the East.

Besides Matibag and de Sagun, other members of the investigating committee are Josei de Leon of Far Eastern University, Arlene Royo of National University, Fr. Maximino Rendon, CM of Adamson and the lawyer Rene Villa, the league’s legal counsel.

venom
04-21-2006, 05:32 PM
one year suspension in all sports for Lasalle!

cub
04-21-2006, 07:03 PM
From http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?...x?StoryId=36309

UAAP imposes one-year ban on La Salle


The University Athletic Association of the Philippines (UAAP) board on Friday suspended De La Salle University for one-year as punishment for the eligibility scandal involving two DLSU men’s basketball players.

The decision bars all DLSU teams from participating in all events of the 68th season of the UAAP this year.

A six-man fact-finding committee led by Father Ermito de Sagun, OP of University of Santo Tomas, found the university guilty of fielding basketball players Mark Lester Benitez and Timoteo Gatchalian III after accepting fake documents that allowed the two to gain entry in college.

Other members of the investigating committee are Josei de Leon of Far Eastern University, Arlene Royo of National University, Fr. Maximino Rendon, CM of Adamson, Dr. Ricardo Matibag of host Adamson University, and the lawyer Rene Villa, the league’s legal counsel.

Out_Of_The_Blue
04-21-2006, 09:30 PM
Ok, now all teams specially La Salle can move on.

atenean_blooded
04-22-2006, 12:18 AM
from www.ubelt.com

UAAP Suspends DLSU For A Season
Press Release



The University Athletic Association of the Philippines (UAAP) has suspended De La Salle University for one year—in Season 69—for negligence as regards the spurious academic documents of two members of its men’s varsity basketball team.
“After due deliberation and in the interest of the league, the board with all the members present and in accordance with its rules and regulation by a unanimous vote decided to suspend [the] De La Salle University,” the UAAP board ruled.

Furthermore: “By three fourths vote of its members qualified to vote in accordance with its rules[,] the board decided that [the] De La Salle University shall be suspended for a period of one year effective UAAP Season 69 and shall cover all sports events.”

The decision was reached after a six-hour marathon meeting attended by all 16 UAAP board members at the Adamson University President’s Conference Room yesterday. The meeting was called to address the recommendation of the UAAP fact-finding committee that dug into the issue involving fake Philippine Educational Placement and Testing Certificates of Rating of Green Archers Mark Lester Benitez and Timoteo Gatchalian III.

UAAP Season 68 secretary-treasurer Dr. Ricardo Matibag of Adamson University chaired the committee and had as members Fr. Ermito de Sagun, OP, of University of Santo Tomas, Arlyne Royo of National U, Josie de Leon of Far Eastern U and Atty. Rene Villa, the UAAP legal counsel.

The board held that De La Salle violated existing UAAP rules and regulations when it submitted the PEPTCR documents of Benitez and Gatchalian for school year 2003-2004—that were subsequently found and declared spurious by competent authority.

The fact-finding committee wrapped up its task with marathon meetings during the Holy Week. Before that, the committee gathered voluminous documents and testimonials from witnesses during the course of its investigation.

“It has always been a rule that each member university has the responsibility to ensure that the eligibility documents are to be authenticated and/or verified prior to or at the time of submission, as it is even required to bear the signature of its Board Representative and Registrar,” the UAAP board said.

It added: “[The] DLSU knew or ought to have known about the matter at the time that these documents were presented for eligibility purposes to the UAAP.”

The apparent [inactive] of De La Salle, the UAAP board added, from the time it presented such document to the UAAP for eligibility purposes up to the time that it received official verification as to its forgery or fabrication until it took concrete steps to address the matter is tantamount to negligence on its part.

“Having received official verification as early as August 18, 2005, no action was taken by De La Salle until after more than a month later when it came out publicly and began investigating the matter.

Howard the Duck
04-22-2006, 12:54 AM
Ngayong tanggal na ang La Salle...

Sino kaya ang gustong manalo sa Season 69? Remember, La Salle had made it to every Final Four in history, so if you remove La Salle from the equation, it's like removing the Mavs in the playoffs. Parang walang dating ang mananalo next season, parang yung Spurs noong 1999.

However, it is interesting to note out that sa NCAA USA, may mga times na kahit unbeaten pa ang team sa regular season, hindi pinapasok sa playoffs kasi nangdaya (Kentucky and Shawn Kemp comes into mind)...

EDIT: Eto pa, hindi sinaad sa press release kung sino nanalo sa 2004. Now I know sasabihin nyong FEU, pero wala pang decision, kung ako ang UAAP, no champion na lang, ng fair sa lahat.

bombet
04-22-2006, 04:45 AM
Ngayong tanggal na ang La Salle...

Sino kaya ang gustong manalo sa Season 69? Remember, La Salle had made it to every Final Four in history, so if you remove La Salle from the equation, it's like removing the Mavs in the playoffs. Parang walang dating ang mananalo next season, parang yung Spurs noong 1999.

However, it is interesting to note out that sa NCAA USA, may mga times na kahit unbeaten pa ang team sa regular season, hindi pinapasok sa playoffs kasi nangdaya (Kentucky and Shawn Kemp comes into mind)...

EDIT: Eto pa, hindi sinaad sa press release kung sino nanalo sa 2004. Now I know sasabihin nyong FEU, pero wala pang decision, kung ako ang UAAP, no champion na lang, ng fair sa lahat.


Sa US NCAA, kapag may anomaly sa mga teams na involved sa final four, ginagawang VACATED ang slots after the season.

Mateen Cleaves
04-22-2006, 06:38 AM
Sino kaya ang gustong manalo sa Season 69? Remember, La Salle had made it to every Final Four in history, so if you remove La Salle from the equation, it's like removing the Mavs in the playoffs. Parang walang dating ang mananalo next season, parang yung Spurs noong 1999.


Walang team na hindi gugustuhin manalo sa Season 69. Kung sino ang manalo ngayon, lehitimong champion siya. Yung hindi kasali ang La Salle, issue na lang siya para doon sa "What If and What Could Have Been" thread.

keempee
04-22-2006, 10:06 AM
may dating pa din yung magiging champion. it's not their fault that another team got suspended for violations. ang nawalan ng dating are yung mga final four and championship finishes ng la salle. other teams were deprived of their rightful slots because of an illegitimate team with illegitimate players.

MonL
04-22-2006, 10:49 AM
Like the San Antonio Spurs winning their first championship in a lockout shortened NBA season, there will forever be an asterisk attached to that crown ...So will it be here, too, in Season 69, like it or not, through no fault of the champion team to be...but that didn't stop the Spurs from proving to all and sundry in the succeeding years that they deserve to be called champions, and that should apply to here, too. After all, the crown is still up for grabs and will not just be handed over...

AnthonyServinio
04-22-2006, 11:24 AM
:P :D

keempee
04-22-2006, 02:03 PM
there's a difference between a shortened season and one with a suspended team. i dont think anyone placed an asterisk to whoever became the champion when adamson was suspended (ust ba?). the absence of a suspended team will not cheapen a crown (as an asterisk will put a condition to the title) won squarely and legitimately in the hard court.

the 2004 crown may be a different story. handing the title to feu will be marked as the year that la salle forfeited the crown they won in the basketball court, albeit unfairly as they did it with illegitimate players.

oca
04-22-2006, 06:32 PM
Vote to suspend was UNANIMOUS.

Vote to suspend for 1 year was via 3/4 MAJORITY.

May dahilan pa ba para mag-appeal ang kahit sinong napatawan ng ganitong parusa?

WALA !

Lucas Palaka
04-22-2006, 09:11 PM
ang dapat na may asterisk yung season 67, kung saan nagchampion ang la salle with benitez and gatchalian in the lineup, hindi ang season 69. yan ang puno't dulo ng naganap na imbestigasyon.

gameface_one
04-22-2006, 10:11 PM
La Salle banned for one season
By Joey Villar
The Philippine Star 04/22/2006

The UAAP yesterday suspended De La Salle in all sports in the upcoming season, ending a long-drawn-out investigation on the eligibility case — the biggest controversy that had hit the school and the league in years.

"It’s a one-year suspension," said UAAP board chair Fr. Max Rendon, CM, of Adamson after emerging from a grueling seven-hour meeting at the Adamson campus.

The league cited negligence as the main reason for the suspension.

La Salle officials are expected to meet over the weekend to plan on what step to take.

In a statement, the board maintained that La Salle violated existing UAAP rules and regulations when it submitted the documents of Mark Benitez and Tim Gatchalian during the 2003-2004 season which proved to be spurious.

"It has always been a rule that each member university has the responsibility to ensure that the eligibility documents are to be authenticated and or verified prior to or at the time of the submission, as it is even required to bear the signature of its Board Representative and Registrar," said the UAAP board in a statement.

"(The) DLSU knew or ought to have known about the matter at the time that these documents were presented for eligibility purposes to the UAAP.

"Having received official verification as early as Aug. 18, 2005, no action was taken by De La Salle until after more than a month later when it came out publicly and began investigating the matter," it added.

Sources said the board voted twice via secret balloting with La Salle barred from participating. The board voted unanimously for suspension, rejecting possible sanctions like expulsion and non-suspension in the first voting.

The board then voted 5-2 in favor of a one-year suspension. The other two batted for a two-year suspension.

Rendon explained that La Salle could appeal the decision but reports indicated that the verdict, which was based on the findings gathered by the five-man ad-hoc committee chaired by Fr. Ermito de Sagon, OP, of Santo Tomas, was final.

The other members of the committee are Ric Matibag of Adamson, Arlene Royo of National U, Josie de Leon of Far Eastern U and league counsel Rene Maria Villa.

"That’s in our by-laws, we have to listen to their appeal should they appeal it," said the league insider. "But they should prove or disprove the charges against them and defend well."

"The ball is now on their court," added the same source.

La Salle board representative Lito Tanjuatco, who attended the meeting along with Danny Jose, said they will still have to report to the school’s board of trustees first before making their next move.

gameface_one
04-22-2006, 10:12 PM
UAAP slaps 1-year ban on De La Salle

First posted 00:03am (Mla time) April 22, 2006
By Jasmine W. Payo
Inquirer



Editor's Note: Published on page A25 of the April 22, 2006 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer


THE University Athletics Association of the Philippines (UAAP) board yesterday suspended De La Salle University (DLSU) for one year from all league sports, saying it was through its own negligence that the school fielded two ineligible players in the men's basketball tournament.

The decision was reached after a six-hour deliberation at the president's conference room of Adamson University.

"DLSU knew or ought to have known about the matter at the time that these documents were presented for eligibility purposes to the UAAP," the UAAP board said in a released statement.

School representatives unanimously voted on the suspension of La Salle for fielding two ineligible players in the men's basketball tournament in the last three years.

The board, however, ended with a 5-2 vote on the length of suspension. Five of the seven member-schools voted for a one-year ban from the premier collegiate league, while two opted for a two-year penalty.

La Salle did not vote in the two-round secret balloting.

The league, however, did not disclose the result of its own investigation on the six-month-old case involving Archers Mark Benitez and Tim Gatchalian.

"It has always been a rule that each member university has the responsibility to ensure that the eligibility documents are to be authenticated and/or verified prior to or at the time of submission, as it is even required to bear the signature of its Board Representative and Registrar," the UAAP statement said.

In reaching the decision, the UAAP board also noted that it took months before La Salle admitted that Benitez and Gatchalian submitted spurious academic eligibility records.

La Salle officials said it would wait for the official report of its two board representatives -- Danny Jose and Lito Tanjuatco -- before discussing its next course of action.

"According to the rule, any school is allowed to make an appeal," said UAAP president Fr. Max Rendon of Adamson.

gameface_one
04-22-2006, 10:15 PM
La Salle suspended one year
mb.com.ph

Ban covers not only basketball but all sports

By kristel satumbaga

THERE WILL be no La Salle-Ateneo basketball rivalry in the UAAP this year.


In a decision that to many was not a surprise, the University Athletic Association of the Philippines (UAAP) board yesterday banned La Salle from participating in basketball and all other league sports when it confirmed after a long and tedious investigation that the school had used an ineligible player in last year’s basketball season.

Though the board did not say that La Salle had done so deliberately, it said the school was negligent in allowing the discrepancy to go unnoticed.

La Salle had hoped to get a more lenient treatment by arguing that it was the school which discovered the anomaly and said it could have kept the matter under lid and perhaps no one would have noticed.

The school also offered to take a one-year leave from basketball as a self-penalty but pleaded that the league spare all other sports where it competes, saying it was unfair to punish the innocent.

The UAAP, however, would have none of that.

On two occasions that the seven-member board voted (La Salle was asked to inhibit on both times), the league was unanimous about suspending La Salle, beating the proposal for expulsion, 7-0.

When the league voted on the length of suspension, the vote was 5-2 for a one-year ban. Two other members voted for a two-year ban. Voting on this proposal was by secret balloting.

Member schools which voted were Ateneo, Adamson University, University of Santo Tomas, University of the East, National University, Far Eastern University and University of the Philippines. Each school had two representatives.

The decision was reached after a six-hour meeting. But while the board was convinced that La Salle had violated a UAAP rule regarding the fielding of ineligible players, it failed to establish the guilt or innocence of the two La Salle players who they said submitted spurious documents to gain entry.

"After due deliberation and in the interest of the league, the board with all the members present and in accordance with its rules and regulation by a unanimous vote decided to suspend [the] De La Salle University," the UAAP board ruled.

A source at the board meeting who asked that his name is not mentioned, said La Salle accepted the ban on basketball but will appeal the decision on the suspension of other sports.

La Salle representative Danny Jose, when contacted, said they will withold comment."We are not prepared to grant interviews at the moment," he said.

The board said La Salle was negligent in verifying the eligibility of players.

"It has always been a rule that each member university has the responsibility to ensure that the eligibility documents are to be authenticated and/or verified prior to or at the time of submission, as it is even required to bear the signature of its Board Representative and Registrar," said the UAAP board in a carefully-worded statement.

The board added: "[The] DLSU knew or ought to have known about the matter at the time that these documents were presented for eligibility purposes to the UAAP."

The board took cognizance of the fact that La Salle failed to act on the official verification as early as August 18, 2005.

"The apparent [inactive] of De La Salle from the time it presented such document to the UAAP for eligibility purposes up to the time that it received official verification as to its forgery or fabrication until it took concrete steps to address the matter is tantamount to negligence on its part," the board said.

The meeting was called to address the recommendation of the UAAP factfinding committee that dug into the issue involving fake Philippine Educational Placement and Testing Certificates of Rating (PETCR) of Green Archers Mark Lester Benitez and Timoteo Gatchalian III.

UAAP Season 68 secretary-treasurer Dr. Ricardo Matibag of Adamson University chaired the committee and had as members Fr. Ermito de Sagun, OP, of University of Santo Tomas, Arlyne Royo of National U, Josie de Leon of Far Eastern U and Atty. Rene Villa, the UAAP legal counsel.

After an extensive study, the board found out that De La Salle violated existing UAAP rules and regulations when it submitted the PEPTCR documents of Benitez and Gatchalian for school year 2003-2004. The documents were subsequently found and declared spurious by competent authority.

The fact-finding committee wrapped up its task with marathon meetings during the Holy Week. Before that, the committee also gathered voluminous documents and testimonials from witnesses during the course of its investigation.

La Salle’s penalty was not without precedent. In 1994, the league suspended Adamson for one year after it found that it fielded an ineligible player, then amateur Marlou Aquino, in the UAAP.

gameface_one
04-22-2006, 10:24 PM
UAAP bans La Salle in all sports for a year
abs-cbnnews.com

By JOEL ORELLANA, The Manila Times Reporter



No green and white colors will be waving in the coming University Athletic Association of the Philippines season 69.

Acting on the recommendations of a fact-finding committee, the UAAP Board on Friday voted unanimously to suspend De La Salle University from all sports for one year, citing the Green Archers’ negligence in allowing two of its men’s basketball players to enter college with faked academic records.

Mark Lester Benitez and Timoteo Gatchalian 3rd’s spurious Philippine Educational Placement and Testing Certificates of Rating, which they used to enroll at La Salle, actually rendered them ineligible to play varsity for the Archers during the past two years, according to the league’s fact-finding body.

The decision reduces the participating schools in the coming season to just seven, although the board expects La Salle to make an appeal. As of last night, the university had yet to receive a copy of the board’s decision.

"We will only comment on the issue after we are furnished a copy," said Malou Caluma, La Salle’s public relations officer, adding that the school’s Board of Trustees will meet to discuss the issue before releasing any statement to the media.

Although the verdict was a one-year suspension, sources told Sports Times that two schools wanted a two-year ban. But a secret voting, done for the first time by the board, ended at 5-2 for a one-year penalty.

"Seven schools voted for suspension and the decision was a very unanimous one," said Fr. Maximino Rendon, CM of Adamson University, who presided over the six-hour meeting at the Adamson President’s Office in Manila.

"But [La Salle] can always appeal, that’s according to our rules and they should make an appeal to the board for reconsideration," Rendon added.

His fellow Adamson official, UAAP Season 68 secretary-treasurer Dr. Ricardo Matibag, chaired the fact-finding committee that had as members Fr. Ermito de Sagun OP of University of Santo Tomas, Arlyne Royo of National University, Josie de Leon of Far Eastern University and the lawyer Rene Villa, the UAAP’s legal counsel.

The board held that De La Salle violated existing UAAP rules and regulations when it submitted the PEPTCR documents of Benitez and Gatchalian for school year 2003-04—that were subsequently found and declared spurious by competent authorities.

The fact-finding committee wrapped up its task with marathon meetings during the Holy Week. Before that, the committee gathered voluminous documents and testimonials from witnesses during the course of its investigation.

"It has always been a rule that each member university has the responsibility to ensure that the eligibility documents are to be authenticated and/or verified prior to or at the time of submission, as it is even required to bear the signature of its Board Representative and Registrar," the UAAP board said.

"DLSU knew or ought to have known about the matter at the time that these documents were presented for eligibility purposes to the UAAP."

All 16 members of the board were present including La Salle representatives Lito Tanjuatco and Danny Jose, who were asked to leave the room when the secret balloting began.

According to a UAAP insider, as the investigating committee saw a lapse on the part of the school on how Archers Benitez and Gatchalian secured their faked academic documents.

Team statistician Raul Lacson and assistant team manager Manny Salgado were pinned down in La Salle’s own investigation, although the two denied the accusation.

The league expects La Salle to make an appeal and worse, bring the case to the courts, a possibility school officials mentioned in their press conference last year when they admitted the fiasco.

"Anybody can sue anybody but they should have a valid case," said one board member, who requested not to be named.

"We made the decision in accordance with our rules and we have to make a decision now because everybody was waiting for it," the source added

The board will convene again next week to tackle the turnover of hosting chores to University of the East, which could be the time La Salle makes an appeal to the board.

5FootCarrot
04-23-2006, 08:47 AM
At last, the long wait is over, and the Board basically decided what I told them to thought they would decide. (Hehehe ;D)

No, really, the decision to suspend DLSU for one (1) year is a sound one. Although a couple of schools reportedly wanted a longer sentence, I think a year's suspension is the best decision they could come up with in view of the need to penalize La Salle for its violation of the rules , which happened whether or not the school knew about it, but at the same time minimize the bad feelings (and hurt to the Almighty Bottom Line ::) ) that would inevitably arise when things like this need to be done.

I hope the Board stands firm on this one, even if DLSU tries to appeal. I think La Salle needs to be able to put its house in order, so to speak, and this would be best done away from the pressure and hype of UAAP competition. Hopefully they will be able to return better and wiser from this experience.

MonL
04-23-2006, 10:59 AM
there's a difference between a shortened season and one with a suspended team. i dont think anyone placed an asterisk to whoever became the champion when adamson was suspended (ust ba?).

the 2004 crown may be a different story. handing the title to feu will be marked as the year that la salle forfeited the crown they won in the basketball court, albeit unfairly as they did it with illegitimate players.


True, true. Difference is, Adamson then was a competitive team, not necessarily a championship contender. They didn't have enough tools to contend, even if they had Marbel, EJ and Marlou.* In La Salle's case, here's a championship caliber team team capable of winning it all. They'll always say that "we weren't there". They're entitled to their own opinion.* They can only prove that when they return, and playing it fair and square. They'll* have that chip on their shoulders for a year.


the absence of a suspended team will not cheapen* a crown (as an asterisk will put a condition to the title) won squarely and legitimately in the hard court.
Cheapen the title? I don't think so.* It still has to be earned.* Legitimacy of the title holder? Probably will be questioned, and the subject wil be a continuing source of debate in forums everywhere, as is already happening here...

atenean_blooded
04-23-2006, 12:08 PM
Some comments on Quinito Henson's article.

"The University Athletic Association of the Philippines (UAAP) unanimous decision to suspend La Salle for a year, starting this coming season, in all sports was hardly unexpected."

You can see this in one of two ways. One, you can disagree, and see this statement as a bitter reaction, or two, you can agree, because you believe that the suspension was something that the UAAP board ought to have done.

"Although there were rumblings that La Salle would be allowed to play on probation or only its basketball program would be suspended as the school had earlier requested for a leave of absence, nobody was surprised when the Board swung the executioner’s axe."

Rumblings from where? La Salle?

"Leaking the information that it could’ve been a two-year suspension instead was no consolation. And the extraordinarily long period of investigation before arriving at the decision was no consolation either even as it appeared to indicate an exhaustive probe and lots of soul-searching and sleepless nights."

Well, at least based on how thick the report was, the results of the UAAP's investigation did seem more exhaustive than the shabby DLSU report.

"It was clear that as soon as La Salle voluntarily admitted the recruitment of two academically ineligible players in its seniors varsity basketball roster the last three years, the Archers were goners.

For opening its mouth, La Salle was dealt a blow to the heart. For being honest, La Salle shot itself in the foot. For cleaning house, La Salle was suspended because if not, it would’ve opened a Pandora’s box and encouraged other schools to be as transparent–and in a league where you can be sure of skeletons in the closet, the unwritten code is to keep quiet at all costs."

This is spin. Mr. Henson should understand that given the circumstances, La Salle was forced into admitting that it had fielded ineligble players who shouldn't even be in any college, otherwise, this could have been brought up by DepEd, which would have been more embarassing.

And notice that Henson is trying to emphasize that La Salle admitted it. This is the old "we were honest naman e" spin. Notice that he conveniently omits that La Salle sat on this thing for months, that La Salle was NEGLIGENT.

"I wonder if those who cast the first stones at La Salle can look at themselves in the mirror without cringing in shame."

Can La Salle look at itself in the mirror without cringing in shame?

"To appeal the suspension would be a futile exercise for La Salle."

Why are you dismissing it, this early on? As much as I am convinced that an appeal will not prosper, to dismiss it this early on is to shoot yourself in the foot, and to be hostile to the UAAP Board which has already recognized an appeal as a possibility!

"Never mind if under the UAAP rules, the only basis for suspension is complicity of the school and La Salle was cited for negligence."

Show us the rules.

And perhaps you ought to ask a lawyer how negligence works.

"Never mind if suspension in all sports does not seem to be a commensurate penalty for the "crime" of negligence."

It is. The blunder is institutional.

"Never mind if La Salle was never sent a charge sheet signed by an accusing school, as required by Board rules, and never given a chance to defend itself."

Why is a charge sheet needed when La Salle declared that it had already committed a crime?

"Never mind if due process was not administered."

This is a desperate comment. There was due process as required by the rules. The outcome was not in your favor.

"Never mind if the innocent players in other sports will be penalized by such a sweeping suspension."

You can look at this in two ways:

a ) The blunder was institutional. If it happened to basketball, it could have happened everywhere else.
b ) Basketball is a mandatory sport. If you don't play in basketball, you can't play anywhere else. La Salle can't play in basketball, and so on.

"Never mind if the guiltless, graduating athletes in other sports will not be allowed their swan song because of a decision that appears heartless, harsh and inappropriate."

It appears harsh and inappropriate to you. Remember that La Salle is not the UAAP.

"Never mind if La Salle volunteered the damaging information, without provocation, and was not caught hiding the truth by an external party."

La Salle's volunteering the information was forced by circumstance.

"Never mind if other schools that may uncover ineligible athletes in their rosters will now be inclined to sweep the dirt under the rug or else suffer a similar fate."

If you can point at certain schools, and have enough evidence, expose them. That's what you're supposed to do as a journalist.

"Never mind if the suspension is a direct attack at the integrity of a school of high repute."

Being negligent enough to accept students who FLUNKED the PEP Test and submitted FAKE results doesn't exactly speak very well of a school which insists on hyping its supposed "integrity" and self-perceived "high repute."

"Never mind if the standard penalty for using an ineligible player is the forfeiture of games and La Salle has, in fact, surrendered its championship trophy in 2004 and given up its second-place points in senior men’s basketball, resulting in sliding from second to third place in the overall UAAP standings."

La Salle was also negligent.

"Never mind if the suspension questions the spirit of fair play in the UAAP Board."

Er, the vote to suspend was 7-0. Unanimous. The seven schools which La Salle wronged by its negligence have decided to defend the league from what La Salle did. Among our 7 schools, we've decided to be fair. If they upheld La Salle, they would have allowed one school to hurt the 7 others.

So, what's fair?

"Never mind if La Salle, by requesting a leave of absence from senior men’s basketball, appealed to the conscience of the UAAP Board in its attempt to spare the innocent athletes from other sports and was denied."

The leave of absence, in form, was against UAAP rules.

"Never mind if other schools may be involved in recruiting anomalies, such as not subjecting athletes to entrance exams, and are wallowing in their self-righteousness while appearing to be above suspicion like Caesar’s wife."

This allegations are pathetic and reek of Gang Green spin. You're the journalist. If you have evidence, let's see it.

"Never mind if the UAAP Board is supposed to be composed of honorable men and women who believe in sportsmanship, upholding the rules of the league and justice for all."

7-0 for suspension.

That's honorable. It just so happened that your school was not one of the 7.

"The suspension delivers a wrong signal to schools that honesty isn’t the best policy if ever they uncover recruitment anomalies involving varsity athletes–that if you get caught doing something illegal, too bad but if you don’t get caught, it’s fine."

Gang Green spin.

The whole honesty spin is thrown out the window when we take note of the following details:

- DepEd knew, and could have exposed the matter, forcing La Salle's hand
- La Salle sat on the case for months.

"Whether the decision was tainted by treachery or bias or injustice is something that can only be established by the UAAP Board in its heart of hearts."

7-0, for suspension.

The only biased one here is the columnist I'm quoting.

"One thing’s for sure, a dark chapter has found its way in the UAAP history books. This was certainly not a positive milestone for the league."

The suspension was a great, laudable decision by the board, favoring the league over the interests on one school who had wronged the league. This was a just move.

"Although La Salle president Bro. Armin Luistro has threatened to go all the way to the Supreme Court to fight the suspension, he should rethink his position. Taking court action will only aggravate the situation and put athletes in the middle of a political battle. It is as useless to appeal the suspension before the UAAP Board as it is to seek redress from the courts. The only sensible thing for La Salle to do is to grin and bear it and prepare for a spirited comeback in 2007-08."

Any case filed by La Salle will only show La Salle's bad faith. In any which case, if La Salle does sue the UAAP, I'd move that the UAAP just vote to expel La Salle from the league.

"La Salle can walk away from this harrowing experience with a clear conscience. I’m not sure if the executioners in the UAAP Board can do the same."

You accepted high school dropouts. You fielded ineligible players. You were terribly negligent. And now, you have the audacity and temerity to say that you can walk away from this with a clear conscience? How utterly telling.

gameface_one
04-23-2006, 01:58 PM
La Salle ban harsh—Juico

First posted 03:22am (Mla time) April 23, 2006
By Francis Ochoa
Inquirer



Editor's Note: Published on page A31 of the April 23, 2006 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer


AS far as the legal counsel is concerned, it's too early to tell whether La Salle will use the courts to argue against the suspension slapped on it by the UAAP board.

As far as one of the school's distinguished products is concerned, La Salle shouldn't appeal at all.

Former PSC chair Philip Ella Juico urged La Salle not to contest the one-year suspension slapped on it for fielding—unwittingly as the school claims—two ineligible players in the men's basketball tournament for two straight seasons.

"What for? Sports games are won or lost in the playing field, not in the board or courtrooms," added La Salle's dean of the Graduate School of Business.

Juico is also the manager of La Salle's reigning three-time UAAP women's volleyball champion squad.

Juico, however, called the decision of the board to ban La Salle from all sports for one season "harsh and unfair."

The decision was reached after a six-hour deliberation by the board in Adamson University.

The board, which voted twice to reach the decision, is awaiting La Salle's next move, whether or not to appeal it.

Lito Tanjuatco, who attended the meeting along with Danny Jose, said it would still be up to the La Salle's board of Trustees what action it will take next.

La Salle system president Bro. Armin Luistro hinted that the school could seek relief from the courts earlier.

But Tanjuatco brushed it aside.

"It's too early for that," he said.

The controversy started last year when La Salle found that it had "unwittingly" fielded in two players—Mark Benitez and Tim Gatchalian—based on fake eligibility papers.

gameface_one
04-23-2006, 01:59 PM
UAAP to decide on ‘rightful’ 2004 champ
By Abac Cordero
The Philippine Star 04/23/2006

After imposing a one-year suspension on La Salle which admitted to fielding two ineligible players in men’s basketball, the UAAP board will now have to decide whether or not it should declare Far Eastern University as the rightful winner of the 2004 crown.

The Green Archers emerged champions in 2004 then finished second to the Tamaraws in 2005. But after the previous season ended, La Salle admitted fielding ineligible players in Tim Gatchalian and Mark Benitez when they won the championship two years ago.

La Salle voluntarily returned the tropy to the UAAP as it faced an investigation from the UAAP board. For its violation, La Salle said it was willing to take a leave of absence from the basketball competitions of the 2006 UAAP season which begins in a couple of months.

After a six-month investigation, the UAAP board the other day decided to suspend La Salle from competing in all sports of the forthcoming season. It was the same type of suspension slapped on Adamson in the ’90s due to an ineligibility scandal involving Marlou Aquino.

The 2004 trophy is now with the UAAP. But whether or not it would be awarded to the FEU Tamaraws is once again up to the board which can also declare the year vacant as far as men’s basketball is concerned.

Ricky Palou of Ateneo, a UAAP board member, said the board will soon deliberate on the matter.

"There’s no decision yet where the trophy will go. The board has yet to decide on that. Maybe on our next meeting we’ll tackle that," said Palou, who once played for the Blue Eagles.

"It’s a possibility that the team that finished second behind La Salle (in this case FEU) will be awarded the championship," he added.

Meanwhile, Sen. Richard Gordon, a true-blue Atenean, was not at all happy with the UAAP decision to suspend and prevent La Salle from competing in all sports events for this year.

"That suspension would hurt not only the institution, but all those innocent athletes who have been working hard and honestly to excel in their fields," said the Senator.

Gordon emphasized that "in studying how best to deal with the controversy, the UAAP must remember that many of the students on the DSLU’s roster want to built a career in sports."

He added that with the suspension, "all these athletes would lose the crucial opportunity to prove themselves through the UAAP and lose that chance at the all important break into professional sports, ultimately destroying their career."

In another development, former Philippine Sports Commission chairman and De La Salle alumnus Philip Ella Juico said he was strongly against a move by La Salle to appeal its suspension.

"My suggestion is not to appeal it, nor should La Salle bring it to court. What for? Sports games are won or lost in the playing field, not in the board or courtrooms," said Juico. —With J. Villar

gameface_one
04-23-2006, 02:01 PM
La Salle reels from UAAP suspension
mb.com.ph


By kristel satumbaga

SHOCK AND disappointment greeted La Salle’s suspension in the University Athletic Association of the Philippines (UAAP).


Inside La Salle’s Taft campus, the mood was somber.

JV Casio, a member of La Salle’s championship team in 2004, lamented the decision.

"Ngayon talaga down ‘yung feeling ko," said the 20-year-old Casio who has played three seasons with the Archers. "Masakit ‘yung nangyari kasi dahil sa team namin, nadamay ‘yung ibang sports. Gustuhin man naming i-prove na kaya naming makabangon, pero hindi namin magawa kasi nga suspended kami."

Casio admitted that the team continued to practice while the UAAP investigated the controversy triggered by La Salle’s admission that it unwittingly fielded two ineligible players in the last three seasons.

"Siyempre ayaw din naman naming masuspend. Gusto pa naming maglaro at makuha uli ‘yung title. Pero ganoon talaga. Kailangang mangyari ‘yon," the young playmaker said.

Jeoffrey Chua, coach of La Salle’s track and field team, said the suspension was a bitter pill to swallow.

"The whole community is sad about what happened. Pero ‘yung general impact, mas masakit sa amin dahil hindi naman kami ‘yung team na involved. But we’re sharing the same sentiment. We’re hoping to use that time to strengthen our team so that we’ll be tough when we get back to the UAAP," Chua said.

There’s no official word yet from La Salle officials.

La Salle’s PR coordinator Malou Caluma said that the main concern of the university is to get the copy of the board’s decision before it contemplates on its next move.

"We haven’t received a copy of the board’s decision yet, but they said they would send it by Monday," Caluma said. "Once we get the copy, it will be up to the La Salle board on whatever actions they will take regarding the decision. Most likely the board would tackle this, but there’s no definite date yet."

The absence of La Salle is expected to hurt the marketing side of the league that boasts the most enduring rivalry in Philippine sports.

Ateneo, La Salle’s longtime rival, concedes it has to get motivation elsewhere.

"It has been dragging on for six months, but the UAAP has to move on. But what will be sorely missed, of course, is the Ateneo-La Salle rivalry that has spanned for a long time now," Ateneo representative Ricky Palou said.

Palou downplayed the effect of La Salle’s absence next season.

"Of course we expect less number of games, but still, we’re looking forward to the next season of the UAAP. As for marketing the league, it is not actually the board’s concern. I suppose Studio 23 has the expertise to handle the league’s marketing. It won’t be a problem, I guess," he added.

In a grueling six-hour meeting attended by 16 member representatives Friday, the board ruled to suspend La Salle for negligence when it fielded two ineligible cagers in their roster.

gameface_one
04-23-2006, 02:05 PM
Green and bear it
SPORTING CHANCE By Joaquin M. Henson
The Philippine Star 04/23/2006

The University Athletic Association of the Philippines (UAAP) unanimous decision to suspend La Salle for a year, starting this coming season, in all sports was hardly unexpected.

Although there were rumblings that La Salle would be allowed to play on probation or only its basketball program would be suspended as the school had earlier requested for a leave of absence, nobody was surprised when the Board swung the executioner’s axe.

Leaking the information that it could’ve been a two-year suspension instead was no consolation. And the extraordinarily long period of investigation before arriving at the decision was no consolation either even as it appeared to indicate an exhaustive probe and lots of soul-searching and sleepless nights.

It was clear that as soon as La Salle voluntarily admitted the recruitment of two academically ineligible players in its seniors varsity basketball roster the last three years, the Archers were goners.

For opening its mouth, La Salle was dealt a blow to the heart. For being honest, La Salle shot itself in the foot. For cleaning house, La Salle was suspended because if not, it would’ve opened a Pandora’s box and encouraged other schools to be as transparent–and in a league where you can be sure of skeletons in the closet, the unwritten code is to keep quiet at all costs.

I wonder if those who cast the first stones at La Salle can look at themselves in the mirror without cringing in shame.

To appeal the suspension would be a futile exercise for La Salle.

Never mind if under the UAAP rules, the only basis for suspension is complicity of the school and La Salle was cited for negligence.

Never mind if suspension in all sports does not seem to be a commensurate penalty for the "crime" of negligence.

Never mind if La Salle was never sent a charge sheet signed by an accusing school, as required by Board rules, and never given a chance to defend itself.

Never mind if due process was not administered.

Never mind if the innocent players in other sports will be penalized by such a sweeping suspension.

Never mind if the guiltless, graduating athletes in other sports will not be allowed their swan song because of a decision that appears heartless, harsh and inappropriate.

Never mind if La Salle volunteered the damaging information, without provocation, and was not caught hiding the truth by an external party.

Never mind if other schools that may uncover ineligible athletes in their rosters will now be inclined to sweep the dirt under the rug or else suffer a similar fate.

Never mind if the suspension is a direct attack at the integrity of a school of high repute.

Never mind if the standard penalty for using an ineligible player is the forfeiture of games and La Salle has, in fact, surrendered its championship trophy in 2004 and given up its second-place points in senior men’s basketball, resulting in sliding from second to third place in the overall UAAP standings.

Never mind if the suspension questions the spirit of fair play in the UAAP Board.

Never mind if La Salle, by requesting a leave of absence from senior men’s basketball, appealed to the conscience of the UAAP Board in its attempt to spare the innocent athletes from other sports and was denied.

Never mind if other schools may be involved in recruiting anomalies, such as not subjecting athletes to entrance exams, and are wallowing in their self-righteousness while appearing to be above suspicion like Caesar’s wife.

Never mind if the UAAP Board is supposed to be composed of honorable men and women who believe in sportsmanship, upholding the rules of the league and justice for all.

The suspension delivers a wrong signal to schools that honesty isn’t the best policy if ever they uncover recruitment anomalies involving varsity athletes–that if you get caught doing something illegal, too bad but if you don’t get caught, it’s fine.

Whether the decision was tainted by treachery or bias or injustice is something that can only be established by the UAAP Board in its heart of hearts.

One thing’s for sure, a dark chapter has found its way in the UAAP history books. This was certainly not a positive milestone for the league.

Although La Salle president Bro. Armin Luistro has threatened to go all the way to the Supreme Court to fight the suspension, he should rethink his position. Taking court action will only aggravate the situation and put athletes in the middle of a political battle. It is as useless to appeal the suspension before the UAAP Board as it is to seek redress from the courts. The only sensible thing for La Salle to do is to grin and bear it and prepare for a spirited comeback in 2007-08.

La Salle can walk away from this harrowing experience with a clear conscience. I’m not sure if the executioners in the UAAP Board can do the same.

bluestorck
04-23-2006, 04:34 PM
its sickening to read quinito's article.......for the mere fact that dlsu knew about the spurios documents of gatchalian and benitez since august from the documents that the deped sent to them..they still made them suit up for the games.so how could he say those things >:(.

mahuhuli na sila..kaya sila umamin....and just recently they "discovered" that arana accumulated 24 units of failing marks . parang sa tingal ni arana diyan di ba nila nahalata that something was wrong with his grades?!.siguro pag di pa pumutok yung issue na yan i dont even think that arana's "failing marks" would have been discovered.



ang gang green nga naman...sila na nga nagkasala...iba pa rin ang sinisisi.

i agree with ab that if he has proof of other schools harboring players with "fake" documents then he better put it out....sheeeesh! >:(

keempee
04-23-2006, 05:33 PM
there's a difference between a shortened season and one with a suspended team. i dont think anyone placed an asterisk to whoever became the champion when adamson was suspended (ust ba?).

the 2004 crown may be a different story. handing the title to feu will be marked as the year that la salle forfeited the crown they won in the basketball court, albeit unfairly as they did it with illegitimate players.


True, true. Difference is, Adamson then was a competitive team, not necessarily a championship contender. They didn't have enough tools to contend, even if they had Marbel, EJ and Marlou. In La Salle's case, here's a championship caliber team team capable of winning it all. They'll always say that "we weren't there". They're entitled to their own opinion. They can only prove that when they return, and playing it fair and square. They'll have that chip on their shoulders for a year.


the absence of a suspended team will not cheapen a crown (as an asterisk will put a condition to the title) won squarely and legitimately in the hard court.
Cheapen the title? I don't think so. It still has to be earned. Legitimacy of the title holder? Probably will be questioned, and the subject wil be a continuing source of debate in forums everywhere, as is already happening here...


actually, adamson did contend when marlou was there. they placed second to feu in one of the years that aquino played.

about the legitimacy of the title holder probably being questioned, are you referring to the 2004 crown if ever it is handed to feu, or to the team which will win next season's crown? if it's the latter i dont think it will be questioned except of course by la salle and its supporters. as can be seen by the 7 to nil vote and the reaction of most non-la sallites, the suspension is viewed as widely-deserved.

having said that, of course i still would want la salle to be competing next season. in the same manner, i wish for a US ncaa-style league in which all schools (including those from the ncaa, ucaa, etc) will battle it out for only one title. but even in their, and la salle's, absence, i doubt if people outside dlsu will question the legitimacy of season 69's champion.

continuing source of debate in fora everywhere? well, it is fuelled mostly by la salle and gang green.

shyboy
04-24-2006, 12:51 AM
For a while there after seeing some of the last few posts, I thought I was at PEX. ::)

Anyway, what are the possible implications of the UAAP verdict on La Salle?

1. Does this mean player ineligibilities can now be questioned and investigated anytime? Existing UAAP rules disallow filing of ineligibility cases once the second round of eliminations have started.

2. Also using the same rule as basis, does this also mean La Salle (and any other school who stumbles upon player ineligibilities from within) should instead just kept quiet since no school will be allowed anyway to file a case against Benitez and Gatchalian due to this rule?

atenean_blooded
04-24-2006, 03:08 AM
I don't think the particular rule applies. Remember that there was no question regarding the eligibility of any player. No one had to file a case because La Salle told everyone that they had fielded ineligible players. The UAAP simply looked into the matter to determine what sort of action it ought to take. In this case, it has decided: 1-year suspension for La Salle from all sports, an appropriate, albeit in my opinion insufficient, verdict.


That said, since Shyboy did bring up UAAP rules, perhaps one of the mods can find a copy of the following documents for our future discussion:

- UAAP Rules and By-laws
- UAAP Fact-Finding Committee Report on the DLSU scandal
- UAAP Board decision/resolution on the DLSU scandal

MonL
04-24-2006, 07:36 AM
about the legitimacy of the title holder probably being questioned, are you referring to the 2004 crown if ever it is handed to feu, or to the team which will win next season's crown?* if it's the latter i dont think it will be questioned except of course by la salle and its supporters. as can be seen by the 7 to nil vote and the reaction of most non-la sallites, the suspension is viewed as widely-deserved.

continuing source of debate in fora everywhere? well, it is fuelled mostly by la salle and gang green.


keempee, I am looking at it strictly from a basketball point of view, and the consequences of the recent events for next year concerns me more. May the best team win it all. I'm not a La Sallite, I'm in this for love of the game. I take great pleasure in watching well played games, no matter who plays them.

gameface_one
04-24-2006, 09:08 AM
La Salle to continue recruiting athletes



By kristel satumbaga

LA SALLE University’s recruitment program continues despite the one-year suspension slapped by the University Athletic Association of the Philippines (UAAP).


Coaches and officials of the school believe the suspension will not affect the need to recruit athletes because the UAAP is not the only event they are competing in.

Ramil de Jesus, coach of the women’s volleyball team, said: "I think tuloy-tuloy pa rin naman ang recruitment ng La Salle. Mayroon pa naman kasing ibang tournaments kaming sinasalihan, hindi lang naman UAAP. At saka one year lang naman kaming suspended."

Track and field coach Jeoffrey Chua, who shared De Jesus’ view, wanted to erase suspicion that the school would use the time to recruit more athletes.

"Ang hinahabol lang namin ngayon is exposures, not to strengthen the squad but to show them na buhay pa rin ang La Salle," Chua said.

La Salle’s recruitment program took a blow when two of its basketball players – Mark Benitez and Tim Gatchalian III – were found to have submitted spurious documents to gain college admission.

La Salle can look to other venues to keep itself busy.

The women’s volleyball team is currently seeing action in the Shakey’s V-League volleyball tournament that fired off last Saturday.

The spikers will also take part in the National Capital Region Athletic Association (NCRAA), Universities Colleges Athletic Association (UCAA) and the University Games mid this year.

The track and field team, on the other hand, is slated to compete in the National Open next month, the NCRAA and the University Games.

The junior basketball team is playing in the Fr. Martin Cup which got under way last Friday.

La Salle is not barred from competing in other leagues while being suspended, according to Ricky PaloU, Ateneo’s representative to the UAAP board.

"The suspension of La Salle is limited only to our league so if they want to compete in other tournaments, it is up to them," Palou said.

shyboy
04-24-2006, 10:17 AM
I don't think the particular rule applies. Remember that there was no question regarding the eligibility of any player. No one had to file a case because La Salle told everyone that they had fielded ineligible players. The UAAP simply looked into the matter to determine what sort of action it ought to take. In this case, it has decided: 1-year suspension for La Salle from all sports, an appropriate, albeit in my opinion insufficient, verdict.



Which now leads to my #2 implication. So does this mean La Salle should've shut up instead? Had another school questioned Benitez's eligibility, the UAAP can't touch on it anyway given the UAAP rule on filing eligibility cases.

The answers to these questions will eventually be a guide to any member school when unfortunately faced with the same situation. This is of course outside of the more pressing resolve to be more strict in accepting and verifying documentaitons.

atenean_blooded
04-24-2006, 10:47 AM
I don't think the particular rule applies. Remember that there was no question regarding the eligibility of any player. No one had to file a case because La Salle told everyone that they had fielded ineligible players. The UAAP simply looked into the matter to determine what sort of action it ought to take. In this case, it has decided: 1-year suspension for La Salle from all sports, an appropriate, albeit in my opinion insufficient, verdict.



Which now leads to my #2 implication. So does this mean La Salle should've shut up instead? Had another school questioned Benitez's eligibility, the UAAP can't touch on it anyway given the UAAP rule on filing eligibility cases.

The answers to these questions will eventually be a guide to any member school when unfortunately faced with the same situation. This is of course outside of the more pressing resolve to be more strict in accepting and verifying documentaitons.




Interesting question. Well, there would be no question about eligibilty if DepEd pointed out that the papers submitted to La Salle were fake.

keempee
04-24-2006, 11:12 AM
about the legitimacy of the title holder probably being questioned, are you referring to the 2004 crown if ever it is handed to feu, or to the team which will win next season's crown? if it's the latter i dont think it will be questioned except of course by la salle and its supporters. as can be seen by the 7 to nil vote and the reaction of most non-la sallites, the suspension is viewed as widely-deserved.

continuing source of debate in fora everywhere? well, it is fuelled mostly by la salle and gang green.


keempee, I am looking at it strictly from a basketball point of view, and the consequences of the recent events for next year concerns me more. May the best team win it all. I'm not a La Sallite, I'm in this for love of the game. I take great pleasure in watching well played games, no matter who plays them.



i was responding to your statement that the legitimacy of the champion will probably be questioned.

but same here...from a basketball point of view, as i have said, i still prefer to see la salle play in the coming season. i did explain that sentiment in the paragraph in between the two which you quoted above. but in their absence due to the suspension, i still say that the legitimacy of the coming season's champion will not be questioned by majority of basketball fans.

MonL
04-24-2006, 11:34 AM
i was responding to your statement that the legitimacy of the champion will probably be questioned.

but same here...from a basketball point of view, as i have said, i still prefer to see la salle play in the coming season. i did explain that sentiment in the paragraph in between the two which you quoted above. but in their absence due to the suspension, i still say that the legitimacy of the coming season's champion will not be questioned by majority of basketball fans.


That remains to be seen...but I am thinking more of a "what if" discussion scenario, and I think it will never go beyond that....

keempee
04-24-2006, 11:41 AM
^

yep!

Agent 008
04-24-2006, 01:51 PM
Thank you, Blooded, for your reaction to Henson's article. I don't know if he is part of this group but in case he isn't I hope your reaction finds its way to Henson's lap.

To anyone who has read his article and can read between the lines, the man's integrity as a journalist will be truly in question. It's tough to keep your integrity if you are a paid hatchetman.

Didn't this guy win some kind of award recently? What was it for again...fictional writing?

Fried Green Tomato
04-24-2006, 05:48 PM
Here's the statement made by DLSU UAAP Board member Lito Tanjuatco in a mini press conference held today. Please watch 24 Oras and Saksi tonight for the coverage.

=================================================


Statement from Jose S. Tanjuatco
DLSU Representative to the UAAP Board of Trustees

Introduction

Over the past few days, you have requested for my comments about the
UAAP decision to suspend DLSU from all sporting events for a period of
one year.* As promised I am now meeting with you to give my comment.
To be clear on the matter, I am issuing the following* statement in my
individual capacity.* It is not a statement for and on behalf of DLSU.

My Statement

The UAAP Board of Trustees meeting was held last Friday, April 21.
The discussion about the DLSU matter started at around 11:30 a.m..

The UAAP Fact Finding Committee report was discussed.* I am not at
liberty to furnish you with copies.* But suffice it to say that the report did not:

reach a conclusion as to who are the guilty parties;

specify charges against DLSU; and

provide for a recommendation to the UAAP Board of Trustees.

On or about 3:00 p.m., the UAAP President asked us (Mr. Daniel Jose
and I) to leave the meeting room so that the other board members can
decide and vote on the DLSU matter.

We requested for clarification on what will be voted upon.* We were informed
that the board will vote on possible sanctions to be imposed upon
DLSU.* We then asked if the sanctions include a possible suspension.

The reply was Yes.

But based on what charges?* We pointed out that charges have not been
filed against DLSU, not by any member university, not by the UAAP fact
finding Committee, nor by the UAAP Board of Trustees.

We further explained that due process must be observed.* Charges must first be
filed, then DLSU is given reasonable time to reply to the charges and
then and only then can a decision be rendered.* Sensing that some
seemed unconvinced, we gave the simple example of a game placed under
protest.* The member university against whom the protest was filed is
informed of the basis of the protest and is given reasonable time to
present its counter arguments.* It is only after these that a decision
is rendered.* We reiterated that due process must always be observed,
most specially in a very serious matter as a possible suspension.

We asked the Board's indulgence and read Section 9; Article II of the UAAP
Constitution and by-laws:

"Any member of the Association may file charges against a Member University by filing a written complaint with the President of the Association. The Board of Trustees shall call a special meeting of the Board to consider the charges. The affirmative vote of ¾ of all the Member Universities shall be necessary to suspend and expel a member."

(Underscoring ours)

We stressed that in addition to observing due process, the UAAP Board of Trustees must ensure that it is in strict compliance with and adherence to the UAAP Constitution and by-laws.* One board member remarked that we were being too technical. We assured the board that we were not, nor were we being too legalistic. We cited that it is the basic right of any person or institution to first be charged, be given the
opportunity to refute the charges before being subjected to judgment. Failure to observe
this will open the UAAP board to criticism and its decision may be questioned. Before leaving the meeting room, we sought to be assured that what will be
deliberated upon are the charges to be filed against DLSU, and that
the board will not yet vote on sanctions against DLSU.* One board
member confirmed that we will be given a list of charges consequent to
their deliberations.* Another board member added that the complaint or
charges will be in writing.* No board member said otherwise.* As we
left the meeting room at around 3:00 p.m., we remarked that we leave
the room premised on the foregoing.

Around 4:30 p.m., we were invited back to the meeting room.* Instead
of preparing and furnishing us with the list of charges (or a written
complaint), the UAAP Board summarily decided, declared DLSU guilty and
imposed the penalty of one year suspension covering all sporting
events.

Many will call this treachery.* I would rather focus the discussion on
the following points:

DLSU was denied due process.

The UAAP board's non compliance with and non adherence to the UAAP
Constitution and by-laws, specifically the provisions governing
suspensions.

Based on the foregoing, the UAAP decision raises a lot of questions.*
Why can it not wait?
Why can charges not first be filed?
Why can't DLSU be given the opportunity to face its accusers and refute the accusations?
Was there a predisposition to suspend DLSU?

It is not far fetched that the UAAP decision may be assailed
particularly its impartiality and even its validity.

__________________

Jose S. Tanjuatco

allblue
04-24-2006, 06:41 PM
I'm glad the UAAP Board has finally come to a decision.

Personally, I think the timeline provided by DLSU during their press conference provided the most telling evidence against them.

While DLSU voluntarily informed the Board about the ineligibility of Benitez, it is also important to note WHEN they informed the Board, which is 45 days after receiving confirmation from DECS that the documents were fake. Upon hearing from DECS, they could have immediately forfeited the games where Benitez played and then continued to play the season without him. But they chose to keep him on the team, fielding him until the very last game, even though they already had knowledge that he should not be there in the first place. Their decision at that critical point could have spelled the difference between a suspension and a stern reprimand.

gameface_one
04-25-2006, 07:47 AM
post deleted and moved to the PBL forum

gameface_one
04-25-2006, 07:49 AM
Ethics in sports
SPORTS FOR ALL By Philip Ella Juico
The Philippine Star 04/25/2006

The University Athletic Association of the Philippines (UAAP) Board suspended De La Salle University (DLSU) from all sports for one year last Friday. Negligence was cited as the main reason for the suspension.

DLSU had publicly revealed in October 2005 it had unknowingly fielded two ineligible players in 2004 when it won the UAAP basketball championship. The school then conducted its own investigation, returned the trophy it won and applied for a one-year leave of absence from basketball competitions.

The UAAP was headed towards punishing DLSU long before the decision was made. It became very obvious especially after the secretary general of the league and member of the investigating committee Dr. (or is it Atty.?) Ricardo Matibag of Adamson University was quoted to have said in an interview with the internationally regarded and multi-awarded Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) that, DLSU, unlike other schools had this attitude of "winning at all cost."

The said interview appeared in The STAR late last year. When I called up Matibag to confirm whether he uttered those disparaging and unethical remarks, Matibag denied having said them. He rejected my suggestion for him to call the attention of both the PCIJ and The STAR to the alleged oversight.

Matibag cavalierly said that to make the correction would just exacerbate matters. Apparently Matibag did not think much of the reputation of a school that, among other things, had been in existence for close to 100 years and was the first educational institution in the Philippines to receive a Level IV accreditation by the Philippine Accrediting Association of Schools, Colleges and Universities (PAASCU). PAASCU members include all the leading private educational institutions in the country.

Neither did it matter to Matibag that he was a member of the investigating committee and secretary general of the UAAP. It was necessary for him to maintain objectivity at all times and not create any impression of prejudging the case. The UAAP for its part neither corrected the alleged misquote nor did it publicly admonish Matibag. Why? Because they believed Matibag’s statement that PCIJ was in error. Given PCIJ’s track record (and, if you wish, Matibag’s), whom should one believe? Perhaps Matibag just wanted to reinforce the statement that "misery loves company." Adamson was suspended some years back albeit under very different (and damning) circumstances.

There are several losers in this whole episode. Two of these are justice and sportspersonship which are principles and qualities that sports, particularly collegiate sports, profess to uphold and develop.

In a press briefing yesterday afternoon, Jose Tanjuatco, one of two DLSU representatives to the UAAP Board detailed how justice was not served in the DLSU case.

Speaking in his personal capacity, Tanjuatco stated, among other things that the report of the UAAP Fact Finding Committee, which was discussed by the Board, did not: 1) reach a conclusion as to who are the guilty parties; 2) specify charges against DLSU; and 3) provide for a recommendation for the UAAP Board of Trustees.

When he and Daniel Jose (the other DLSU representative) were asked to leave the meeting room by the Board, Tanjuatco asked for clarification on what will be voted upon. He also reminded the Board of Section 9, Article II of the UAAP Constitution and by-laws: "Any member of the Board may file charges against a Member University by filing a written complaint. The Board of Trustees shall call a special meeting of the Board to consider the charges."

Before Tanjuatco left the room, he was assured that the Board would specify the charges so that DLSU would have the opportunity to defend itself. Instead of producing a formal complaint, the UAAP convicted DLSU.

That is a case of conviction without any hearing. It was also an act of treachery. It penalized truth-telling. The fact that DLSU so, to speak, turned itself in, did not matter at all.

Harsh and out of proportion, for the other DLSU teams and athletes had nothing to do with this act of "negligence." The various sports in which DLSU is the defending titlist (among them, ladies volleyball, badminton, soccer, lawn tennis; and men’s lawn tennis) will not have the number one team seeing action this coming season. The eventual winners will therefore get an empty affirmation of their talents and whatever they brought into the playing field since they won the championship with the help of off-court secret conference room meetings. The authentic tradition of sports requires that you win or lose in the playing arena and nowhere else.

Sportspersonship was another casualty. In his paper, "Ethical Dilemmas in American Sport," D. Stanley Eitzen refers to three cases of sportspersonship, one of which involved a basketball team in Alabama that won the state championship – the first ever for the school.

A month or so (after winning the championship), the coach found out that he had unknowingly used an ineligible player. No one else knew of the problem. Moreover, the player in question was in the game only a minute or two and had not scored. The coach notified the state high school authorities and, as a result, the only state championship in the school’s history was forfeited.

For DLSU, this is certainly a humbling but not a humiliating experience. The many innocent victims of this decision have stated that, as student-athletes, studying in DLSU is privilege enough. Membership in a champion team and wearing a DLSU team uniform are bonuses. So, let’s just move on, they say. There is no need therefore to appeal the decision to a biased Board. DLSU was, like Someone else, crucified for telling the truth but it will have its own resurrection in due time.

One insight gained from all these is that the UAAP Board acted unanimously for suspension because it wanted to present a united front: all for one and one for all. In terms however of the hierarchy of principles, what value do we assign to the universal and fundamental human value of fairness and respect for the rights of others?

While an institution like the UAAP is assumed to have a collective set of ideals, each member brings with him his own set of values that should influence his own way of deciding on great ethical issues that confront him. What role did these values play that Friday evening? Well, so much for being a role model for others.

oca
04-25-2006, 07:54 AM
DLSU admitted to using ineligible players.

The Board found them - the school - to be negligent.

As to who was guilty in the team, is irrelevant to the Board, as it is the responsiblity of the school to see to it the rules are complied with.

The UAAP is a school organization. It is not a team association.

Kung gusto malaman ni Tanjuatco kung sino ang dapat kasuhan sa team, mag-imbestiga sila - the school -ng kanila.

To the Board, negligence was established and that was enough.

gameface_one
04-25-2006, 07:57 AM
Tanjuatco: La Salle’s one-year suspension ‘unjust’
abs-cbnnews.com

By FRANK CALAPRE
The Manila Times Correspondent

The lawyer Jose S. Tanjuatco, De La Salle University’s representative to the University Association Athletic Association of the Philippines board, on Monday said the league’s decision to suspend the school for one year "was unjust."

"I am issuing the following statement in my individual capacity. It is not a statement for and on behalf of the DLSU," Tanjuatco said.

Tanjuatco said La Salle was denied due process and the UAAP board, headed by Rev. Fr. Max Rendon of Adamson University, did not comply with the league’s charter on provisions dealing with suspension.

He said the suspension was done without a formal complaint filed so the school could reply to the charges. He cited section 9, Article II of the UAAP constitution, which states: "Any member of the association may file charges against a member university by filing a written complaint with the President of the Association. The Board of Trustees shall call a special meeting of the Board to consider the charges," according to Tanjuatco.

"But suffice it to say that the report did not reach a conclusion as to who are the guilty parties and did not specify charges against DLSU," Tanjuatco, the brother of Philippine Olympic Committee legal counsel Igmidio Tanjuatco, said.

Tanjuatco said that before a decision can be rendered, charges must first be filed so that due process could be observed.

"We reiterated that due process must always be observed, most especially in a very serious matter as a possible suspension," he said.

oca
04-25-2006, 07:59 AM
I would like to see DLSU pursuing their case outside the UAAP and go to the courts.

My gut feel is, if this happens, another member will move for the expulsion of DLSU from the UAAP and ask for a vote.

5FootCarrot
04-25-2006, 09:26 AM
With apologies to Atty. Tanjuatco, but in my humble (and most probably technically unsound, as I neither a lawyer nor able to quote you chapter and verse of UAAP regulations) opinion, I think this is a special case to which Section 9, Article II is not completely applicable.

How can you follow the process outlined therein when La Salle itself came forward and admitted that it had fielded a couple of ineligibles over the past few years? This was not the garden-variety eligibility case Atty. Tanjuatco had in mind, with an accuser and an accused presumed innocent until proven guilty. La Salle admitted that they had violated UAAP rules, and as oca has already pointed out, that was all the Board needed as far as establishing guilt or whatever is concerned. With that part of the procedure already covered, then the Board was able to proceed with deciding on the matter.

Of course, La Salle is perfectly free to pursue this case outside the UAAP and go to the courts as I think their school administration threatened to do at that press conference several months ago. I don't think I will be watching that part of the drama that closely, though. The stage for Season 69 has already been set for the seven other member schools of the UAAP and I'm more inclined to focus on that instead.

EDIT: gameface_one, I think one of your PBL news articles was inadvertently posted in this thread. :)

gameface_one
04-25-2006, 09:36 AM
Thanks Carrot. I deleted and moved the post to the PBL forum already.

Good thing you are here in Gameface.ph. :)

Pano na kami kung wala ka? ;)

OR better yet:

Pano na SILA ngayong DITO ka na? :D

gameface_one
04-25-2006, 09:37 AM
^^^^^ Sorry for the OT.

atenean_blooded
04-25-2006, 09:51 AM
Statement from Jose S. Tanjuatco
DLSU Representative to the UAAP Board of Trustees

Introduction

Over the past few days, you have requested for my comments about the UAAP decision to suspend DLSU from all sporting events for a period of one year. As promised I am now meeting with you to give my comment. To be clear on the matter, I am issuing the following statement in my individual capacity. It is not a statement for and on behalf of DLSU.

Noted.



My Statement

The UAAP Board of Trustees meeting was held last Friday, April 21. The discussion about the DLSU matter started at around 11:30 a.m..

The UAAP Fact Finding Committee report was discussed. I am not at liberty to furnish you with copies. But suffice it to say that the report did not:

reach a conclusion as to who are the guilty parties;

specify charges against DLSU; and

provide for a recommendation to the UAAP Board of Trustees.

This is a matter of Tanjuatco's opinion. It will be good if we can see the report.

Paging PCIJ...

Note that Tanjuatco leaves out what the discussion is.



On or about 3:00 p.m., the UAAP President asked us (Mr. Daniel Jose and I) to leave the meeting room so that the other board members can decide and vote on the DLSU matter.

We requested for clarification on what will be voted upon. We were informed that the board will vote on possible sanctions to be imposed upon DLSU. We then asked if the sanctions include a possible suspension.

The reply was Yes.

But based on what charges? We pointed out that charges have not been filed against DLSU, not by any member university, not by the UAAP fact finding Committee, nor by the UAAP Board of Trustees.

Are charges necessary when La Salle did in fact say that it fielded ineligible players?



We further explained that due process must be observed. Charges must first be filed, then DLSU is given reasonable time to reply to the charges and then and only then can a decision be rendered. Sensing that some seemed unconvinced, we gave the simple example of a game placed under protest. The member university against whom the protest was filed is informed of the basis of the protest and is given reasonable time to present its counter arguments. It is only after these that a decision is rendered. We reiterated that due process must always be observed, most specially in a very serious matter as a possible suspension.

Facts:

- La Salle did say it fielded ineligible players.
- The report of the fact finding committee was discussed. I presume Tanjuatco and Jose could have made the necessary assertions and clarifications to the report during the discussion.



We asked the Board's indulgence and read Section 9; Article II of the UAAP
Constitution and by-laws:

"Any member of the Association may file charges against a Member University by filing a written complaint with the President of the Association. The Board of Trustees shall call a special meeting of the Board to consider the charges. The affirmative vote of ¾ of all the Member Universities shall be necessary to suspend and expel a member."

(Underscoring ours)

Note again that Tanjuatco here points to a technicality regarding the filing of charges. If you go by the first sentence, it is clear that anyone can file a complaint. However, we must remember the circumstances: La Salle said that it fielded ineligible players. It did so in writing. La Salle perhaps realized the possibility of suspension, and tried to mitigate the punishment with the proposed LOA, which is contrary to UAAP rules. Hence, the LOA was junked, and the board decided to act on the committee report. In the discussion of the report, La Salle could have made the necessary clarifications.



We stressed that in addition to observing due process, the UAAP Board of Trustees must ensure that it is in strict compliance with and adherence to the UAAP Constitution and by-laws. One board member remarked that we were being too technical. We assured the board that we were not, nor were we being too legalistic. We cited that it is the basic right of any person or institution to first be charged, be given the opportunity to refute the charges before being subjected to judgment. Failure to observe this will open the UAAP board to criticism and its decision may be questioned. Before leaving the meeting room, we sought to be assured that what will be deliberated upon are the charges to be filed against DLSU, and that the board will not yet vote on sanctions against DLSU. One board
member confirmed that we will be given a list of charges consequent to their deliberations. Another board member added that the complaint or charges will be in writing. No board member said otherwise. As we left the meeting room at around 3:00 p.m., we remarked that we leave the room premised on the foregoing.

The by-laws cited are not clear with regard to self-incrimination. The charge is unnecessary since La Salle admitted to fielding ineligible players, and that the matter submitted to the OSD by the office of the Registrar was something that was not urgent (this coming from their own written statement dated 26 October). The UAAP committee had its written report. La Salle could have clarified, but did not.

The premise is misplaced. The alleged remark by the board member was unnecessary.



Around 4:30 p.m., we were invited back to the meeting room. Instead of preparing and furnishing us with the list of charges (or a written complaint), the UAAP Board summarily decided, declared DLSU guilty and imposed the penalty of one year suspension covering all sporting events.

The decision was reached with sufficient basis, at least in my opinion. The written statements and committee report were there.



Many will call this treachery. I would rather focus the discussion on the following points:

Many will call this treachery?

The representatives of all other member universities unanimously voted for the suspension. 7 vs 1. If 1 is many, I wonder what 7 is.



DLSU was denied due process.

No. The process was sound. It did not result in La Salle's favor, unfortunately for Tanjuatco and co.



The UAAP board's non compliance with and non adherence to the UAAP Constitution and by-laws, specifically the provisions governing suspensions.

No. Please examine what negligence is.



Based on the foregoing, the UAAP decision raises a lot of questions.
Why can it not wait?

The decision has been long overdue. After so many members of the UAAP community, especially those from La Salle (particularly, those concerned with the operations of the varsity teams which were said to have been impaired by the long wait for the decision) were clamoring for a decision, you suddenly ask why the decision cannot wait? The decision cannot wait because the longer it took, the longer La Salle was at a disadvantage in terms of the operations of its varsity program.


Why can charges not first be filed?

In my opinion, charges are unnecessary. La Salle admitted to fielding ineligible players. There was an investigation.


Why can't DLSU be given the opportunity to face its accusers and refute the accusations?

Tanjuatco and Jose could have made necessary clarifications. Furthermore, La Salle had issued a statement already.


Was there a predisposition to suspend DLSU?

This is a desperate, defensive, and wholly inappropriate remark. It reeks of bitterness at the decision, which was upheld by 7 schools for the benefit of the league.


It is not far fetched that the UAAP decision may be assailed particularly its impartiality and even its validity.

__________________

Jose S. Tanjuatco



Then assail the decision by appealing it. Note that the decision to suspend was unanimous.


As an observer, I think that this piece was written (or written for) one of the individuals who is going to inform the DLSU Board of Trustees and Br. Armin Luistro FSC of the situation and recommend some sort of action. Note that some observers have already said that an appeal is unlikely to succeed, and others have even said that it is unlikely that an appeal will be made. This statement could have been crafted to sway the BOT to take a stand toward an appeal, or worse, to push La Salle into waging a legal battle against the UAAP.

Fried Green Tomato
04-25-2006, 10:45 AM
La Salle, from the beginning, admitted fielding ineligible players and there's no contention on that premise.

However, even with such admission, the uaap board (or the committee it formed for this case) must be able to come up with justifiable reason for the sanction it imposed on us. A committee was formed exactly to investigate and to look beyond the known circumstances... and in a way, to tie-up everything, built a solid case and foundation for the recommendation they would eventually give to the board. Even if there was an admission, the committee should look into the circumstances. into the culpability and into the extent of the crime. And since from the very start suspension was being groomed as the possibile sanction, they should make sure that all the pieces of evidence must conform to the violation they should cite. And according to the uaap rules, complicity is one valid reason for a school to be suspended. However, the committee did not cite us for complicity... But negligence. Where in the uaap rules it says that it does merit such sanction?

In any court (be it a legal court or in any association/group with the power to impose sanction) that follows the rule of law, the sanction must always conform to what the law prescribes.

The uaap board miserably failed to distinguish even its own rules. The sanction imposed was not in accordance to what the uaap rules say.

atenean_blooded
04-25-2006, 10:50 AM
La Salle, from the beginning, admitted fielding ineligible players and there's no contention on that premise.

However, even with such admission, the uaap board (or the committee it formed for this case) must be able to come up with justifiable reason for the sanction it imposed on us. A committee was formed exactly to investigate and to look beyond the known circumstances... and in a way, to tie-up everything, built a solid case and foundation for the recommendation they would eventually give to the board. Even if there was an admission, the committee should look into the circumstances. into the culpability and into the extent of the crime. And since from the very start suspension was being groomed as the possibile sanction, they should make sure that all the pieces of evidence must conform to the violation they should cite. And according to the uaap rules, complicity is one valid reason for a school to be suspended. However, the committee did not cite us for complicity... But negligence. Where in the uaap rules it says that it does merit such sanction?

In any court (be it a legal court or in any association/group with the power to impose sanction) that follows the rule of law, the sanction must always conform to what the law prescribes.

The uaap board miserably failed to distinguish even its own rules. The sanction imposed was not in accordance to what the uaap rules say.


Please ask a lawyer what negligence is.

And I think most of our issues here will not be settled unless the board makes its findings public.

Fried Green Tomato
04-25-2006, 10:58 AM
There's no need to ask a lawyer, you just need to look into the uaap rules and see what's the corresponding sanction for negligence... it's that simple. And since it was the uaap board that imposed such sanction, its act is covered under the uaap rules.

allblue
04-25-2006, 11:31 AM
La Salle DID NOT from the beginning admit to the ineligibility of the 2 players. They sat on that very important information until the season was over. And telling us that the matter lacked urgency only brings to focus the sense of priorities of those running their basketball program. That to me is not only negligent, it is malicious. They had the option to do the right thing at the right time and didn't take it.

atenean_blooded
04-25-2006, 04:39 PM
There's no need to ask a lawyer, you just need to look into the uaap rules and see what's the corresponding sanction for negligence... it's that simple. And since it was the uaap board that imposed such sanction, its act is covered under the uaap rules.


If there was a simple, corresponding punishment for negligence, it would have been brought up months ago, and the board would have cited that already.Thing is, there is none, at least as far as we are concerned.

Ask any lawyer what negligence is, and that will help clarify why the suspension was handed down.

Fried Green Tomato
04-25-2006, 07:12 PM
You can't just render a decision without investigating the case. And for that purporse, the uaap board formed a committee exactly to investigate the case but it took them 6 months and they could only come up with a negligence violation on our part. For sure they would love to charge us with complicity but no evidence would back it up so the lame result was just negligence. Did the committee recommend suspension? Nope because they know very well that the offense they recommended does not qualify for such punishment. The committee knew that the punishment for negligence is only forfeiture of games. However, the uaap board, just like before, cast it aside and pursued the suspension punishment. As to where they got such notion? The board already had a specific punishment in mind even before the committee could come up with a report. The committee report would have been a good basis for their conclusion but it did not rise to their expectation. Nevertheless, with or without basis, the board pursued with its own preconceived violation. Nevermind if there was no due process or adherance to their own rules, in the end, they have the numbers.

As i've said, there is no need to ask lawyers. Under the uaap, everything within its jurisdiction is bound by its own rules - the uaap rules. Everything they do must conform within the rules they have set and under the uaap rules, negligence has no corresponding punishment of suspension. Limit your scope within the framework of the uaap - by its rules - after all, the case was under uaap jurisdiction and not in any other court.

atenean_blooded
04-25-2006, 11:32 PM
You can't just render a decision without investigating the case. And for that purporse, the uaap board formed a committee exactly to investigate the case but it took them 6 months and they could only come up with a negligence violation on our part. For sure they would love to charge us with complicity but no evidence would back it up so the lame result was just negligence.

"Only" negligence?

Negligence is a serious matter. I suggest you ask a lawyer.



Did the committee recommend suspension? Nope because they know very well that the offense they recommended does not qualify for such punishment. The committee knew that the punishment for negligence is only forfeiture of games.

Are you absolutely sure that the committee did not recommend suspension? Note that the report itself has not been released to the public, and we are left with the unreliable testimony of Lito Tanjuatco.

Are you also absolutely sure that the punishment for negligence is only forfeiture of games? Perhaps you can cite the exact provision in the UAAP's constitution and by-laws. Better yet, furnish us a copy of the constitution and by-laws.

You earlier said that it is for the fielding of ineligible players that the punishment is supposedly limited to the forfeiture of games. Fielding of ineligible players, per se, is different from the negligence which La Salle is guilty of. In fact, it is this negligence which led to the fielding of ineligible players. It is also negligence which led to the "apparent lack of urgency" and the much-delayed La Salle OSD response to the promptings of La Salle's own Registrar.



However, the uaap board, just like before, cast it aside and pursued the suspension punishment. As to where they got such notion? The board already had a specific punishment in mind even before the committee could come up with a report. The committee report would have been a good basis for their conclusion but it did not rise to their expectation. Nevertheless, with or without basis, the board pursued with its own preconceived violation. Nevermind if there was no due process or adherance to their own rules, in the end, they have the numbers.

This is illogical. You cannot prove that the board had already connived to suspend La Salle before the investigation. If it really were so, the suspension could have been meted out earlier on, and perhaps on an even larger scale. This baseless accusation is only characteristic of one who is not favored by the end result.

The numbers are quite telling. 7-0. The board has safeguarded the interests of the rest of the league.


As i've said, there is no need to ask lawyers. Under the uaap, everything within its jurisdiction is bound by its own rules - the uaap rules. Everything they do must conform within the rules they have set and under the uaap rules, negligence has no corresponding punishment of suspension. Limit your scope within the framework of the uaap - by its rules - after all, the case was under uaap jurisdiction and not in any other court.

Asking a lawyer is useful, because once the legal definition of negligence is settled (unless, of course, you are privy to some UAAP equivalent of jurisprudence or whatnot which defines "negligence" UAAP-style), and its implications known, then perhaps the suspension becomes clearer. Lawyers are useful, because they are also able to frame the decisions and responses and statements in manners that are legally sound. This is why the UAAP had its legal counsel with it.

That "there is no need" to ask lawyers is to concede to ambiguous definitions which can be spun one way or the other. This leads to myopic discussion.

If there is no need to ask lawyers because this is within the jurisdiction of the league only, then you perhaps realize that it is a ridiculous, in fact very anti-UAAP move for La Salle to take this issue to court. This is, after all, an internal affair. Any La Salle hostility to the UAAP in a legal manner only gives the league reason to expel La Salle, which is something that I do not think quite a lot of people would like.

Fried Green Tomato
04-26-2006, 02:39 AM
As i've said, limit your scope to the definition of negligence as far as the uaap rules are concerned since the case is primarily within its jurisdiction.

Pls ask your uaap representative if the committee recommended suspension for your enlightenment.

Again, ask your uaap representative on the sentiments of the different board members even when the committee was still investigating the case. Even at that stage, suspension was already in the minds of the different board members. If you honestly believe that the uaap board had an open mind in making a decision for this case and if you honestly believe they would come to a fair conclusion then i would not insist for you to believe what i've stated before. But the fact remains that the uaap board did not practice due process and they rendered a decision not based on its own uaap rules is too glaring not to be seen... the only thing illogical is when one chooses not to see the mistakes committed by the uaap board (not just in this case but in so many instances).

Ask a lawyer? Lawyers could give you a thousand and one interpretation of the same word. They could twist, turn, spin and even make a simple matter into a complicated problem - It's a gift if not an inherent talent that lawyers have.

But negligence as far as the uaap rules is concerned is simple and easy to understand. You don't need a lawyer to get the gist of its meaning. Even a layman would easily understand the content and the spirit of its meaning.

admu_addict
04-26-2006, 05:41 AM
yun naman pala eh

the fact that you sat on the case for almost 4 months does not simply constitute just negligence, but GROSS NEGLIGENCE. was the matter not serious enough that action was not taken immediately? even discreet actions, like benching martinez and putting a spin on it (he was playing badly), that's what you guys are good at naman dba? blind spin doctors....

admu_addict
04-26-2006, 05:41 AM
SUSPENSION AFTERMATH
La Salle mulling 2 options

First posted 00:36am (Mla time) April 26, 2006
By Jasmine W. Payo
Inquirer

Editor's Note: Published on page A28 of the April 26, 2006 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer

SLAPPED with a one-year suspension from all University Athletics Association of the Philippines (UAAP) sports due to an eligibility controversy, De La Salle University is now contemplating on two opposing moves.

“There are two extremes: One is acceptance of the decision and the other is legal action,” said Lito Tanjuatco, a member of La Salle’s boards of trustees and regents, before yesterday’s meeting presided over by president Bro. Armin Luistro, FSC.

“The only advice I’m giving right now to the university is that we must formulate what has to be done. We need legal inputs because it’s very complicated.”

Tanjuatco said the university hasn’t ruled out either of the two options. He had hinted last year that the university may take the case to the court, while some alumni groups have reportedly requested the school to simply accept the decision.

“I’m not being evasive, but right now I don’t know (what the decision will be),” said Tanjuatco. “There are many matters to consider. But what we’ll be guided upon is to preserve the integrity of DLSU.”

La Salle’s marketing communication office head Malou Caluma said the school will issue a statement as soon as officials reach a decision.

The UAAP had unanimously voted Friday to suspend La Salle for one year, saying that it was through the school’s negligence that Mark Benitez and Tim Gatchalian gained entry into the Archers team that won the 2004 varsity championship.

Benitez and Gatchalian had submitted fake certificates of their Philippine Educational Placement Test, an exam taken in lieu of a high school diploma.

http://news.inq7.net/sports/index.php?index=1&story_id=73754

De La Salle mulls move on UAAP ban

The Philippine Star 04/26/2006

Whether De La Salle would accept the UAAP verdict or seek redress from the court will be known today when the school issues an official statement regarding its plan of action in the aftermath of the one-year suspension slapped by the league.

But any decision De La Salle will make, a source said, would anchor on preserving the integrity of the school.

Malou Caluma, head of La Salle’s Marketing and Communications Office, said they might issue an official statement today.

Top officials of the school met yesterday to discuss what action to take after it was barred from participating in all sports in the upcoming season of the UAAP.

"Most likely directions will already be set," said La Salle’s UAAP board representative Lito Tanjuatco. "But there are two extremes, one is acceptance of the decision and the other is legal action."

"There are many matters to consider. But what will be guided upon is to preserve the integrity of DLSU," he added.

Bro. Armin Luistro, La Salle System president, heads the 15-man board of trustees where Tanjuatco is also a member.

Tanjuatco said he’s not sure if La Salle would appeal the decision or not.

" I really don’t know," Tanjuatco said. "The only advice I’m giving right now to the university is that we must formulate what has to be done. We need legal inputs because it’s very complicated."

A possible legal action was first broached by Luistro himself when La Salle admitted late last year that it unknowingly fielded in two players — Mark Benitez and Tim Gatchalian — with fake admission documents during the 2004-2005 seasons. — Joey Villar

http://www.philstar.com/philstar/NEWS200604261602.htm

gameface_one
04-26-2006, 08:39 AM
‘UAAP won’t change its mind on suspension’
abs-cbnnews.com


By JOEL ORELLANA, The Manila Times Reporter

Nothing would change the mind of the University Athletic Association of the Philippines Board.

Dr. Ricardo Matibag of Adamson University, the league’s spokesperson, said this on Tuesday, as he was unfazed by the statements of De La Salle University board representative Lito Tanjuatco to the media on Monday in the aftermath of the UAAP’s decision to suspend the school for one year in all sports beginning next season.

La Salle is being suspended after it admitted it used two men’s basketball players, Mark Benitez and Tim Gatchalian, who turned out to be ineligible to play because they had used forged documents to enroll with the rich Taft Avenue University.

"[Tanjuatco is] entitled to his personal opinion. But the board has rendered already its decision," Matibag, member of the investigating committee created by the UAAP to probe the Green Archers’ eligibility case, told Sports Times through a text message.

Another UAAP board member, who requested anonymity, also told Sports Times that Tanjuatco’s statements would not matter anymore, as history will tell that no UAAP decision has been reversed or overturned by any appeal.

"As far as I can remember, wala pang nagyayaring ganoon [nothing like that has happened]. That’s why I guess the one-year suspension on La Salle will stick," the Times source said.

Tanjuatco, one of La Salle’s two representatives to the board, sent a two-page statement to the press on Monday, saying the board was "unjust" in handing out the decision. He said no charges were filed against La Salle, and the school was not given time to defend itself.

Tanjuatco added that the board violated Section 9, Article II of the UAAP Constitutions and bylaws, which says that any UAAP member may file charges against a fellow member university by filing a written complaint with the league president.

The UAAP Board of Trustees would then call a special meeting to consider the charges, and an affirmative vote of three-fourths of all league members, or six universities, is necessary to suspend and expel a member.

As of Tuesday night, La Salle’s own Board of Trustees was holding a meeting to decide whether or not to appeal the one-year ban the league voted unanimously to implement on April 21.

According to Fr. Maximino Rendon CM of host Adamson University, any member school is entitled to appeal to the board.

A source told Sports Times that La Salle is carefully studying its next move, with all and the school’s top officials and board members—minus vice president Dr. Carmelita Quebengco, who is currently in Rome—convened to discuss the suspension.

La Salle received the UAAP decision Monday morning banning them in all sports next season, after the board found the school was negligent in allowing the eligibility controversy involving Benitez and Gatchalian to happen.

The UAAP Board, meanwhile, will convene anytime this week mainly to discuss the turnover chores to University of the East.

oca
04-26-2006, 08:48 AM
I hope DLSU does not bring the issue out of the UAAP and file a case in court.

If that happens my "gut feel" is a member will move for the expulsion of DLSU and ask that it be put to vote.

Though I doubt if the majority will actually vote for an expulsion, but to have this even mentioned in a Board meeting would demonstrate even more just how much animosity and bad blood there is among UAAP members.

LION
04-26-2006, 09:23 AM
^ Based on the AP.com posts, they think that DLSU is bigger than the UAAP. Very sad indeed. Some of the posters even discussed the matter of "ethics".

I wonder how DLSU's sister school, CSB, is taking it everytime the posters in AP.com would threaten to leave the UAAP and take the place of CSB in the NCAA. They are saying it as if it is their birth right, as if they can just kick out CSB anytime they decide to re-join the NCAA, and that the NCAA could do nothing but to accept them back.

Heck, they also think that they are bigger than the NCAA.

atenean_blooded
04-26-2006, 10:33 AM
As i've said, limit your scope to the definition of negligence as far as the uaap rules are concerned since the case is primarily within its jurisdiction.

What then, is the UAAP's definition of negligence, and what is the exact punishment for the same? Please cite the exact rule.

Negligence has legal implications.


Pls ask your uaap representative if the committee recommended suspension for your enlightenment.

Will do.


Again, ask your uaap representative on the sentiments of the different board members even when the committee was still investigating the case. Even at that stage, suspension was already in the minds of the different board members. If you honestly believe that the uaap board had an open mind in making a decision for this case and if you honestly believe they would come to a fair conclusion then i would not insist for you to believe what i've stated before. But the fact remains that the uaap board did not practice due process and they rendered a decision not based on its own uaap rules is too glaring not to be seen... the only thing illogical is when one chooses not to see the mistakes committed by the uaap board (not just in this case but in so many instances).

What is illogical is to presuppose malice on the UAAP board's part.

Suspension was probably on the minds of the individual board members--after all, suspension was a possible (in my opinion, the most righteous) option. In the end, the board decided accordingly: La Salle was negligent, and as a result of this negligence, fielded ineligible players, and was again negligent even when served notice by DepEd.

Suspension was the right decision. I believe that I've made my sentiments for this known in one of the first few posts to this thread. You are free to examine and spin.


Ask a lawyer? Lawyers could give you a thousand and one interpretation of the same word. They could twist, turn, spin and even make a simple matter into a complicated problem - It's a gift if not an inherent talent that lawyers have.

This is an illogical, throwaway comment.

The legal definition of negligence will shed more light on the matter.


But negligence as far as the uaap rules is concerned is simple and easy to understand. You don't need a lawyer to get the gist of its meaning. Even a layman would easily understand the content and the spirit of its meaning.

I'll wager that it was the UAAP's legal counsel that defined negligence for the board when it made its decision. It is because it is only through a sound, legal definition that all parties will be able to approach this matter.

john_paul_manahan
04-26-2006, 10:04 PM
i used some of the arguments here and posted it in another forum re: this issue.

para hindi plagiarism...

gameface_one
04-27-2006, 12:06 AM
‘UE won’t move unless La Salle issue resolved’
abs-cbnnews.com


By JOEL ORELLANA
The Manila Times Reporter


University of the East's hosting of the University Athletic Association of the Philippines (UAAP) next season now lies on what De La Salle University will tell the media Thursday in a press conference.

At 10 a.m. on the Taft campus in Manila, La Salle will announce its decision regarding the one-year suspension the league slapped on it for fielding two ineligible men’s basketball players.

Brother Armin Luistro FSC, the DLSU System president, is expected to lead the school’s announcement on what action it will take after the UAAP board ruled to ban the Green Archers in all sports in the coming 69th season.

Reports have it that La Salle is mulling two possible actions in response to the league decision—either accept the suspension or take legal action against the UAAP.

Malou Caluma, La Salle’s spokesperson, confirmed to Sports Times that Luistro will attend the event along with UAAP board representatives Lito Tanjuatco and Danny Jose.

Curiously awaiting the La Salle announcement are officials from UE, the host school of UAAP Season 69.

Luz Santa Ana, the incoming league president, said UE won’t accept the hosting if the La Salle issue has not been resolved.

"We can’t start the preparations if the issue has not been resolved," said Santa Ana. "Sana, hindi mangyari sa amin ito [I hope this doesn’t happen to us]."

The UAAP Board scheduled a meeting this Friday to formally turn over the hosting chores from Adamson University to UE, but it was cancelled and will resume next month.

UE’s preparation would be easier if La Salle decides to accept the one-game suspension imposed by the UAAP last April 21.

But if the school opts to bring the case to the court, a long legal battle will ensue between the two parties, and worse, it will jeopardize UE’s groundwork for the hosting.

In La Salle’s press conference about the scandal involving Mark Benitez and Tim Gatchalian last year at the Hyatt Hotel, Luistro told reporters that if the school was suspended for what the UAAP said was its "negligence," the Archers will then "fight it up to the Supreme Court."

Curiously, that was the league’s point of reference in suspending La Salle, as the UAAP board said the school was informed of Benitez and Gatchalian’s spurious enrollment papers as early as August 18, 2005, but acted on it only a month later by coming out publicly.

atenean_blooded
04-27-2006, 12:37 AM
Translation:

Any attempt by La Salle to take this issue to court will only be a demonstration of adversity to the board, which has unanimously decided for the benefit of the league.

Fried Green Tomato
04-27-2006, 04:36 AM
Let me stand corrected on the statement i made regarding negligence has only a corresponding sanction of forfeiture of games. Such statement is incorrect. Fielding an ineligible player has the sanction of forfeiture of games.

As for negligence... the past and present uaap rule (as they have been revised every year) is silent on the corresponsing sanction to be imposed for this violation. What is more disturbing is that in the uaap rules (past & present), the rule book is silent about its definition. Even in the section where suspension and/or expulsion of a school is included, they haves not specified the violations that a school must commit for this sanction to come effect.

As written in the papers today, La Salle will hold a press conference at around 10am in La Salle Taft.

Basically, we are going to emphasize the following points:

- What is the uaap's defintion of negligence? Not the legal defintion but uaap's definition.

- Why was La Salle not given due process?

- What are the charges?

As to whether La Salle will pursue the case in another front, that we shall have to see.

I'm going to reserve my comments after the press conference as what i talk now and until the press conference serves no use at all.

admu_addict
04-27-2006, 05:40 AM
is there any other definition of negligence?

just looking at the significant time gap between the receipt of notice from the DepEd and the action or (non-action) taken shows how negligent DLSU was.

how much different is a sin of commission from the sin of ommission?

oca
04-27-2006, 08:58 AM
Let me stand corrected on the statement i made regarding negligence has only a corresponding sanction of forfeiture of games. Such statement is incorrect. Fielding an ineligible player has the sanction of forfeiture of games.

As for negligence... the past and present uaap rule (as they have been revised every year) is silent on the corresponsing sanction to be imposed for this violation. What is more disturbing is that in the uaap rules (past & present), the rule book is silent about its definition. Even in the section where suspension and/or expulsion of a school is included, they haves not specified the violations that a school must commit for this sanction to come effect.

As written in the papers today, La Salle will hold a press conference at around 10am in La Salle Taft.

Basically, we are going to emphasize the following points:

- What is the uaap's defintion of negligence? Not the legal defintion but uaap's definition.

- Why was La Salle not given due process?

- What are the charges?

As to whether La Salle will pursue the case in another front, that we shall have to see.

I'm going to reserve my comments after the press conference as what i talk now and until the press conference serves no use at all.


Should there be a prior definition of negligence in the rule book before it can be addressed accordingly?

If that will be the case, then anyone can commit any act contrary to common sense of goodwill and make the defense* - "That is not violative of any provision in the rule book."

Should a sanction be stipulated, beforehand, to make it applicable to a specific violation?

Then, anyone can commit any misdemeanor and make the defense - "The rule book does not say anything about suspension as a possible penalty."

WE ALL MUST BEAR IN MIND, in any organization, every member is expected to take due diligence in the excercise of its functions. The same diligence expected of a good father..as one saying goes.

Negligence is not a simple misdemeanor.

Kung naging pabaya ka, pagdusahan mo.

Naging labis pa ang parusa? That is subjective, or should I say - relative.

But the FACT is, "Hindi ka dapat magdusa, kung di ka naging pabaya."

If still DLSU invokes provisions or the absence of provisions in the rule book to appeal its case, and state further that the UAAP should be governed by laws (rule book) and not by men (the UAAP Board), then they should be reminded that the basic and overriding principle in any organization is - majority rules.

Suspension was a UNANIMOUS vote.

One year was a 3/4 MAJORITY.

How could they question the wisdom of the very same Board governing the organization to w/c it belongs?

Alam niyo sabi ng matatanda..."Kung ayaw mo patakaran sa bahay ko, lumayas ka!"

oca
04-27-2006, 09:10 AM
i used some of the arguments here and posted it in another forum re: this issue.

para hindi plagiarism...


At PEX, in the first week after DLSU's admission, I was first to mention the phrase "acts of commission" and "acts of ommission" relative to the issue.

I was quoting a respectable figure in the basketball community when I made that post.

Then just before the Board came out with its decision, I repeated the same phrase on acts of commissions / ommissions and added "...DLSU will be found guilty of negligence".

True enough, negligence was the term the Board used to sum up its findings.

Hindi sa binibida ko ang sarili ko. Infact those posts were a result of my conversations with people who had no interest at stake but knowledgable.

If we can for one moment divest our minds and ourselves of any interest, we will be able to make some sensible statements.

DLSU supporters should talk to people outside of their community. Kung sila-sila rin lang ang mag-uusap, natural apektado sila, so how can they come up with some thing that is not self-serving.

LION
04-27-2006, 10:10 AM
^ Totally agree. DLSU people are so out of touch with reality. They think that the whole word is conspiring against them. Conspiracy theorists?

I think that this suspension can be put to good use if they do some soul searching and reflect on what collegiate sports is all about.

Kid Cubao
04-27-2006, 11:05 AM
i think deep inside they have already accepted the consequences of the verdict. all this talk of taking the matter to court is plain saber-rattling. perhaps they are mulling how they can get back into championship contention under a different set-up. everything will depend on the special announcement by bro armin and the DLSU hierarchy scheduled today. abangan.

atenean_blooded
04-27-2006, 11:38 AM
Let me stand corrected on the statement i made regarding negligence has only a corresponding sanction of forfeiture of games. Such statement is incorrect. Fielding an ineligible player has the sanction of forfeiture of games.

Noted.



As for negligence... the past and present uaap rule (as they have been revised every year) is silent on the corresponsing sanction to be imposed for this violation. What is more disturbing is that in the uaap rules (past & present), the rule book is silent about its definition. Even in the section where suspension and/or expulsion of a school is included, they haves not specified the violations that a school must commit for this sanction to come effect.

Are you sure they have been revised every year? I was told that the 2002 rules still hold, but had new rules (such as the drum limit rule, etc.) added.

Note that there is one provision in the rules that is not silent on negligence:

"The eligibility of an athlete may no longer be questioned twenty-four (24) hours before the start of the second round, except in cases where there has been negligence on the part of the Member University as determined by the board."

Note that in La Salle's case, there is no questio about the ineligibility of players, since La Salle admitted to fielding them. Negligence has been determined.

Also, note Article IX, Section 2 of the UAAP Constitution says,

"Any member of the Association may file charges against a Member University by filing a written complaint with the President of the Association. The Board of Trustees shall call a special meeting of the Board to consider the charges. The affirmative vote of 3/4 of all of the Member Universities shall be necessary to suspend and expel a member."

The requirements of this provision have been met. La Salle implicated itself, therefore there is no need for the charges. The Board has met, investigated, and has rendered, by unanimous decision, the morally upright, just, and righteous verdict.



As written in the papers today, La Salle will hold a press conference at around 10am in La Salle Taft.

Basically, we are going to emphasize the following points:

- What is the uaap's defintion of negligence? Not the legal defintion but uaap's definition.

- Why was La Salle not given due process?

- What are the charges?

As to whether La Salle will pursue the case in another front, that we shall have to see.

I'm going to reserve my comments after the press conference as what i talk now and until the press conference serves no use at all.


This should be interesting.

atenean_blooded
04-27-2006, 05:20 PM
I hope the people who came up with the La Salle press statement, as well as Br. Armin read this:

http://www.ched.gov.ph/policies/Digitized%20CMOs/CMO%202003/CMO%2015%20S.%202003.pdf


Please take note of the signatory.

admu_addict
04-28-2006, 05:36 AM
La Salle: Suspension 'excessively punitive'

First posted 01:58am (Mla time) April 28, 2006
By Jasmine W. Payo
Inquirer

Editor's Note: Published on page A29 of the April 28, 2006 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer

CALLING the University Athletics Association of the Philippines (UAAP) decision “vague” and "excessively punitive," De La Salle University yesterday protested against the severity of the one-year penalty the league's board imposed on the school for fielding two ineligible players in the men's basketball tournament.

"This sanction is grossly disproportionate to the negligence -- if that were so -- of DLSU," said school president Bro. Armin Luistro, FSC, in a press conference yesterday at the North Conservatory on the La Salle campus in Manila.

The UAAP board, in a unanimous verdict, imposed the one-year ban from all league sports on La Salle, saying it was through the school's negligence that Archers Mark Benitez and Tim Gatchalian gained entry into the team despite holding spurious academic records.

"We believe that the decision to suspend DLSU in all sporting events is excessively punitive," said Bro. Edmundo Fernandez, FSC, head of the De La Salle brothers.

La Salle has already sent a letter to UAAP president Fr. Max Rendon, CM, seeking clarification of the league's decision.

"The decision of the board raises more questions than it provides answers," said Fernandez.

"We want to get a better understanding of what the judgment of the UAAP is," added Joaquin Quintos, chair of La Salle's board of trustees. "Upon hearing the response of the UAAP, the La Sallian family will make a decision."

Luistro said La Salle is still considering several options, ranging from filing an appeal to taking the case to the courts to pulling out of the league.

"All our options are open," said Luistro. "It's difficult to bring to court a statement or a letter which, from the very beginning, is vague. Bolting from the UAAP is also among the options."

School officials pointed out that the UAAP board disregarded the pertinent documents and interviews La Salle submitted "to prove that there was no complicity in the anomaly."

oca
04-28-2006, 08:29 AM
I hope the people who came up with the La Salle press statement, as well as Br. Armin read this:

http://www.ched.gov.ph/policies/Digitized%20CMOs/CMO%202003/CMO%2015%20S.%202003.pdf


Please take note of the signatory.


If as early as July 2003, the CHED has issued a Memo on this spurious certificates, and yet DLSU didn't excercise due diligence in verifying said certificates in their file or being presented by incoming students, that aggravates even more the NEGLIGENCE cited by the Board.

Kahit sino pa ang pumirma sa Memo, the content of the Memo matters more. But yes, the signatory just made the case worse for DLSU.

Agent 008
04-28-2006, 12:47 PM
As someone in one of the previous post said, it appears that La Salle has actually accepted the verdict. "Then why all these theats of pulling out of the league?", many continue to ask. Quite simply..it is trying to SAVE FACE. All these press releases and calculated grandstandings are necessary to preserve whatever credibility the school has left to whoever will listen and/or believe. My take is just let them spin their wheels on this matter. It is something they have to do. They have no choice. And we also have no choice but to listen to their spin doctors. Bottom line is a unanimous decision has already been given. If I were one of them, I might as well already start with the grieving process so I can move on to the productive process of learning from all this.

gameface_one
04-29-2006, 08:29 AM
New board to tackle all DLSU issues
By Joey Villar
The Philippine Star 04/29/2006

University of the East officially accepted yesterday the hosting of the 69th UAAP season from Adamson even as the new board vowed to answer all the questions raised by De La Salle on its suspension.

Luz Sta. Ana assumed the UAAP presidency left by Fr. Max Rendon, OP, of Adamson in a simple oathtaking ceremony at the Casino Espanol in Manila that officially jumpstarted preparations for the next season delayed by the ineligibility scandal involving De La Salle.

But Sta. Ana refused to comment on the case, saying that the Recto-based school’s focus right now is on their preparation for the upcoming season where La Salle is barred from participating in all sports.

"Our focus right now is to have a successful UAAP this season," said Sta. Ana, who was also president when UE last hosted the UAAP in 1998. "Hopefully, nothing as big as this (La Salle issue) will happen in our time."

"We’re finished here, you can ask them (UE) questions regarding the league from now on," said a relieved Ric Matibag, the secretary-treasurer of the UAAP last season.

Designated board spokesman Anton Montinola of Far Eastern U said they would answer all the questions raised by La Salle point by point.

"We appreciated what they (La Salle) are trying to explain and we’re willing to explain what needs to be explained regarding the negligence that occurred," said Montinola.

He also said that the possibility of a legal action or a pullout by the Taft-based school remains an option for the school "but I don’t think they’ll do that."

Last Thursday, La Salle sent the UAAP board a letter asking for clarification on its suspension, which the school described as "vague and arbitrary."

La Salle System president Bro. Armin Luistro, backed by the entire La Salle community, also questioned the wisdom of suspending the athletes from other sports who were not involved in the scandal.

Luistro also broached the idea of taking the case up to the Supreme Court, or, a possible pullout by La Salle from the UAAP.

"Those are our options," said Luistro.

Season 69 unfolds on July 8 at the Araneta Coliseum and ends Sept. 24. Majority of the games will be played at the Ninoy Aquino Stadium.

gameface_one
04-29-2006, 08:29 AM
‘UAAP can clarify ban on Archers’
abs-cbnnews.com

University of the East distanced itself from the University Athletics Association of the Philippines’ eligibility scandal involving De La Salle University on Friday as Adamson University formally turned over the hosting chores for next season to UE.

Incoming UAAP Board president Luz Santa Ana of UE refused to comment on the letter sent by La Salle to the board asking for clarification on the one-year ban imposed on them.

"As far as the La Salle issue is concerned, I have no comment for the meantime. I don’t know what will be the next step to be taken by the board," Sta. Ana said on Friday in the board meeting at Casino Español in Kalaw, Manila.

"We’re already running late in our preparations [for next season], and we have only two months to do that," she added.

But Far Eastern University board representative Anton Montinola, the league’s spokesman on the issue, thanked La Salle for the letter, and added that the board can clarify the issue anytime when asked.

"The board is very much willing on what needs to be explained regarding the negligence that occurred [on La Salle’s part] either by a letter or a dialogue," said Montinola.

"Discussions had already been made. Why not just accept the decision and move on? The board is just abiding by its rules and regulations," Montinola added.

Officials of La Salle, in a press conference on Thursday, asked the league board to clarify the one-year suspension imposed on the school in all UAAP sports next season.

They also said that they felt the school was never negligent despite disclosing late into last season that two of the Green Archers’ men’s basketball players, Mark Benitez and Tim Gatchalian, used to forged documents to enroll at La Salle, making them ineligible to play for the school.

The La Salle officials also said they did not deserve the penalty, even as the school mulled over a pullout from the league as one of its many options if it is dissatisfied with the explanation of the UAAP Board.

"I would like to think that it was an initial, natural emotional reaction by La Salle," said Montinola, when asked about the board’s reaction to the Archers’ possibly leaving the UAAP.

He added that it is possible the board will set a separate meeting to clarify the suspension to La Salle, although he did not specify the exact date. He said most of the board members will be out of the country next month.

Without La Salle, the 69th season of the UAAP will start on July 8 at the Araneta Coliseum with only seven participating schools.

gameface_one
04-29-2006, 08:32 AM
UAAP defends ban, will meet La Salle to clarify decision
mb.com.ph




THE UAAP is willing to make clarifications on De La Salle’s queries regarding the one-year suspension meted the university for having fielded two ineligible men’s varsity basketball players.


The clarification, according to UAAP spokesman Anton Montinola of Far Eastern University, could come in the form of a dialogue.

"We are willing to explain," said Montinola after the UAAP board meeting at the Casino Español that again lasted more than five hours yesterday. De La Salle’s Danny Jose attended the meeting but voluntarily left when the De La Salle issue was tackled.

Montinola said De La Salle only sought for clarification with the UAAP as regards the decision that bars the Taft-based school from competing in all sports in Season 69 which begins in July.

The UAAP, Montinola explained, also quashed allegations it did not exercise due process during the conduct of the seven-month investigation of the UAAP fact-finding committee that delved into the fake Philippine Educational Placement and Testing Certificates of Rating (PEPTCR) results of Green Archers Mark Lester Benitez and Timoteo Gatchalian III.

"The investigation lasted all of seven months and dozens of personalities, including many from De La Salle from school officials to team management and coaching staff of the Green Archers were interviewed," said Montinola.

De La Salle’s top academic officials told a press conference they called Thursday that they were not accorded due process prior to the imposition of the one-year suspension. The suspension actually has its precedent in Adamson University, which was found guilty of fielding ineligible men’s basketball players in 1994. Adamson also served out a year’s suspension.

As to speculations that ABS-CBN, the broadcast partner of the UAAP which rakes in millions of revenues for the league, Montinola said the UAAP has no choice but to bite the bullet.

"Both [UAAP and ABS-CBN] are disappointed," he said, "all parties are. But that’s life."

The UAAP and ABS-CBN acknowledged the loss in terms of millions of pesos in marketing and advertising because of the absence of the Ateneo-De La Salle men’s basketball rivalry.

"But ABS-CBN has been acting properly about this episode," said Montinola, quashing speculations on an ABS-CBN/marketing factor that could see the UAAP reversing its decision on De La Salle. "ABS-CBN readily agrees its an internal UAAP problem and they’re not interfering."

As a result of the De La Salle experience, Montinola said that the UAAP board has agreed to put in effect an amendment on its rules and regulations that covers the PEPTC results. Beginning next season, the UAAP will impose a one-year residency for athletes presenting a PEPTC certificate in lieu of a high school diploma.

"That way, the member university will have enough time to authenticate the PEPTC certificate, which, it turned out, has become subject to abuse," said Montinola, who added the UAAP was told PEPTC certificates do not contain security marks that could stress their authenticity.

Montinola reiterated the UAAP board’s decision on the suspension was based on league rules and regulations which dwelled primarily on the requirement that it is mandatory for a member university to maintain basketball and volleyball teams to be able to participate in the league.

gameface_one
04-30-2006, 12:01 AM
UAAP suspension already stunting Archers five
abs-cbnnews.com

By JOEL ORELLANA
The Manila Times Reporter

There’s an air of uncertainty over the Green Archers of De La Salle University.

With a one-year ban already slapped on them by the University Athletic Association of the Philippines Board next season, the future of La Salle men’s basketball team looks dim.

The man tasked to handle the team after head coach Franz Pumaren resigned late last year in the wake of the eligibility scandal admitted to Sports Times on Saturday that he has no idea what the school’s plans for the team will be.

"The possibilities could be to hire a new coach, extend our contract or reinstate coach Franz. Right to now, we have no idea. It’s up to the school," Jack Santiago, the Archers’ top assistant coach, told Sports Times.

"But now, the focus of the team is the Father Martin’s Cup. Whatever the developments, the school will decide, and we will follow," he added.

La Salle’s athletics director, Brother Bobby Casingal, in a press conference on Thursday told the press that it’s hard for them to divulge the future plans of the school for the team.

"The team has been practicing without a head coach, just the coaching staff. Admittedly without a head coach, it’s difficult to come up with a long-term plan," said Casingal.

Santiago, who played college ball for the Mapua Tech Cardinals, has been handling the team since Pumaren resigned last November, being assisted by fellow deputies Tyrone Bautista and Tonichi Yturri.

But his contract is about to expire this June, and he hasn’t heard a word from the school if he will get an extension or not.

The former Philippine Basketball Association point guard also acknowledged the fact that the eligibility scandal has affected the school’s recruitment.

"A lot of players want to play for La Salle but because of what happened, they are thinking twice. But we still have our good recruits on the team," said Santiago.

UAAP Juniors Finals Most Valuable Player Simon Atkins, Serbian Marko Batricevic—who played for La Salle Greenhills in the National Collegiate Athletic Association two years ago—Brian Ilad and Allan Mangahas from Philippine Christian University have been practicing with the Green Archers.

Although Santiago himself is unsure if these players will enroll in the coming school year, he was persuaded that they will do so.

"They told us they are willing to wait [to play], and that they’re still young. And that’s a good sign for the team. You can’t help but admire them for committing," said Santiago.

Ryan Arana, the gutsy forward, was already gone from the team due to academic reasons, but JV Casio, Tyrone Tang, OJ Cua, Cholo Villanueva, PJ Walsham and Rico Maierhofer will still be with the Green Archers when they make a comeback in the 70th UAAP season.

That is, if La Salle decides to stay with the league—and Santiago again admitted that he has no control of the school’s possible decision to pull out of the league.

"If La Salle has other plans, I can’t do anything about it. For sure, they [officials] know what’s best for the school," he said.

atenista_comm
07-01-2006, 05:09 PM
Hmmm... since some have already read the UAAP report...

Would the following people give their comments???

1-17 deleted by moderator

18.... and many more....


Hyukhyukhyukhyukhyukhyuk!!! :P

My comment: "50-50!!!!!!!!!!!!" :P

atenista_comm, I would rather let all the people you mentioned post on their own if they have comments about the UAAP Board report. I believe your point is made that the report has been read by a good number of people. - FBG

Howard the Duck
07-05-2006, 09:33 PM
What should be decided now is that who should accept the season 67 trophy.

MargaretThrasher
07-06-2006, 10:34 AM
^ Shouldn't that automatically go to FEU because they were first runner-up that season? ??? It's like what they always say at the Miss Universe pageants, "If for some reason Miss Universe is unable to fulfill her duties, then the first runner-up will take over."

Howard the Duck
07-06-2006, 04:36 PM
^ Shouldn't that automatically go to FEU because they were first runner-up that season? ??? It's like what they always say at the Miss Universe pageants, "If for some reason Miss Universe is unable to fulfill her duties, then the first runner-up will take over."


Sporting events are not beauty pageants hehehe.
I believe there's no rule such as that in the UAAP.

There are several factors that'll come into play:

1. UP has the biggest contention, they're on the verge of a F4 appereance (7 game winning streak) then they're beaten by DLSU, eliminating them in the title hunt.
2. Ateneo will contend that they should be in because they lost to DLSU is the semis.
3. FEU will contend that they should be in because they lost to DLSU in the finals.
4. Everybody else will contend that since DLSU forfeited their games, then their standings must change too. So baka magbago ang team standings.

Things could have been simpler if DLSU made their "discovery" on 2003.

MargaretThrasher
07-06-2006, 05:59 PM
Oh, I see. I just thought that everyone would move up a spot in the standings once DLSU was taken out of the picture.