A Kentucky judge ruled Friday night that the University of Kentucky can withhold lefthander James Paxton from games until he meets with an NCAA investigator to clear up questions about his eligibility.
The Associated Press reported that Fayette County Circuit Judge James Ishmael denied Paxton's request to stop the school from benching him for his refusal to answer undisclosed questions from the NCAA. Paxton, an unsigned first-round pick who likely violated the NCAA's "no agent" rule during contract negotiations with the Blue Jays last summer, was banking on the court protecting his due process rights by applying UK's student code to student-athletes.
"That is clearly not part of the student code," Ishmael said in his ruling, issued shortly before 10 p.m. Friday. "I don't see how in the world a student code can address the NCAA eligibility of a student athlete."
A media report last summer quoted Blue Jays interim president Paul Beeston saying that the Jays did not get the opportunity to speak with Paxton during negotiations. Instead, according to Beeston, they dealt with Paxton's adviser, Scott Boras—a clear violation of the "no agent" rule. Kentucky said in Friday's hearing that it has no direct evidence Boras negotiated on Paxton's behalf, but Ishmael's ruling means the NCAA does not have to meet the UK student code's higher burden of proof, so the media report might be sufficient for the NCAA to determine a violation occurred.
Paxton's next move is unclear, but his strategy so far in these proceedings suggests he is unlikely to drop the fight and submit to a meeting with the NCAA. As we reported last month, the NCAA has changed the presumptive penalty for violations of the "no agent" rule to permanent ineligibility, and the NCAA seems bent on making an example out of Paxton to re-establish the clout of the "no agent" rule after it was invalidated during the Andy Oliver case last year (a ruling was later thrown out as part of the settlement). Paxton has the right to appeal, and my guess is that he will.
UPDATE: One of Paxton's attorneys, Rick Johnson, e-mailed the following to media Saturday evening: "Friday evening, the court denied my client's motion for a temporary injunction. We have a right to an immediate and accelerated appeal of the denial of the injunction, and we are considering this and other options at the moment."
|
Comments will be monitored prior to being added to the site. Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be rejected. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. We have chosen to open up commenting to everyone, so comment away! We want to hear from each and every one of you! Leave a comment. |
About This Blog
Categories
Archives
Syndicate This Blog
Blogs
BaseballAmerica.com
Search This Blog
It's about time that amatuer baseball players are put under the same scrutiny as every other student athlete playing in other sports. For some odd reason, a baseball player is allowed to hire an 'advisor' to conduct contract negotiations. That 'advisor' doesn't become the players 'agent' until the contract is signed. Therefore, all amatuer baseball players who were drafted and hired an advisor should be deemed ineligible from NCAA competition. Just like a football player who hires and agent before his eligibility is exhausted. The NCAA should just clarify their rules and say that players who hire advisors are therefore professional. Paxton has been given an 'out', but doesn't seem like he'll even try to use it. Next move for Paxton is probably to St. Paul or some other Indy team until next summer's draft.
Posted by Joshua Shea | January 18, 2010 at 4:45 pm | ShortcutJust another example of the NCAA cartel bullying kids who step out of line.
Posted by Bob Cobb | January 18, 2010 at 9:10 pm | ShortcutHey if he went against the rules, I guess he needs to be held back in the draft.
Posted by Charles | January 18, 2010 at 10:00 pm | ShortcutIf we step back from the fact that Baxton may have broke the rules, we need to question the rules. Are they legitimate? It was against the law for slaves to escape, does that mean that it was a valid law that should never be questioned? Similarly, what negative effect does player/agent interaction have on competition? Zero. This is same battle over "amateurism" that Oregon track legend Steve Prefontaine challenged many years back by refusing to run in AAU sanctioned events. If the NCAA really cared about "amateurism" they wouldn't use their players in advertisements or promotional materials -which always benefit the university financially. If the NCAA cared about gamblers buying off players –they would put a stop to the nationwide gambling institution of the NCAA tournament bracket. This case is really more about (1) throwing Paxton under the bus (2) dislike for Scott Boras (3) a member of the Blue Jays front office saying in public what the NCAA knows in private. The lesson here: Players and the MLB can do as they wish… just don't talk about it.
Posted by Bob Cobb | January 19, 2010 at 11:35 pm | Shortcut