Prescott;1438976 wrote:The facts are not open to interpretation. He did what he did.You can believe he is embarrassed. I believe he has something to hide, which seems more plausible. Sorry, this title is tarnished by Thomas' actions and his silence.And again, duke gets preferential treatment from the NCAA.

It's not, but feel free to continue your campaign. Lance Thomas has never been found guilty of anything and NCAA considers the matter closed. It's really as simple as that.

Prescott;1438976 wrote:The facts are not open to interpretation. He did what he did.

What he did was perfectly legal in relation to what we know. Interpreting anything else based on circumstances that are not known is pure conjecture.

Lol at the title being tarnished.

reclegend22;1438684 wrote: And as such, you are not free to use Lance Thomas as an example of wrongdoing.

Seriously? Thanks for the tip.

I should've never posted in this thread. That's what I get for arguing that rules are broken EVERYWHERE, and that titles shouldn't be vacated by off the court garbage. I'll let you and prescott go back to arguing now.

ironman02;1439019 wrote:Seriously? Thanks for the tip.

I should've never posted in this thread. That's what I get for arguing that rules are broken EVERYWHERE, and that titles shouldn't be vacated by off the court garbage. I'll let you and prescott go back to arguing now.

My comments weren't meant in an argumentative tone. It's simply the reality of the situation. Based on the information we know, Lance Thomas did not brake any rules. Period. So to say otherwise without actually having any real evidence of wrongdoing is erroneous and an imaginary account of events.

*break. Haha.

ironman02;1439019 wrote:Seriously? Thanks for the tip.

I should've never posted in this thread. That's what I get for arguing that rules are broken EVERYWHERE, and that titles shouldn't be vacated by off the court garbage. I'll let you and prescott go back to arguing now.

No dukie would ever admit that anyone associated with duke could possibly do anything against the rules or bend those rules to accomplish a specific goal.

Prescott;1439183 wrote:No dukie would ever admit that anyone associated with duke could possibly do anything against the rules or bend those rules to accomplish a specific goal.

I refuse to admit to fabricated stories that are based on make believe. Based on the information that we have, Lance Thomas acted fully within the parameters of the rules and did not violate any NCAA guidelines. That is the end of the story.

reclegend22;1439220 wrote:I refuse to admit to fabricated stories that are based on make believe. Based on the information that we have, Lance Thomas acted fully within the parameters of the rules and did not violate any NCAA guidelines. That is the end of the story.

Of course you do.

Just curious , what parts of the story are fabricated in your mind?

Prescott;1439382 wrote:Of course you do.

Just curious , what parts of the story are fabricated in your mind?

ironman02 wrote:Thomas and Maggette maintained their eligibility despite blatantly violating NCAA rules about amateurism, but since Duke didn't know about it, they're ok.

When taking into account the information that is available about the case and what we currently know, the above statement by ironman02 with regard to Lance Thomas seems to be nothing more than wishful thinking on behalf of a Tar Heel fan wanting to get a shot in. He is blatantly assuming that Thomas took part in something against the rules irrespective of fact that there is no clear evidence that points to that conclusion at all and no wrongdoing found. Basically, he's writing the story how he would like it to go. I don't subscribe to fiction as fact.

If additional facts eventually come out that Duke paid Lance Thomas or that Lance Thomas was given special treatment in some way, then I will be happy to return to this conversation.

So you accept the facts as stated below?

1.In December 2009 , Lance Thomas, then a senior on duke's men's basketball team, enetered Thomas &Rafaello Jewelry co. and purchasede $97,800.00 worth of jewelry.

2.Thomas put down $30,000 in cash and received $67,800 worth of credit from the jewelry store on his purchase.

3. He(Thomas) was to return in a few weeks and pay off the balance.

4. Thomas did not pay off the balance as was stipulated.

5. In September 2012 Rafaello & Co. Jewelers filed a civil suit against Thomas for the money owed, $67,800.00.

6. Thomas and the jeweler settled the suit in September 2012..

7. Thomas commented publicly about the suit in October.

Asked at New Orleans Hornets media day in October whether he violated NCAA rules, Thomas told the Durham Herald Sun, "No. I don't think so." Thomas then declined to elaborate further, adding only that "everything will unfold once everything is taken care of the right way."



"Thomas and Maggette maintained their eligibility despite blatantly violating NCAA rules "I thought Maggette admitted taking money from Myron Piggie and would have been punished by the NCAA if he had stayed at duke.

Prescott;1439494 wrote:So you accept the facts as stated below?

1.In December 2009 , Lance Thomas, then a senior on duke's men's basketball team, enetered Thomas &Rafaello Jewelry co. and purchasede $97,800.00 worth of jewelry.

2.Thomas put down $30,000 in cash and received $67,800 worth of credit from the jewelry store on his purchase.

3. He(Thomas) was to return in a few weeks and pay off the balance.

4. Thomas did not pay off the balance as was stipulated.

5. In September 2012 Rafaello & Co. Jewelers filed a civil suit against Thomas for the money owed, $67,800.00.

6. Thomas and the jeweler settled the suit in September 2012..

7. Thomas commented publicly about the suit in October.

Asked at New Orleans Hornets media day in October whether he violated NCAA rules, Thomas told the Durham Herald Sun, "No. I don't think so." Thomas then declined to elaborate further, adding only that "everything will unfold once everything is taken care of the right way."



"Thomas and Maggette maintained their eligibility despite blatantly violating NCAA rules "I thought Maggette admitted taking money from Myron Piggie and would have been punished by the NCAA if he had stayed at duke.

My comments were not in regard to Corey Maggette. They were in reference to ironman02 grouping Lance Thomas into the equation by calling him guilty of breaking NCAA rules despite the fact it has never been proven and he was fully cleared by the NCAA.

The dude showed up at the jewler's with 30 g's. Anyone who shows up to a jeweler's -- especially one as apparently shady as Rafaello & Co. is -- is going to get the benefit of the doubt for a loan and get that establishment's business. Court records have shown that Rafaello & Co. are serial civil suit filers when it comes to their 15-day loans. They are going to try and get their money any way they can, and they are not going to pass on a $30,000 down payment.

Again, if any real facts come out that prove Thomas acted unscrupulously, then I will revisit this chat.

Fortunately for duke, the total truth about the transaction will never come out. Thomas' silence says something and it has nothing to do with being embarrassed. Common sense tells us that.

It is also just as plausible that the provisions of the settlement have also kept Thomas quiet on certain aspects of the case.

I wouldn't expect your one-track mind to jump to that conclusion, however, or even mistake it as a possibility.

In the interest of full disclosure,duke could have coerced Thomas into coming forth with the truth. They chose not to, which is not surprising.

duke is no better or no worse than most big time college athletic programs.They do whatever they have to do win.

As the confidentiality part of the agreement it is more plausible that the jewelry company had to agree to a gag order order to get their money.

I'm curious. Which violation(s) do you think Duke or Lance Thomas is culpable of?

Prescott;1439564 wrote:As the confidentiality part of the agreement it is more plausible that the jewelry company had to agree to a gag order order to get their money.

In response to this point, both sides signed a confidentiality agreement, and we have no idea which side said agreement was designed to "protect." It is just as reasonable to assume that Thomas was determined the "winner" of a potentially bogus suit and that the jewelry company was the protected party of a confidentiality agreement that serves to save them from the unwanted publicity of whatever ruse they might have tried to pull (i.e. Thomas wasn't ordered to pay the remaining amount he owed back in exchange for silence. We don't know that he ever did).

My God. I apologize for grouping Thomas into the category of "guilty" without adequate evidence. It wasn't my intention to "get a shot in".

I have an opinion on the case, but it's obviously just my opinion. I won't make the mistake of discussing it again.

In all honesty, I was actually defending Duke in this case. I think it's ridiculous that Lance Thomas would buy 100K worth of jewelry, but it would be even more ridciulous for a title that was won on the court to be vacated because of it. I was simply stating that situations like this (athletic eligibility, academics, recruiting violations) arise at ALL programs, and even if Thomas did break the rules, Duke's title should remain intact.

ironman02;1439675 wrote:My God. I apologize for grouping Thomas into the category of "guilty" without adequate evidence. It wasn't my intention to "get a shot in".

I have an opinion on the case, but it's obviously just my opinion. I won't make the mistake of discussing it again.

In all honesty, I was actually defending Duke in this case. I think it's ridiculous that Lance Thomas would buy 100K worth of jewelry, but it would be even more ridciulous for a title that was won on the court to be vacated because of it. I was simply stating that situations like this (athletic eligibility, academics, recruiting violations) arise at ALL programs, and even if Thomas did break the rules, Duke's title should remain intact.

You are obviously entitled to your opinion. I just took umbrage with the matter-of-fact way in which you stated it, as if it was an unequivocal truth. If the roles were reversed, and I had made a definitive statement about the guilt of a UNC player who had never been proven of any wrongdoing, you would have went on the defensive as well. We've both been on opposite sides of the spectrum many times over the years.

You think Lance Thomas was given special treatment by a Manhattan jeweler because of his five points per game average at Duke and his then bright future as a star in the NBDL. I think he went into the store with $30,000 of his family's cash and the jeweler simply took advantage of a young kid that had fast cash and believed that, if he didn't pay off the rest, they'd take his family to court and get the money anyway since they knew he already had it.

The jeweler waited 18 months and until Thomas was drawing an NBA salary to file the suit.You are right we (all of us) have no idea who, if anyone, is protected by a gag order. I guess one would have to know who has the most to lose by the total truth coming out.

reclegend22;1437887 wrote:I am overcome by shock over that observation.

I honestly think that if the NCAA had truly wanted to punish UNC for simply making up a fake academic department that consisted of no grades and no real work at all, from which both football and basketball players knowingly benefitted, then they could have. But they didn't. Time to move on.

Oh, you mean like this? When did Carolina's basketball program get punished for knowingly benefitting from the AFAM department? When was it proven that the athletic department steered basketball players into those classes, while knowing that academic fraud was being committed by a professor and another member of the department? It's just as likely that the department had always had a reputation for easy classes, well before any misconduct occurred. Just like everywhere else, several of the athletes took easier classes in order to decrease their academic workload, while staying eligible.

I don't know what the whole truth behind the academic scandal is, but I do know that as of this moment, Carolina basketball hasn't been proven to have knowingly broken any rules. Athletes, as well as regular students, benefitted from those classes. Does it seem suspicious? Sure does. Just about as suspicious as Lance Thomas and his jewelry.

I've tried to let this go twice now. I have even told you that my intention was to simply point out that titles shouldn't be vacated for off the court issues, but you turned this into a Carolina vs. Duke thing because I made a poor choice in how I worded a post. Looks like I'm not the only one who made that mistake.

lol. STFU please.

Prescott will go after Duke relentlessly and Rec will defend Duke to the end of the earth. Im not sure which is worse...

But seriously. This thread is ridiculous. Please STFU.

Laley23;1439779 wrote:lol. STFU please.

Prescott will go after Duke relentlessly and Rec will defend Duke to the end of the earth. Im not sure which is worse...

But seriously. This thread is ridiculous. Please STFU.

I mean, it is a "Duke Blue Devils Thread." Hopefully it just goes...and goes...and goes. It's better than spilling over into every other topic.

ironman02;1439757 wrote:Oh, you mean like this? When did Carolina's basketball program get punished for knowingly benefitting from the AFAM department? When was it proven that the athletic department steered basketball players into those classes, while knowing that academic fraud was being committed by a professor and another member of the department? It's just as likely that the department had always had a reputation for easy classes, well before any misconduct occurred. Just like everywhere else, several of the athletes took easier classes in order to decrease their academic workload, while staying eligible.

I don't know what the whole truth behind the academic scandal is, but I do know that as of this moment, Carolina basketball hasn't been proven to have knowingly broken any rules. Athletes, as well as regular students, benefitted from those classes. Does it seem suspicious? Sure does. Just about as suspicious as Lance Thomas and his jewelry.

I've tried to let this go twice now. I have even told you that my intention was to simply point out that titles shouldn't be vacated for off the court issues, but you turned this into a Carolina vs. Duke thing because I made a poor choice in how I worded a post. Looks like I'm not the only one who made that mistake.

Fair enough. "Knowingly" was the wrong word. However, there is a distinct difference between the UNC academic scandal and the Lance Thomas case. UNC was in fact doing something wrong -- at least the university, if not the basketball program directly -- by essentially making up a pretend degree that involved forged grades, very few if any tests and crooked instructors, a degree in which scores of Tar Heel basketball players reportedly pursued over the years.

Lance Thomas paid $30,000 of what is believed to have been his own money -- nothing we know indicates otherwise -- to buy jewelry and then got a loan based off the proof of his down payment. Some say the loan was based on his status as a five points per game role player at Duke who at the time, at best, had a future playing for the Fort Wayne Mad Ants. I say that if any college kid walked into that particular NYC jewelry establishment with 30 g's in cash, the store would have given them a loan on the spot, knowing that if the customer was good for $30,000, even if they didn't come through on the loan, they could probably sue the family regardless. Again, Rafaello & Co. has already proven to be shady based on its sketchy past, which includes selling stolen merchandise and filing civil suits serially, so who knows what happened.