NCAA use of limited immunity has critics

If the lawsuit by Rebel Rags plays out, Lewis and Jones could face the type of cross-examination under oath that doesn’t often happen during the NCAA’s process. A Sept. 25 motions hearing is planned in north Mississippi.

Limited immunity has been used by NCAA enforcement for at least 20 years, and NCAA vice-president of enforcement Jon Duncan estimates it has been used in about 20 per cent of cases over the last two.

The NCAA does not make public statements about ongoing investigations, but Duncan earlier this summer spoke broadly with the AP about how limited immunity is granted and used in infractions case.

“A lot of people think that it’s just a tool we keep sort of behind the curtain. It’s not,” Duncan said. “It’s codified in the manual and has been.”

Enforcement staff can request granting limited immunity to a person it deems to have essential information to an investigation, and the chair of the committee on infractions either grants of denies the request.

“We don’t pass it out like candy,” Duncan said.

He also said enforcement staff is more likely to request limited immunity for a college athlete or prospective college athlete than for someone who is not.

“We’re not interested in the infractions process in penalizing student-athletes for what are largely behaviours of adults,” Duncan said.

Duncan said granting limited immunity is not the equivalent of making a plea deal with a witness in a criminal investigation. NCAA enforcement’s mission is factfinding, not building cases against schools, Duncan said.

“We don’t know what they’re going to say until they say it in the middle of an interview,” Duncan said.

Statements made by an individual granted limited immunity are still subject to “layers, upon layers, upon layers of fact-checking” by the enforcement staff, Duncan said.

David Ridpath, a professor of sports administration at Ohio University and former compliance official at Marshall and Weber State, said the NCAA investigation process has improved and become more transparent. He agrees that limited immunity can be a valuable investigative tool.

But, Ridpath said, “I wholeheartedly agree that it’s very difficult to justify using limited immunity when you’re not providing basic due-process protections in this system.”