WVU closes case with former soccer coach found in violation of NCAA rules

September 9th, 2008

West Virginia University on Monday (Sept. 8) closed the case with former mens soccer coach Mike Seabolt whom the NCAA ruled had engaged in unethical conduct.

Mr. Seabolt was lawfully terminated from his position as soccer coach after investigations of NCAA rules violations, including the most egregiousunethical conduct in providing false and misleading information to gain eligibility for a student-athlete,said Richard Yurko, attorney on the case.The offer of judgment ($75,000) does not imply any fault or wrongdoing on the part of the University, but is a reasonable way to resolve the case and avoid lengthy and costly litigation. By choosing to do this, the University eliminated undue taxpayersexpense and time on a case in which the coach had already been found in violation of NCAA rules.

In fact, when WVU first discovered the violations, the University immediately pursued and self-reported them to the NCAA , while self-imposing penalties and taking corrective actions, athletic officials said. Further, the NCAA ruled there was no lack of institutional control or lack of monitoring by the WVU compliance office.

Excerpts from the 2007 NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions report found that Seabolt engaged in unethical conduct in the following:

  • The former head coach failed to deport himself in accordance with the generally recognized high standards of honesty normally associated with the conduct and administration of intercollegiate athletics.

Specifically the former head coach:

  • Knowingly encouraged student-athlete 1 to provide the NCAA and university false and misleading information regarding possible NCAA violations.
  • Knowingly furnished the NCAA and the university false and misleading information concerning his knowledge of these matters.
  • Failed to provide the university and NCAA with information known to him that was relevant to possible NCAA violations. Nonetheless, student-athlete 1 was a student-athlete who looked to his coach to provide a model of appropriate conduct. In each case, student-athlete 1 initially provided accurate information to the NCAA , both in completing his international student-athlete form and in his initial responses to student-athlete reinstatement questions. It was only on the advice of the former head coach that student-athlete 1 omitted information and lied about other information. In June 2004, the university declared student-athlete 1 ineligible and sought reinstatement of his eligibility. On July 14, 2004, the NCAA sent questions to the university for student-athlete 1 to answer. The compliance assistant asked the former head coach to forward these questions to student-athlete 1, which he did. Student-athlete 1 first responded to the questions in a July 20, 2004, e-mail that he sent to the former head coach. The former head coach reviewed the e-mail and responded twice by e-mail on July 21, 2004.

In his first e-mail, he said (emphasis added):

I want you to make the following changes. The NCAA is ridiculous, and I dont want you to volunteer anything you dont have to and cause them to ask more questions. You and I did not have this discussion, but I am trying to make sure they dont screw you over.

  • In all instances, his conduct was directed at demonstrating, falsely, that student-athlete 1 was an amateur under NCAA bylaws and therefore eligible to compete for the university.
  • The committee finds that the former head coach behaved unethically in his efforts to recruit and achieve eligibility for student-athlete 1.
  • Throughout the time that the former compliance assistant worked to determine whether student-athlete 1 was an amateur, and subsequently during the infractions investigation, the former head coach failed to disclose relevant information, provided false and misleading information, and directed student-athlete 1 to provide false and misleading information.
  • The former head coach added,Dont bother saying anything about the food it is non [sic] of their business and you are saying you spent the money you got paid on food.
  • The committee finds, however, that this e-mail exchange is part of the overall plan of the former head coach to achieve eligibility for student-athlete 1 no matter the facts. The committee finds that in this e-mail exchange, as with the others, the former head coach acted with purpose to deceive the NCAA . In so finding, the committee relies on the full circumstances concerning the behavior of the former head coach and the clear purpose shown in the other e-mails.
  • Unethical conduct intended to subvert the enforcement process is serious. The involvement of others, particularly student-athletes, in a concerted plan to deceive is exceptionally serious.

Seabolt appealed the NCAA s decision, but it was upheld.

The University stands by its decision to terminate its employment of Mr. Seabolt based upon the schools findings and the NCAA investigation,said Director of Athletics Ed Pastilong.After all, he broke the rules and he also lost his subsequent appeal to the NCAA .