Last night, I was reading the University of Kentucky’s response in opposition to James Paxton‘s motion for a temporary injunction against the university. If James Paxton’s name does not ring a bell, quickly get caught up by reading this recent post. Anyway, the most interesting piece of the 86-page document is Exhibit 5. Exhibit 5 is a copy of an article written by Robert MacLeod in The Globe and Mail. It was published on August 18, 2009 with the title, Beeston wishes he could have gotten through to Paxton. Paul Beeston was the interim president of the Toronto Blue Jays, which is the organization that selected Paxton in the 2009 MLB Draft and was unable to sign him before the August 17th deadline. Here is what caught the NCAA’s attention:
Beeston personally handled the negotiations with Paxton, the top Canadian selected in the draft and his agent is Scott Boras.
When Boras is involved, Beeston said, you can only talk with Boras.
“Because it was Scott, the way that you deal you deal through him,” Beeston said. “You don’t deal through the family. Now I would prefer to deal with the family and I wonder whether I could have done a better job on it. I kind of criticize myself.”
I have a Memo dated May 11, 2009 sent 
to Baseball Prospective Student-Athletes Who Are Considering Using an Advisor in Connection with the 2009 Major League Baseball First-Year Player Draft. The fifth paragraph states,
The most important point to remember is that it is impermissible for you to allow your advisor to talk to clubs about you. If you do, the advisor will be considered an agent and you will have jeopardized your eligibility at NCAA schools. [Note: February 12, 2009, in a case entitled Oliver v. NCAA, an Ohio trial-court judge held Bylaw 12.3.2.1 was invalid under Ohio law and as a result a student-athlete was not ineligible if an attorney is present during discussions of a contract offer with a professional team. The NCAA intends to appeal the decision in the Oliver case.]
As you know, the NCAA did appeal the Oliver case and the two sides eventually settled. Thus, Bylaw 12.3.2.1 is no longer officially invalid; however, many scholars suggested that the NCAA would refrain from enforcing the Bylaw in order to stay out of the public eye. That is obviously not the case.
Paxton’s attorney’s are not framing the debate on whether or not an advisor is allowed to speak to a professional team on a player’s behalf. Instead, they are taking the position that Paxton has had his right to due process under the University’s Code of Student Conduct withheld by the University of Kentucky. They claim that it is the University of Kentucky, not the NCAA, that has power over withholding Paxton from competition, and thus, the university must adhere to its code of conduct, which includes a guarantee that Paxton will not be disciplined based upon his refusal to provide testimony, or without first being provided with a written notice of the allegations against him. The University of Kentucky says that a temporary restraining order is not appropriate under the circumstances.
The battle seems to be just beginning.
