Recruiting Violation: RDC Volleyball-Loos

2019-20 Season

August 23, 2019

Facts:

Lakeland College has reported a potential recruiting violation by Red Deer College Women’s Volleyball Coach, Talbot Walton, in relation to his interaction with Vanessa Loos, a high school student who, at the time of the interaction, was registered to commence her studies at LAKE in the Fall of 2019.

I have received detailed submissions from both institutions. Accordingly, the chronology of events can be summarized as follows:

1. Vanessa Loos signed a letter of intent to attend LAKE on February 25, 2019 and subsequently registered for classes for the Fall of 2019.
2. In late June of this year, Mr. Walton sent out an e-mail to Ms. Loos, a previous RDC recruit, as a spot had recently opened up on his team for a power hitter, which is the position Ms. Loos plays. I accept as true Mr. Walton’s assertion that he was not aware that Ms. Loos had committed to LAKE at the time he sent that e-mail.
3. Upon receiving Mr. Walton’s e-mail, Ms. Loos immediately telephoned him. During that conversation, Ms. Loos advised Mr. Walton that she had committed to LAKE. According to Mr. Walton, he asked Ms. Loos if she had a letter from LAKE. When Ms. Loos confirmed that she had a letter and asked what would happen if she revoked her commitment to LAKE, Mr. Walton advised her to read the LAKE letter in that regard. He also advised her that she might lose her tuition deposit at LAKE if she revoked her commitment.
4. On July 15, 2009 Ms. Loos e-mailed LAKE Coach Austin Dyer, to advise him that she no longer planned to attend LAKE and now planned to attend RDC instead. Mr. Dyer states that during that conversation Ms. Loos indicated to him that Mr. Walton has asked the amount of the scholarship LAKE was providing and then indicated that RDC could provide more money along with a guaranteed roster position (top 4 power hitter).
5. According to Mr. Walton, RDC then provided the following incentives to Ms. Loos to attend RDC:
   1. Top-four power hitter role;
   2. $1,500 scholarship; and
   3. Assistance in securing admission to residence (to be paid for by Ms. Loos). 
6. On July 16, 2019 Mr. Dyer e-mailed Mr. Walton to ask why Mr. Walton was recruiting a LAKE athlete. 
7. In his e-mail response to Mr. Dyer on the same date, Mr. Walton stated as follows: 
   “This is where I dropped the ball Austin. I should have contacted you to discuss the situation with Vanessa. I was leaving for a 10-day conference and some vacation days. When I returned my AD was on her vacation. I didn’t prioritize this situation high enough and it slid down my to-do list. Having spoken with my AD today, I’m apologetic that you had to hear from Vanessa and not me.”
8. On July 19, 2019 Ms. Loos advised Mr. Dyer that she had officially decided to attend RDC. From June 24, 2019 to the date of Mr. Dyer’s July 16, 2019 e-mail to Mr. Walton, he and Ms. Loos had continued to communicate by e-mail about the logistics of her upcoming attendance at RDC, including discussing the incentives RDC was offering in return for her attendance.

Ruling:

Article I Section 7 Rule 1 of the ACAC Operating Code states as follows:

Recruiting Rules

1.1. Violations: The Recruiting Rules are in place to protect the integrity of the ACAC. Violations of these rules are serious offences. Any ACAC member should bring to the attention of the ACAC President accusations of recruiting violations with supporting documentation. The ACAC President must refer recruiting violations to the ACAC Commissioner who will investigate and report the findings to all ACAC members. An escalating severity of consequences scale is recommended and is to be applied at the discretion of the Commissioner. (Amended November, 2010)

In addition, Rule 1.4 states the following:

1.4 Athletes Registered at Another Post-Secondary Institution: No member of an athletic staff or other delegate of athletic interest shall contact, directly or indirectly, a student athlete identified with another post secondary institution to discuss the possible attendance of the student athlete at their institution unless that student athlete makes the initial contact with the delegate of the institution. Contact includes, and is not limited to in-person conversation, telephone, mail, email, text, social media or other forms of correspondence, as well as contact through a parent, legal guardian or relative. (emphasis added)

If the above occurs, the following steps shall be followed:

1.4.1 Once the athlete has made initial contact, it is the responsibility of the athletic staff member or delegate to immediately inform the athlete of the process that must be followed (see 1.6.2 below). Should the athlete want more information, the athletic staff or delegate may inform the athlete of application and registration procedures, provide information on the athletic program and answer any questions the athlete may have.

1.4.2 At the earliest possible time, the Athletic Director shall officially inform the other institution’s Athletic Director that the athlete has made initial contact and requested information regarding the institution’s athletic program. The AD of the previously-attended institution must be notified by the receiving AD that he/she has received the information. Information on the athletic program and questions answered may then be passed along to the athlete. (Amended July, 2018)

In sending the initial e-mail to Ms. Loos in June, Mr. Walton was unaware that Ms. Loos had registered to attend LAKE in the Fall. The ACAC currently has no mechanism through which Mr. Walton could have been aware that Ms. Loos had committed to LAKE and I wish to be clear that Mr. Walton did not violate the Operating Code through that initial contact.

The question to be determined is whether Mr. Walton’s subsequent interaction with Ms. Loos constitutes a violation of Rule 1.4.

In its detailed submissions, RDC suggests that the phrase “student athlete identified with another post secondary institution” in Rule 1.4 ought to be interpreted in such a way as to only apply to student athletes who have commenced classes at an institution, submitting that it would be “an absurdity” to interpret the phrase as applying to circumstances such as these, given that a student may either have registered at multiple institutions or might change her mind about attending an institution in which she had already registered for classes. In RDC’s interpretation, a student athlete is not “identified with” an institution until tuition fees have been paid and classes have begun. In further support of its argument, RDC has referenced the CCAA Operating Code, whose similar rule refers to contact with a student “currently attending” a CCAA school.

With respect, I do not agree with RDC’s submissions for the following reasons:

1. While the CCAA Operating Code may provide guidance in certain circumstance (particularly when the ACAC Operating Code might not deal with a particular issue), in this case I feel that the ACAC Operating Code sufficiently covers the current circumstances;
2. The heading of Rule 1.4, while not formally part of the rule, reflects the intent of the Conference by referring to “Athletes registered at” (as opposed to “currently attending”) another post-secondary institution, which is consistent with the circumstances in the case at hand;
3. In my view, Ms. Loos was not required to have paid her tuition and started attending classes at LAKE before she could be considered to be “identified with” LAKE for the purposes of Rule 1.4. Rather, from the standpoint of RDC, it should have been apparent to Mr. Walton that Ms. Loos was “identified with” LAKE during his initial telephone conversation with her, during which she indicated to him that: 
   
   - she had registered for Fall 2019 classes at LAKE and intended to compete for the LAKE Volleyball team 
   -she had signed a letter of intent with LAKE (which, although not binding, conveyed her intentions) 
   -she had received a scholarship from LAKE

Rule 1.4.2 then required Mr. Walton to have informed his Athletic Director of his interaction with Ms. Loos, at which point RDC should have contacted LAKE to inform LAKE of the interaction between Mr. Walton and Ms. Loos. Instead, LAKE only became aware of the contact several weeks later through an e-mail exchange between Mr. Dyer and Ms. Loos.

In addition to requiring RDC to have immediately reported the contact with Ms. Loos to LAKE, RDC should not have provided the incentives identified above until after informing LAKE of the contact between Ms. Loos and Mr. Walton as per Rule 1.4.2 above.

While I accept Mr. Walton’s indication that he was not aware of Ms. Loos’ prior commitment to LAKE at the time of his initial contact with her, and I also accept his submission that it was not his intention to circumvent ACAC recruiting protocols, nevertheless, for the reasons outlined herein, I find RDC to be in violation of Rule 1.4.

Article I Section 7 Rule 1.1 deals with sanctions for recruiting violations and is worded as follows:

1.1. Violations: The Recruiting Rules are in place to protect the integrity of the ACAC. Violations of these rules are serious offences. Any ACAC member should bring to the attention of the ACAC President accusations of recruiting violations with supporting documentation. The ACAC President must refer recruiting violations to the ACAC Commissioner who will investigate and report the findings to all ACAC members. An escalating severity of consequences scale is recommended and is to be applied at the discretion of the Commissioner. (Amended November, 2010) (emphasis added)

As stated earlier, I accept Mr. Walton’s explanation that he did not intend to breach ACAC recruiting rules. However, given that RDC was also found to be in violation of recruiting violations during the 2017-18 season (Fathers/Turlejski, ACAC Appeal Panel, May 1, 2018), I feel it is appropriate to apply the escalating consequences provision outlined in Rule 1.1. As a result, the penalty in this instance shall be a fine in the amount of $1,500, payable forthwith to the ACAC Office.

Sincerely,

Bill Hendsbee 
ACAC Commissioner