On Jan. 26, 2010, New Orleans Saints defensive coordinator Gregg Williams, who has since admitted to administering a bounty program within the New Orleans Saints defense, appeared on Nashville’s 3 Hour Lunch radio show on 104.5 The Zone to discuss the upcoming Super Bowl between the Saints and the Indianapolis Colts while extolling the finer points of his coaching philosophy.

(Exactly What Appears To Have Happened)

Below is a short montage of audio excerpts from the WGFX-FM interview accompanied by video of some of the more notorious hits on star NFL quarterbacks made by defenses coordinated by Williams over the years.

During the interview, 104.5 The Zone co-host Blaine Bishop said to Williams, “You may the first coordinator to have knocked out three Hall of Famers.”

In response, Williams said, “I sure hope so, you know how that is Blaine. I’m not going to apologize for it either .. You kill the head the body will die.”

Bishop was a defensive player coached by Williams from 1993-2000 when both were with the Tennessee Titans.

Williams was also asked by 104.5 The Zone 3 Hour Lunch co-host Clay Travis if he had cautioned the Saints defense about roughing Peyton Manning in the upcoming Super Bowl after the New Orleans defense coordinated by Williams was flagged and later fined for multiple personal fouls against Vikings quarterback Brett Favre in the NFC Championship game the week before.

In response, Williams said, “I’m not going to worry about that and here’s the deal. When you put too much of that type of worry on a warrior’s mind, he doesn’t play all out. If it (personal foul on the quarterback) happens it happens. The only thing you’d like for me to say is if it happens you hope he doesn’t get back up and play again.”

After the response by the Saints defensive coordinator, Travis said, “wow.”

Audio of the complete, 17-minute interview involving Williams and WGFX-FM 3 Hour Lunch co-hosts Bishop, Travis and Brent Dougherty can be found here.

Brooks is on Twitter and Facebook

Monday a federal court judge in New York ruled that Sterling Partners, the company that owns and operates the New York Mets and SNY under the direct auspicies of the Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz families, must pay $83 million to the Ponzi victims of Bernie Madoff. The judge also reaffirmed a March 19, 2012 trial date to determine if the Wilpon and Katz families - and the Mets - owe the victims of Madoff another $303 million.

(Wilpon and Katz’s family and friends fed at Madoff-backed Mets “profits” trough)

At trial the trustee of the Madoff victims Irving Picard will be armed with Sterling company documents that include innumerable financial statements and internal communications that show how Madoff’s fictitious investment returns - and the borrowing leverage from its relationship to Madoff - was integral to a business fronted by the brand and financial equity of the Mets.

For example, the 2001 financial statements from companies run by Wilpon and Katz reveal that they budgeted a 14% rate of future return from their current Madoff invesments - which would earn an income of $34 million the following year. At the time that projected income by Wilpon and Katz - from their own company documents in 2001 - accounted for 59% of Sterling’s entire projected total operating cash flow for the year for all their businesses, and 88% of all income generated from liquid assets.

In addition to direct income from “profits” provided by the victims of Madoff’s crimes, at the time of the Madoff bust in 2008 the companies run by Wilpon and Katz had accumulated $237 million from loans backed by, again, the stolen liquidity of Bernie Madoff.

Madoff was so critical to the cash flow and leveraging of the Mets and other Sterling companies that the operator of the largest Ponzi in history had his own permanent line item, “Madoff”, to be discussed at twice-weekly meetings between Wilpon, Katz and other company officials at Sterling.

Wilpon and Katz were so close to the biggest Ponzi schemer in history that Madoff went so far to classify all Sterling accounts with a special “KW” prefix signifying “Katz” and “Wilpon”.  At the time of Madoff’s arrest, Sterling had opened 483 accounts with Madoff for the family, friends and businesses run by Wilpon and Katz - including all of the entities involved with the operation of Mets.

The Wilpon and Katz families were so invested in the financial fortunes of companies funded and leveraged by Madoff that one Bank of America executive called their business operation - according to federal court documents - “a family wealth office.“

And while the Wilpon and Katz families have completely denied any knowledge of the Madoff Ponzi, their behavior suggests otherwise.

(Mets couldn’t keep Ruth Madoff’s $54M “investment” in club secret either)

In one such case Mets Board of Directors member and Sterling “Partner” David Katz, son of family patriarch and Wilpon partner Saul Katz, said in a sworn deposition in 2010 that employees of the company run by Wilpon and his father “weren’t supposed to tell anyone you were invested (with Madoff.)“

Katz added that because the companies run by Wilpon and his father had so many accounts with Madoff, eventually close to 500, “it was silly to try” to keep their deep financial ties with Madoff a secret from the public.

Beginning March 19 in New York, expect many more of Wilpon and Katz’s family secrets about Bernie Madoff to be revealed to the public in federal court.

Follow Brooks on Twitter or join him on Facebook for real-time updates.

The parent company of the New York Mets, Sterling Partners, is currently subject to a lawsuit filed in federal court by the court-appointed trustee representing the countless victims of Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme.

(Wilpon, Mets never spoke to Ruth Madoff about “investment”)

The managing partner of the Mets, Fred Wilpon, is one of the first two defendants named in the “clawback” lawsuit, which seeks $386 million in restitution amid allegations that Wilpon used what he knew was unclean money from Madoff to fund - and leverage - the day-to-day operation of the Mets and other Sterling entities.

Monday a federal court judge ruled that Wilpon and his Sterling Partners must pay $83,309,162 to the victims - via the court-appointed trustee - of Madoff’s Ponzi scheme. The judge also reaffirmed a March 19, 2012 trial date to determine the rest of the $303 million the trustee of Madoff’s victims continues to seek.

As noted in previous sworn depositions relating to the case, Wilpon and son Jeff, who is also heavily involved with the operation of the Mets, both said they never vetted Madoff’s background or investments because of their longtime family friendship.

Though the exhaustive 383-page complaint filed by the trustee of Madoff’s victims last March asserts that the Wilpons willfully ignored red flags that would’ve led any reasonable person - investor or not - to suspect what turned out to be the largest Ponzi in history.

Red flags that included an internal Sterling company audit of Madoff that all but concluded he was engaged in some manner of financial fraud. Though when the Madoff court-appointed trustee requested the documents from that Sterling-commissioned audit of Madoff, the Madoff trustee was told by Wilpon’s company that it was “missing.”

Another example cited in federal court by the Madoff trustee as evidence Fred Wilpon knew Madoff’s business was not legitimate was the seemingly bizarre though brief nature of a $54 million transaction between the Madoffs and the Mets.

Below is the Madoff trustee’s federal court description of how Ruth Madoff’s $54 million “investment” in the Mets helped leverage Wilpon & Co. sufficiently to facilitate starting its own sports television network. 

The New York Mets parent company, Sterling Partners, Knew That Madoff Was Dishonest In His Investment Advisory Business. Madoff and Sterling falsely documented a $54 million bridge loan.

The Sterling Partners had such a close relationship with Madoff that they were willing – together with Madoff – to create a fraudulent letter agreement that falsely described an interest- and cost- free $54 million loan from Madoff as an “investment” by his wife, Ruth.

In May 2004, Sterling sought to buy-out the broadcast rights of the New York Mets from Cablevision to launch the television network SNY. To finance the buy-out, Sterling applied to two banks for loans totaling $54 million.

However, as the deadline for closing the buy-out approached, the Sterling Partners grew concerned that the bank loans would not provide funding in time, so they turned to Madoff.

On or about May 25, 2004, the Sterling Partners inquired with Madoff about making a large redemption from their BLMIS accounts. In response, Madoff told Saul Katz, Fred Wilpon, and Marvin Tepper, in particular, that Sterling’s BLMIS accounts were “in the market” and, as a result, redeeming funds at that time would lower their returns.

As an alternative to such a large redemption from Sterling’s BLMIS accounts, Madoff offered to send Sterling the $54 million needed to finance the buy-out of the broadcast rights.

On or about May 26, 2004, Madoff wired to Sterling $54 million, which was comprised of other people’s money. Shortly thereafter, the bank loans totaling $54 million closed.

On or about May 27, 2004, Sterling repaid the $54 million it had borrowed from Madoff and instead used the bank loan proceeds to finance the buy-out of the broadcast rights.

Although Madoff and Sterling agreed that the $54 million transfer from Madoff was a loan, Sterling prepared on Mets letterhead a letter agreement dated May 25, 2004 from Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz to Ruth Madoff that falsely described the transaction as an investment by Ruth Madoff in the company that would later become SNY.

Sterling Partner Marvin Tepper was involved in the drafting of the May 25, 2004 letter agreement.

The May 25, 2004 letter agreement characterized Madoff’s loan to Sterling as an “investment” by Madoff’s wife, Ruth.

The May 25, 2004 letter agreement provided, in relevant part:

‘This will confirm the conversations with respect to an investment by you [Ruth Madoff] in the Network. Over the years you have invested with us in, among other things, real estate funds; and we contemplate extending this relationship to the Network. . . . You are simultaneously wiring to Sterling Equities Associates the sum of $54 million which is expected to be the approximate amount of your proposed investment with the Network.’

The May 25, 2004 letter agreement also provided for the payment of a premium of some undetermined amount to Ruth Madoff in the event she, Fred Wilpon, or Saul Katz terminated the agreement:

‘If at any time you [Ruth Madoff] or the undersigned [Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz] elect to terminate this arrangement in the sole discretion of the terminating party, the terminating party shall give written notice to the other party and in either of such events, the undersigned shall pay to you the sum of $54 million. In addition, the undersigned shall pay to you a premium to be mutually agreed, having due regard to all the circumstances including, but not limited to, our long and beneficial business and personal relationships.’

The May 25, 2004 letter agreement was signed by Fred Wilpon, Saul Katz, and Ruth Madoff.

Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz, and, upon information and belief, Marvin Tepper knew that the letter falsely described the transaction as an “investment” by Ruth Madoff when in fact it was a no interest, no cost loan from Madoff.

Furthermore, although the letter agreement stated that Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz had conversations with Ruth Madoff regarding the “investment,” neither Fred Wilpon nor Saul Katz ever actually spoke to Ruth Madoff about any investment related to SNY or the predecessor company.

Fred Wilpon, Saul Katz, and Marvin Tepper knew or should have known that it was highly unusual for such a sizable transaction to be supported by only minimal documentation, such as the May 25, 2004 letter agreement.

Fred Wilpon, Saul Katz, and Marvin Tepper knew or should have known that it was even more suspect for the only documentation of such a substantial transaction to not even accurately reflect the true nature of the deal.

The $54 million loan transaction between Sterling and Madoff and the accompanying letter agreement between Saul Katz, Fred Wilpon and Ruth Madoff demonstrate that Saul Katz, Fred Wilpon, and Marvin Tepper were on notice that Madoff would work with them to knowingly falsify a significant business transaction.

The impromptu bridge loan from Madoff allowed Wilpon to ensure, even if they were unable to secure a legitimate bank loan, that the Mets would be able to start a television network from which the Major League Baseball franchise has since financially benefited.

During a July 10, 2010, sworn deposition in New York Fred Wilpon was asked about the documented $54 million transaction involving Ruth Madoff.

Q. Was Ruth Madoff involved in any of these discussions or this discussion, period?
A. No. Not to my knowledge.
Q. I can turn now to the letter that’s in front of you, Exhibit 17. That is your signature at the bottom of the letter, right?
A. I’ve told you that.
Q. So at some point in time you reviewed this letter and you signed it, right?
A. Correct.
Q. So, when you signed this agreement, were there any other signatures on the document when you signed it?
A. I don’t recall.
Q. Don’t remember. When you signed the agreement was there anyone else in the room?
A. I don’t recall that.
Q. How long after the phone call you had with Mr. Madoff where he agreed to wire you $54 million, what was the lag time between that phone call and when you signed this agreement?
A. I have no idea.
Q. Do you remember if you signed this agreement at or around May 25th, 2004?
A. I don’t know.

With the untold, documented leverage and direct funding provided by his financial relationship with Madoff - and the accompanying equity of the Mets - the Wilpons took a modest, family-run company and transformed it into a sophisticated, multi-billion dollar real estate, private equity and hedge fund empire with professional baseball as its centerpiece.

Though when asked during the same, 2010 sworn deposition what he thought of Madoff, Wilpon responded: “There is no person you will talk to, none, that is more betrayed than I am.”

Follow Brooks on Twitter or join him on Facebook for real-time updates.

In support of its landmark discrimination case against current NBA team owner Donald Sterling, the U.S. Dept. of Justice (DOJ) submitted to federal court on July 9, 2009, a sworn statement by Alexandra Castro from a previously unrelated court case.

(Sterling ‘consulted’ same woman he called a ‘prostitute’ on team personnel) 

Castro, who was a past acquaintance of the NBA owner, included the following characterization of her relationship with Sterling in the 2003 statement filed by the DOJ in support of its 2009 case against Sterling:

“During our relationship, Mr. Sterling consulted me on issues he was considering almost every day including, among others, whether he should hire Alvin Gentry to coach the Los Angeles Clippers (although I had no experience in such matters), how he should respond to requests by players for the Los Angeles Clippers for increases in their compensation (Mr. Sterling and I often had dinner at the Arena Club with agents for a number of players) … “

In the same case United States Attorneys also submitted a deposition of attorney Raymond Hersh, a founding partner of Los Angeles law firm Hersh, Mannis & Bogen who formerly represented Castro. Hersh’s sworn testimony, which was also from a previously unrelated court action, included the following about what Castro had told him about her relationship with Sterling:

“They had a relationship where she cooked, drove, cleaned, was consulted on remodeling apartments, who went to dinner with agents, who should be hired — she didn’t make the decision, she said, but she was consulted about who to hire in the Clipper organization and what should be done, what he was thinking.”

Four months after the U.S. Dept. of Justice submitted the sworn statements from Castro and Hersh to a federal court, along with a mountain of other evidence, NBA team owner Sterling agreed to pay the largest discrimination settlement in the history of United States jurisprudence.

So who is Alexandra Castro and why was Donald Sterling soliciting her opinions on player salaries, inviting her to meet with the agents of Clippers players and consulting her on who the next head coach of the Clippers should be?

In a 2003 sworn deposition, Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling described Alexandra Castro under oath as ..

“.. a prostitute … she was a total freak and a piece of trash … “

In the same deposition Sterling described, while under penalty of perjury, his relationship with Castro ..

“It was purely sex for money, money for sex, sex for money, money for sex.  The girl was providing sex for money.”

“I probably didn’t tell my wife .. maybe I did something morally wrong.”

Sterling’s sworn characterizations of Castro - and the exact nature of their relationship - are contained in 2003 Los Angeles Superior Court papers documenting a lawsuit brought by the NBA team owner against Castro.

During what court documents indicate was a relationship between Sterling and Castro from 1999-2002, the Los Angeles Clippers owner voluntarily transferred the title of a Beverly Hills home he owned to Castro and her mother.

After Castro spurned Sterling, ending their relationship, the Los Angeles NBA team team owner filed a lawsuit to get the house back.

The ensuing legal dispute, which effectively forced Castro to make sworn court statements about their relationship in defending herself against the billionaire tycoon’s litigation, ultimately resulted in her retaining the home.

Those same sworn statements about Sterling in Castro’s court response to his 2003 lawsuit were later used against the Los Angeles Clippers owner by the Dept. of Justice in the aforementioned federal discrimination case that cost the NBA team owner nearly $3 million.

And it was, again, those same sworn statements about Sterling in Castro’s court responses to his 2003 lawsuit that also revealed to NBA Commissioner David Stern that one of the league’s club owners solicited opinions on team personnel matters from a woman he claimed, under oath, was “a prostitute …  total freak and a piece of trash.”

At least if you believe the United States Department of Justice.

Follow Brooks on Twitter or join him on Facebook for real-time updates.

Early Tuesday SbB reported on Twitter that SPORTS ILLUSTRATED planned to publish a story detailing drug use within the UCLA basketball program.

The investigative piece, which SbB has been told recounts marijuana usage by players who have since departed the program, was addressed by UCLA basketball coach Ben Howland at his weekly press conference in Los Angeles today.

Q: Have you heard about the Sports Illustrated article coming out?

A: I know there is an article coming out and I think it’s tomorrow.

Q: Have you been contacted for it?

A: I was contacted last Wednesday or Thursday.

Q: Any idea what the subject of the story is going to be?

A: I can’t speculate.

Q: How do you handle a negative story that has a national interest with recruits?

A: Make the players we’re involved with aware of it and we’ve done that so it’s not coming out without some knowledge of the article.

Q: Do you think there was a period when there was kids in the program who had drug problems?

A: Specifically I can’t talk about any former player or student relative to having anything to do with that. We have a comprehensive drug policy here at UCLA where any time someone fails a random drug test, I’m alerted, the trainer is alerted and the person overseeing the drug policy here. And there is a very good and outstanding program in place for student athletes of all teams to receive education and receive counseling and receive discipline.

Q: When you think back do you think you’ve correctly handled inappropriate behavior by players?

A: With specific players in terms of working with our student athletes, I guess I have to ask you to be more specific.

Q: When a player did something inappropriate, do you think you’ve handled those things correctly?

A: Yeah, I think for the most part, I have.

Q: You said “most part.” Is there something maybe you should have . . .

A: I’d have to go back and look at specifics. You’re speaking in generalities. No one is perfect. I would never claim to be that person. Everybody makes mistakes. I’m definitely not perfect.

SbB has been told the 6,500+ word SI story will be posted to the magazine’s website Wednesday morning.

Sources have also recently indicated to SbB that UCLA Athletic Director Dan Guerrero previously tipped off non-athletic UCLA administrators and major donors to the story by noting that the school has hired a crisis communication firm to help address the situation publicly.

Follow Brooks on Twitter or join him on Facebook for real-time updates

On May 24, 2006, Jerry Sandusky appeared on Penn State Public Broadcasting’s WPSU-TV to talk about the children’s charity he founded in 1977 called The Second Mile.

(2006 PSU video: “touching more and more kids” is “bottom line”)

During a 15-minute interview on WPSU’s Pennsylvania Inside and Out program Sandusky updated the programs and scope of the charity that led him to end his 35-year career as a Penn State player and coach in 2000.

Sandusky’s comments included the following:

“We’ve had a very good year fundraising and we continue to grow programs and reach out and touch more and more kids which is the bottom line and most important thing.”

“… It’s a statewide organization now. We have nine different programs, we have three offices and seven chapters around the state.

“We reach out and touch, through these nine programs, well over 100,000 children.”

The SbB-edited video includes three minutes of excerpts from Sandusky’s appearance on the Penn State Public Broadcasting Station.

Follow Brooks on Twitter or join him on Facebook for real-time updates

Immediately after Craig James announced last December that he had decided to run for statewide political office in Texas, SbB reported via multiple sources that James was not likely to return as an ESPN college football announcer for the 2012 season.

In a brief statement to SbB today, ESPN spokesman Josh Krulewitz essentially eliminated the prospect of James returning to the network.

ESPN’s Krulewitz: “We have no intention of bringing Craig James back in the future.”

Thus ends the second tenure of James at ESPN, which began in 2003. James, whose ESPN contract expires before the 2012 football season, also worked for ESPN in the early ’90s following his NFL playing career.

Today’s ESPN announcement comes as the network prepares to defend itself against a defamation lawsuit filed by Mike Leach against the network last November. The lawsuit also targets James and Dallas-based public relations firm Spaeth Communications by name.

While ESPN, obviously, will not confirm that the now-official departure of James from the network was related to the Leach litigation, it isn’t unreasonable to think that it may have been a factor.

That isn’t necessarily a given though, considering that Leach’s lawsuit, filed against ESPN and James on Nov. 24, 2010, did not deter ESPN from having James work the 2011 season for the network.

Krulewitz also told SbB today that any comments recently made by James on the U.S. Senate campaign trail in Texas, including his recent comments addressing gays, were unrelated to the timing of today’s statement. (Which was in response to a query lodged by SbB to ESPN three days ago - and unrelated to James’ comments about gays - regarding the future of James at the network.)

Follow Brooks on Twitter or join him on Facebook for real-time updates

HBO PPV provided the public with boxing’s most memorable showdown in 2011, televising a Sept. 17, 2011, ring exchange that somehow generated hundreds of millions of web video views despite the limited distribution of pay-per-view.

(HBO Allowing Mayweather to Censor Merchant, Lamps? Keep Reading) 

Six days ago, new HBO President Ken Hershman proudly announced an HBO PPV fight on May 5, 2012, that seemingly suggested a rematch of the celebrated combatants whose earlier HBO post-fight exploits produced a mountain of positive media coverage previously unseen by a sport relegated to margins of the mainstream.

I’m talking, of course, about HBO PPV’s much-anticipated return bout already touted by a boxing news site and in a recent ESPN.com chat featuring ESPN boxing writer Dan Rafael as “Merchant-Mayweather II.”

If you’ve only recently been released from capitivity, the first meeting between the principals took place in the ring after Mayweather defeated an overmatched Victor Ortiz with a blow later attributed to Mayweather by Merchant - and citizens of the lower 48 states - as a “sucker punch.”

The actual Mayweather-Merchant blow-by-blow featured by HBO after the fight on Sept. 17, 2011:

Larry Merchant: You were in charge of this fight. You were aggressive in trying to take advantage…

Floyd Mayweather: You know what I’m gonna do cause you never give me a fair shake, you know that? So I’m gonna let you talk to Victor Ortiz. I’m through. Put someone else here to give me an interview. Talk to Victor Ortiz!

Larry Merchant: What are you talking about?

Floyd Mayweather: You never give me a fair shake. HBO needs to fire you. You don’t know (expletive) about boxing! You ain’t (expletive) You’re not (expletive)!

Larry Merchant: I wish I was 50 years younger and I’d kick your (expletive).

Floyd Mayweather: You won’t do (expletive)!

Bereft a post-fight injection of well-founded reality by Merchant, longtime boxing reporter Steve Kim would’ve probably spotlighted a short-changed HBO PPV audience. Instead, Kim celebrated what may have been the 80-year-old’s finest professional hour:

In the aftermath of Larry Merchant’s verbal altercation with Floyd Mayweather on Saturday night (shortly after the sucker punch heard ’round the world leveled Victor Ortiz), if you typed “Larry Merchant Mayweather” into Google, you’d get a listing of over a million results.

After telling a tantrum-throwing Mayweather, “I wish I was 50 years younger and I’d kick your ass,” in response to the temperamental pugilist’s claim that Merchant didn’t know “sh*t” about the sport, Merchant immediately became a part of pop culture. Want proof? Go to TMZ.com and you’ll see Merchant, of all people.

As it related to “Star Power,” ironically, it was Merchant, the longtime boxing analyst for HBO Sports, whose star has shined the brightest.

In Merchant’s TMZ interview, taped while the HBO announcer walked through the Vegas airport the day after the fight, the TMZ reporter remarked to a beaming Merchant:

“I gotta give you a lot of credit. Just for that comment alone you should be with HBO Boxing forever. No one (at HBO) should tell you when to go or when not to go.”

Even without that kind of pricelesss publicity, with Mayweather yet another in a long line of boxers, managers and promoters whose only use for fans is as braindead ATMs, never has Merchant and fellow ringside ancient Jim Lampley been more important. The reality of the PPV boxing business is that keeping up appearances with the sport’s precious few drawing cards means selling matches to the public that were never intended as anything other than to top-off of a boxer’s entourage.

Go to that well enough times without the context and credibility Merchant and Lampley provide and the public can only be bought off for so long.

Though if information recently obtained by SbB from multiple sources is any indication, new HBO President Ken Hershman might be willing to give it a try.

While in negotiations for the May 5 Mayweather fight, Mayweather instructed his representative Al Haymon to inform HBO’s Hershman that if the boxer was to fight on HBO in the future, Lampley and Merchant must surrender the right to discuss any and all of Mayweather’s affairs outside the ring on the HBO telecast. The ban would include any discussion of Mayweather’s management team.

Mayweather previously demanded the same ban during past fight negotiations with former longtime HBO Sports President Ross Greenburg but Greenburg never ceded any measure of editorial control of HBO’s own broadcasts to the boxer.

Multiple sources have informed SbB that Hershman, who recently took over for Greenburg, has since agreed to Mayweather’s ban demand.

According to sources Hershman also later informed prominent boxing promoters Bob Arum and Gary Shaw of the on-air editorial concession HBO had granted Mayweather.

Additionally, Hershman agreed to surrender the right of Lampley and Merchant to discuss any outside-the-ring affairs of other fighters repped by Haymon.

Lampley and Merchant have been informed of their new, on-air editorial limits pertaining to Mayweather and other Haymon-repped fighters with the latter ban going into full effect this Saturday when Haymon-repped Adrien Broner fights on HBO.

When contacted Thursday and told that Hershman and HBO had agreed to ban Lampley and Merchant from discussing Mayweather’s affairs outside the ring and the fighter’s management team - along with a similar policy for other Haymon-repped fighters - an HBO Spokesman told SbB, “that’s completely untrue. That didn’t happen.”

Follow Brooks on Twitter or join him on Facebook for real-time updates

Last August SbB reported that a West Virginia-based company, Global Liquidation Center Ltd. (GLC), had accused former Georgia and Marshall head football coach Jim Donnan of running a Ponzi scheme that eventually bankrupted the company.

(Donnan on BCG’s $1.9MM claim: Pound Sand)

The civil action filed by GLC in a federal bankruptcy court last year was the first in what’s turned out to be a race by dozens of claimants to obtain what’s left of Donnan’s dwindling personal estate. After GLC filed for Chapter 11, Donnan quickly filed for bankruptcy himelf to protect around $5 million in assets from GLC and innumerable alleged Ponzi victims - including many sports celebrities.

From federal court exhibits posted by SbB seven months ago - which included fairly indecipherable and oft-incoherent handwritten notes from the former football coach -  here’s how Donnan’s Ponzi (allegedly) worked:

(Barry Switzer was sports acquaintance prey for (alleged) Donnan Ponzi)

1) Allegedly presenting himself as representative of GLC, Donnan would solicit “loans” from friends and sports celebs like Tommy Tuberville, Frank Beamer, Mark Gottfried and recruiting analyst Tom Luginbill with the promise of annualized returns of up to 70%. Donnan’s pitch was to tell alleged victims that their money was going to purchase surplus retail items that would eventually be resold. (Funding GLC’s business model/operation.)

2) Donnan allegedly enlisted Dennis Franchione to solicit multiple alleged Ponzi investors, including Billy Gillispie. In a separate legal action, GLC is now pursuing $95,000 in alleged commissions the current Texas State head football coach was allegedly paid by Donnan for luring Gillispie into the alleged scheme.

3) After receiving the money allegedly solicited by Donnan and Franchione, GLC would pay out exorbitant fees to Donnan and Franchione for their “services” - along with sky-high loan interest rate payments to Donnan’s investors. Donnan and Franchione themselves also “invested” in the company with the expectation they’d recoup as much as 70% of their loan principal in 12 months.

More pertinent details:

• Federal court docs submitted by GLC in its initial BK filing indicated that Donnan helped secure $81,916,000 from investors.
• During the same period, GLC alleged that Donnan billed the company $14,557,228.50 in personal loan interest and commissions.
• Of the $82 million in investor funds solicited by Donnan, GLC reported that $11,793,000 was invested in company operations.
• Who exactly helped Donnan perpetrate his alleged Ponzi from within the company is subject to an ongoing investigation that could eventually see GLC executives and/or Donnan and/or Franchione charged in criminal court.

The highest-profile loser in Donnan’s alleged scheme, according to multiple court document filings, was/is Billy Gillispie.

On Oct. 24, 2011, Gillispie filed a claim against Donnan in federal bankruptcy court over $1,913,167.00 the Texas Tech basketball coach “loaned” to Donnan to invest in GLC company operations. In one loan document signed by the two parties and filed in federal bankruptcy court last year, Gillispie was to receive an annual 60% interest rate on a principal of $1,000,000 paid to GLC via Donnan.

In Donnan’s own handwritten notes - appearing in court docs - the ex-coach also noted that Franchione was to be paid a five percent commission for allegedly luring Gillispie into that particular deal. (Which GLC represenatives are now pursuing from the Texas State coach.)

In another federal court document, it appeared that Donnan and a GLC official drew up a $2,000,000 “loan” from Gillispie to GLC at “65 percent interest per year.”

Gillispie though did not sign that agreement.

Gillispie’s initial claim was completely rebuffed by Donnan in a November 18, 2011, legal response. Two months later, Gillispie’s lawyer specifically alleged to the judge that Donnan misrepresented a Ponzi scheme as a legit business endeavor to his client, punctuating a lengthy court filing rife with legal citations by asking that …

the Court set a discovery deadline in this matter and a final hearing if deemed appropriate, and that it grant Claimants such other and further relief deemed to be just and proper.

A Jan. 25, 2012, hearing was subsequently set for possible disposition of Gillispie’s $1.9 million claim. Though that was just one of  36(!) other claims against Donnan scheduled for the same day. Because so many remain steadfast in their uncompromisig pursuit of the ex-Georgia football coach, the backed-up Athens, Georgia, federal court continued all civil proceedings until March 20, 2012.

And with remarkably few settlements in sight for the remaining claimants against Donnan, federal criminal investigators attempting to crack the case best pack a retard sandwich too.

Follow Brooks on Twitter or join him on Facebook for real-time updates

On October 14, 2004, David Hinojosa of the DALLAS MORNING NEWS reported a story that was headlined, “Adam James is ready to be known as his own type of player.”

(Literally)

The story’s accompanying photo featured Adam James and his dad, ESPN announcer Craig James. In the shot, father James can be seen just over his son’s left shoulder.

While the headline suggested Adam James as the subject of the report, Hinojosa first mentioned “outside” perception that the Celina (TX) High School football player’s father, Craig James, was trying to use his status as an ESPN announcer to get his son “more playing time” at the school.

Hinojosa’s lede:

“Craig James walks a fine line when he attends a Celina (TX) High School football practice. Outsiders who have witnessed conversations between him and Celina coach Butch Ford have misconstrued them as a plea to get his son, Adam, more playing time.“

In the same DMN story Hinojosa noted that two years earlier, when Adam James was a freshman at Celina, “Craig began making appearances at practice (and the) whispers from the outsiders began.”

No Celina coaches, including Ford, were quoted in the Dallas Morning News story.

Hinojosa’s only on the record source - besides himself - on how the influence of Craig James on his son’s high school football program had been “misconstrued” was Craig James.

In the piece James told Hinojosa, “You would think being my son would be to his advantage, but it’s absolutely the opposite.”

One year later, on Nov. 9, 2005, Adam James was “selected” to play in a high school football all-star game which annually features the most sought-after high school football recruits in the nation and is nationally televised by NBC.

That year the game, the 2006 edition of the U.S. Army All-American Bowl, included Tim Tebow, Percy Harvin, C.J. Spiller, Sergio Kindle, Josh Freeman, DeMarco Murray, Gerald McCoy, Taylor Mays, Beanie Wells, Brandon Graham, Andre Smith and other future college stars and NFL players.

When he secured a coveted spot on an all-star game roster reportedly assembled by “the (2006) U.S. Army All-American Bowl Selection Team made up of Tom Lemming of CSTV and representatives of Scout.com“, Adam James had no Division I scholarship offers and 14 receptions in 10 games as a tight end playing in the state’s second-lowest (2A) Texas high school football classification.

Of that small school classification, Adam James became the first 2A high school school player from Texas in history to receive what many believe to be high school football’s highest honor despite the son of ESPN announcer Craig James having failed to receive 2A all-state recognition after his junior or senior seasons at Celina.

Adam James was also not ranked in the Top 100 Rivals.com position prospects for the state of Texas at the time of his “selection” to the roster of the Army All-American Bowl.

On Jan. 4, 2006, the first day of practice for the All-American Bowl in San Antonio, the SAN ANTONIO EXPRESS-NEWS published a story about Adam James with the headline, “Famous father lends support to his H.S. All-American son.”

Express-News reporter Dan McCarney’s lede for the piece:

It was a college football fan’s dream: Ohio State playing Notre Dame in the Fiesta Bowl at a sold-out Sun Devil Stadium.

Yet even as he watched from the sideline, ABC analyst Craig James couldn’t help himself. He took a moment to sneak into a tunnel to call his 18-year-old son, Adam, who had just finished his first day of practice for Saturday’s U.S. Army All-American Bowl.

“Here I am, watching Notre Dame and Ohio State go at it, and all that’s on my mind is what’s going on in San Antonio,” James said. “Last night, I couldn’t go to sleep. I’m so excited that he had a good day (Monday), that he enjoyed his time.”

Of his selection to a squad featuring numerous future NFL stars, Adam James told McCarney of the Express-News at the time:

“I was very surprised. I’ve never pictured myself as an All-American.”

“Every time I achieved something, it was because of my dad.”

“But I’ve realized that he’s not the one out there putting the work in.”

Of his son’s reaction to being “selected” for an all-star game roster spot reserved for high school football’s most-recruited, highest-rated players, Craig James told the Express-News:

“I can’t tell you how satisfying that is as a dad, that he recognized it and it wasn’t just coming from me.“

The same day as the Express-News story, a Rivals.com report published the following note from the Army All-American Bowl practice in San Antonio:

Colton (Calif.) linebacker Allen Bradford showed why he’s the No. 1 ranked player in the state of California by absolutely leveling Celina (Texas) tight end Adam James. This play had the West defense in an absolute frenzy.

James went unmentioned in the Associated Press recap of the game and in the extensive coverage of the event provided by the Express-News, Rivals.com and Scout.com - which included breakdowns of individual player perfomances. James was also not mentioned in the “postgame player recaps and analysis” published on the Army All-American Bowl’s official website.

On April 5, 2005, eight months before he was “selected” to the Army All-American Bowl roster, John Talman of Rivals.com reported of the “interest” Adam James was receiving from “numerous” major college football programs - and that the son of ESPN announcer Craig James was hoping for an offer from Texas A&M:

The Celina, Texas., prospect is receiving interest from numerous programs across the Lone Star state and much of the Big 12. However, one team is not only the leader but a childhood favorite as well.

“Yes, it’s Texas A&M by far,” James said. “Ever since I went to a game there when I was like five I’ve wanted to go there. Last year I got invited to come up to one of their games and I just really liked it.”

If the Aggies were to offer, James said it would be hard to resist.

“Yeah, I probably would commit if that happened,” James said about a possible Aggie offer. “The tradition is what got me. It’s just amazing.”

Texas, Oklahoma State, TCU, Baylor, Iowa, and others are actively sending him countless amounts of mail. Being the son of former NFL great Craig James also has his father’s alma mater SMU in hot pursuit.

On July 18, 2005, four months before he was “selected” to the Army All-American Bowl roster, John Talman of Rivals.com reported that Adam James was “accompanied” by his ESPN announcer dad, Craig James, as he participated in a 7-on-7 football tournament at Texas A&M.

Of Craig James, Talman noted in his story, “his father, who went through the (recruiting) process before, has decided to keep out of it for the most part to let his son make the best decision possible.” More:

“He’s real level headed,” James said about his son. “It’s interesting for me to go through the process on the other side now and being the parent. We are basically as a family looking for a match both athletically and academically.

“At the same time, I’m just sitting back and letting him work the process.”

Of schools interested in his football ability, Adam James said, “I’m having fun with it. Texas A&M, Baylor, Iowa, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, and SMU are some schools that have been contacting me.”

On Dec. 12, 2005, two weeks before his first practice at the Army All-American Bowl, Jamie Newberg of Scout.com reported, “(Adam) James currently doesn’t have any scholarship offers but two teams could be close – Texas Tech and Oklahoma State.”

Of Oklahoma State, which Newberg reported “could be close” to offering Adam James a football scholarship, the son of ESPN announcer Craig James said at the time:

“I went to Oklahoma State for a game this season with three of my buddies. It kind of reminds me of Celina. It’s not a big campus. I think I fit well there too and they where orange like we (Celina’s colors) do.”

The day after the Army All-American Bowl, Jan. 9, 2006, Adam James told Rivals.com reporter John Talman that he now had football scholarship offers but wanted to keep them “on the down low” as he prepared to make multiple “official visits” to various schools.

Comments from the son of ESPN announcer Craig James in Talman’s Rivals.com piece titled, “James ready for trips“:

“I’ve got some offers, but we’re trying to keep that on the down low right now.”

“As for trips, I’m thinking of heading to Texas Tech, Texas, Boston College, Ole Miss, Nevada, and maybe one other school.”

On Jan. 18, 2006, Chris Pool of Scout.com reported that Adam James had multiple football scholarship offers. In the article, the son of ESPN announcer Craig James said:

“The thing is that I didn’t start to get recruited until January. I’m planning out my official visits right now. Wisconsin is starting to show some interest in me. Oklahoma State and Texas have started to show a lot of interest lately.”

One day later, Jan. 19, 2006, Bill Lowery of Rivals.com reported that before being selected to the Army All-American Bowl roster “few schools were aware” of the “abilities” of Adam James as a football player but “after playing in the 2006 U.S. Army All-American Bowl in San Antonio on January 7, the recruitment of 6-foot-3 and 235-pound tight end Adam James of Celina (TX) High School has skyrocketed.”

Before his son announced his decision to enroll at Texas Tech, Craig James told the LUBBOCK AVALANCHE-JOURNAL:

“It’s a lot different, obviously, having this hat on. There’s a lot of happiness for my son and what he’s accomplished and now we’re trying to find a match for him to go to school. I’ve always thought that Texas Tech would be a great fit for him, but I’ve had to let him kind of make his way through this.”

The Lubbock newspaper also reported that according to Craig James, his son had “received scholarship offers from Boston College and Wisconsin, among others.”

After ESPN announcer Craig James alleged his son had “received scholarship offers from Wisconsin and Boston College” the Wisconsin Rivals.com website BadgerBlitz.com published a followup report about Wisconsin’s alleged recruitment of Adam James:

BadgerBlitz.com caught up with Celina, Texas three-star tight end Adam James Monday night to find out if the Wisconsin Badgers have shown interest in him.

According to the 6-foot-2, 230 pound James, the Badgers have shown interest but they no longer have a shot at the U.S. Army All-American. “Well, yeah I heard they were interested,” James said.

Outside of the Red Raiders, James said Oklahoma State and Texas showed interest from the Big 12 while Tulsa recruited hard, Boston College got into it and the Badgers showed up late.

“I talked to (Texas) a couple times,” James said. “Winning the national championship they were super busy so that didn’t go very far.

“Tulsa was recruiting me real hard and Boston College was getting into it. Wisconsin was going to get in too. I didn’t know why (they didn’t) but it was so late in the deal probably.”

In addition to reporting that Craig James had claimed Adam James had, “received scholarship offers from Boston College and Wisconsin”, the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal also noted these comments from the ESPN announcer:

“Now it’s trying to find what would be a match. I have an advantage over a lot of dads, that I know what schools do offensively and where my son could fit - fit athletically and institutionally. I know this would be a good place.”

Craig James was actually in Lubbock the day he made the above comments about his son’s football recruitment to the Avalanche-Journal, which also reported why the ESPN announcer happened to be in town on Jan. 21, 2006:

Former SMU and NFL running back Craig James was in attendance at the Tech football banquet Saturday. James’ son, Adam, is on a recruiting visit to Tech this weekend.

24 hours later Adam James was a Texas Tech Red Raider.

Texas Tech was the first and only “visit” taken by Adam James after the Army All-American Bowl on Jan. 7, 2006.

When asked about Adam James 16 months later, on March 27, 2007, Texas Tech football coach Mike Leach told Don Williams of the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal:

“We don’t entirely know what we have with him. Todd (Dodge) was the last set of football eyes that were on him at the all-star game. Todd kind of confirmed what I was thinking, what I thought I was seeing. So we’re excited to have him and looking forward to seeing what the future holds for him.’“

Where did Todd Dodge’s “all-star game” assessment of Adam James that “kind of confirmed” what Leach “thought” he saw come from?

The same game in which Dodge had served as an assistant coach two weeks before Adam James was offered a scholarship by Texas Tech.

The 2006 Army All-American Bowl.

And the headline of the same March 27, 2007, newspaper story that “kind of confirmed” what Leach “thought” about Adam James?

“Having famous father gives Tech’s James leg up.”

Follow Brooks on Twitter or join him on Facebook for real-time updates