CIS sanctions UQTR for accusing UNB hockey of recruitment cheating

Remember in the fall when the UQTR hockey coach Marc-Étienne Hubert didn't land the recruit he coveted and went to the local press and accused UNB of being cheating cheaters?

Well, the UNB athletic director John Richard wasn't happy with the response he got from the UQTR AD, so he took his complaint up the chain to the CIS. The CIS decided that there were grounds for a formal charge and ruled that UQTR breached a number of CIS regulations -- which you could sum up as being disrespectful and damaging the image of the CIS.

The CIS quietly released their decision on December 17, and placed it deep on their website, where you really have to know where to go looking for it. The only reason I discovered it is because Bill Hunt of the Daily Gleaner asked Richard for an update on the UQTR situation in the media scrum after last night's UNB-STU hockey game.

On that same CIS Discipline and Appeals Decisions web page you will also discover that this season Queen's and Calgary have both been dinged for having an academically ineligible football player, Trinity Western and Mount Royal had an academically ineligible soccer player, and Montréal had an ineligible volleyball player. Four of the schools had to pay a standard CIS fine of $2000 and Montreal was slapped with $6000 in fines plus forced to reimburse $3500 to a CIS championship travel pool. All five schools had their varsity athletics programs placed on probation for 24 months. The things you learn.

But back to UQTR. The CIS apparently gave Hubert a bit of a break for being a relatively new coach (2nd season), but still handed the school $2000 in fines and fees and 24 months of probation:

In consideration of the above and based upon the circumstances of the matter, CIS considered the following sanctions to be warranted, specifically:
a) Probation for a period of 24 months, both for the institution and the coach, during which time another violation of a similar nature will be subject to a much higher level of sanction;
b) Requiring that UQTR undertake procedural, structural or other changes in order to minimize the chance of future violations, and provide a reporting thereof with specific reference to the education and orientation of new and current coaches with respect to CIS and Regional Association Codes of Ethics;
c) Ordering that a letter of apology be sent from UQTR to UNB and CIS, that is to be approved by CIS’ Vice-President of Compliance prior to circulation;
d) Levying a CIS fine of $1,750;
e) The Panel considered but was reluctant to assess any suspension on the coach at this time, relying instead on the fine levied on the institution.
f) The levying of costs of the hearing against the Respondent, which may include but not limited to all travel and accommodation costs incurred by CIS and Regional Associations, and all disbursements relating to the investigation, preparation of the charge, hearing and distribution of the decision including meeting space rental, long-distance telephone and fax charges, postage and courier costs, photocopying costs, legal consultation and other directly-related administrative expenses.  For this matter, these costs have been approximated to be $250;
g) The Panel did not consider a claim for costs by other institutions to be warranted, and thus there is no requirement for the institution to make restitution for any costs by other institutions.  
The moral of this story? If you think a varsity program is breaking the rules when it comes to recruiting, follow the established procedures and make a formal complaint to the CIS and present your facts. Don't shoot your mouth off to the media and spread unsubstantiated rumours.
Next PostNewer Post Previous PostOlder Post Home

1 comment:

  1. Great article! Its always interesting to sneak a glimpse behind the curtain.