Posted by David Wade on Monday, December 7, 2009 at 11:19 am

It all started with the Toronto Blue Jays interim president laying out his reasons for missing out on signing their 37th overall pick in the MLB draft this past summer.  Once the Toronto Globe and Mail quoted Paul Beeston in this article, Kentucky left-hander James Paxton’s college baseball career was in jeopardy. 

Beeston was simply explaining to the media why he did not come to terms with the highly-rated Canadian-born pitcher.  In doing so, he identified a familiar villain in MLB negotiations as the reason- Scott Boras.  Evidently the uber-agent that is seen as the Milo Mindbender of the world of Major League Baseball was in some way involved in the Paxton negotiations with Toronto.  Beeston reportedly said at one point, “Because it was Scott, the way that you deal you deal through him”. 

For the NCAA, ever diligent in their search for minutia in regards to college athletes and their amateur status, this represented the reddest of flags.  Amateur baseball players can receive advice from professionals under N.C.A.A. rules, so long as those giving legal advice do not act as an agent and negotiate directly with teams.  Soon after the paper published the article, the NCAA began to inquire with Sandy Bell, compliance officer for U.K.  They asked that she set up an interview with Paxton, presumably to determine if Boras dealt directly with the Blue Jays.

As noted in my previous article, Paxton’s attorneys contend that the student was never informed of a reason for the interview and was told not to contact his parents or a lawyer.  I speculated that if U.K. did tell him that it may have been on orders from the NCAA.  According to an affidavit filed on behalf of Sandy Bell by U.K., there is disagreement between U.K. officials and Paxton on how he was told the N.C.A.A. wanted the interview to transpire, but that the ruling body did in fact request some restrictions.

Paxton’s suit claims U.K. told him not to contact his parents or an attorney, and the affidavit filed by U.K. shows that Bell says she did tell him the N.C.A.A. did not want him to talk to his parents or coach about the interview because they (N.C.A.A.) planned to interview them as well and did not want the parties to go over what they remembered together beforehand.  However, she says she did not tell him he could not speak to an attorney.  Her affidavit shows her statement to that effect, and there is an attached email from Chance Miller of the N.C.A.A. on Sept. 24 telling Bell that Paxton could have an attorney in case he wanted one.

U.K. also claims that the injunction leaves the University vulnerable to N.C.A.A. sanctions because even if a court were to decide there were grounds for stopping a suspension against Paxton by U.K. (or the N.C.A.A. for that matter), games Paxton may compete in could still be forfeited by the N.C.A.A. if they found reason to do so.

U.K. also addresses the student’s agreement with the University in which Paxton’s suit claims the University’s alleged request to keep an attorney out and failure to notify him in writing the subject of the interview violated his rights as a student.  However, the University’s agreement with their students in regards to testimony appears to only apply to University mandated interviews and this one, ordered by N.C.A.A., would evidently not fall under that rule. 

Most importantly, the University says that at no time was Paxton’s scholarship at stake since there were no allegations against him to be suspended for.  This assertion probably represents the most contentious point in the proceedings so far.

Once U.K.’s response reached Paxton’s legal team, they sent an e-mail to the media.  In it, Ohio attorney Richard Johnson maintains that the University is spinning their response and that the athletic department said Paxton would be “withheld from (intercollegiate athletics)”  until he submitted to an interview with the N.C.A.A.  This, Johnson argues, does constitute prohibition from the team and would jeopardize his client’s grant-in-aid.  Johnson plans to file a formal reply early the week of December 7.

I again speculate that Paxton’s family likely used someone (apparently Boras) when mulling over the Toronto offer(s).  I would be surprised if Boras ran afoul of N.C.A.A. rules, though.  First of all, this is not Boras’ first rodeo.  He deals with this situation every year.  He is quoted in an article at Baseball America that discusses the situation as saying, ”We are compliant with the NCAA rules by mandate…We have to go to families and charge them for information that we would otherwise not charge for. And we have to go through the bailiwick of having the parents deal with the teams through our counsel, which is crazy.”  If Boras ruined Paxton’s amateur status, it would be a costly mistake, and he doesn’t seem to make many of those. 

Hopefully the issue can be resolved and Paxton will be able to play for Kentucky in 2010.  In the meantime, I will update as information becomes available.