Submission to the University of Louisville Athletic Association by University of Louisville Men’s Basketball Coach Rick Pitino Contract Termination “For Cause” Hearing October 16, 2017 A Stephen B. Pence PENCE & WHETZEL, PLLC ‘9300 Shelbyville Road, Suite 1205 Louisville, Kentucky 40222 Kurt A, Scharfenberger SCHARFENBERGER LAW OFFICE 239 South Fifth Street, Suite 800 Louisville, Kentucky 40202 . Bryan M, Cassis BRYAN M. CASSIS, PLLC 239 South Fifth Street, Suite 1800 Louisville, Kentucky 40202 Counsel for Coach Rick PitinoSUATEMENT OF THE CASE In its October 4, 2017 letter beginning the process for terminating Coach Pitino’s contract “for cause,” the University of Louisville Athletic Association (ULAA) cites three events as grounds for termination under three contractual provisions. Those events are: (1) the “escort” matter that led the NCAA, in its June 15,2017 Committee on Infraction’s report, to find that Coach Pitino failed to monitor and exercise sufficient oversight of staff; (2) the U.S. Attomey’s Office for the Southem District of New York's (USAO) September 26, 2017 complaint (Complaint, setting out a scheme of fraud and malfeasance allegedly (according to ULAA) “involving [Coach Pitino] and multiple members of [his] coaching staff”; and (3) Coach Pitino’s failure to notify the athletics compliance staff of Christian Dawkins’ presence on campus in late May 2017. According to the ULAA, these events constitute “cause” to terminate Coach Pitino’s contract und 1) § 6.1.2, because of disparaging media publicity of a material nature that damages UL or ULAA’s good name, caused by Coach Pitino’s willful misconduct; (2) § 6.1.3, because of a major ULAA, ACC, or NCAA rule violation; and (3) § 6.1.1, because of material contract violations in (a) failing to diligently supervise compliance of assistant coaches, § 4.1.3, (b) failing to promote an atmosphere of compliance, academic integrity, and ethical conduct within the basketball program, and failing to monitor the activities of all assistant coaches and administrators in the program who report, directly or indirectly, to Coach Pitino, § 4.3, (c) failing to notify compliance staff of concerns or red flags relating to Brian Bowen’s late commitment, and failing to notify compliance staff of Dawkins’ presence on campus, § 4.3.5, (d) failing to ensure staff cooperation with investigations, and failing to accept responsibility for maintaining the integrity of the investigation and enforcement process, § 4.3.6, (e) failing to takeresponsibility for violations, § 4.3.7, and (f) failing to actively monitor the staff's activities, resulting in the commitment of multiple NCAA Level-1 violations, § 4.3.8. Coach Pitino rejects ULAA’s allegations completely and unequivocally. He has striven to ensure that the University of Louisville men’s basketball program operates cleanly, properly, and in strict compliance with all regulatory requirements. He has demanded that his assistant coaches and staff members strictly comply with all such regulatory requirements. He never has authorized, tolerated, participated in, or otherwise condoned giving improper benefits to recruits or players, orto their families, including any inducement to have recruits join the University of Louisville men’s basketball program, [See Affidavit of Richard A. Pitino, attached as Ex. 1.] ‘That does not mean that ULAA cannot fire Coach Pitino. Of course it can. Colleges fire athletic coaches all the time, usually for lack of success, That is not the issue here. The issue is whether Coach Pitino engaged in conduct — actively or passively — that warrants contract termination for cause. For the following reasons, no such cause exists. ‘The Relevant Events The “escort” matter ULAA asserts that the escort matter — which involved bestowing improper benefits on players or recruits between 2010 and 2014 — provides grounds for termination for cause. It does not for at least three reasons, First, while the NCAA found that Coach Pitino had failed to monitor, or exercise sufficient oversight of, his staff, both Coach Pitino and UL disagreed, and the NCAA's finding currently is on appeal. Any sanction during the appeal's pendency is therefore premature.Second, any assertion now by ULAA that Coach Pitino failed to properly monitor and supervise the basketball staffis inconsistent with, and contradicted by, President Postel’s public statements and the University’s position before the NCAA. On June 15, 2017, President Postel described the NCAA's sanctions decision to be “beyond what we consider to be fair and reasonable.” It is why UL decided “to appeal all espects of the penalties,” Significantly, President Postel confirmed UL's position that the “NCAA ruling is also unfair to Coach Pitino, who we believe could not have known about the illicit activities.” (See UL Statement by President Postel, June 15, 2017 (emphasis added), attached as Ex. 2.] Nothing bas occurred between September 26, 2017 (the date that the USAO unsealed its Complaint) and October 4, 2017 (the date of ULAA’s termination letter) to justify a change in that position. ‘Third, the escort matter occurred during the operation of Coach Pitino's prior contract, dated July 1, 2012, not the current one, This is significant for multiple reasons. One, under the prior contract's terms, ULAA has no basis to terminate Coach Pitino for the escort matter. The prior contract’s version of § 6.1.3 provided that Coach Pitino “shall not be responsible for conduct of third parties, assistants, or other representatives of the athletic interests of [UL and ULAA] unless [he] was aware of such misconduct and failed to promptly report it ... or failed to exercise diligent, careful supervision ... which could have disclosed the violation.” Under those express terms, the ft of the escort matter provides no grounds for terminating the contract for cause; rather, termination requires proof that Coach Pitino failed to exercise diligent, careful supervision —a proposition that the University, this Board, and President Postel have repeatedly and consistently rejected. If UL's President “believe{s]” that Coach Pitino “could not have known about the illicit activities,” ULAA cannot fault him for that lack of knowledge. Two, itis simply wrong to terminate Coach Pitino’s current contract for events that occurred during hisprior contract, especially when ULAA has known about those events for two years, actively fought against the imposition of any sanctions against Coach Pitino, and believes that Coach Pitino “could not have known about the illicit activities.” Dawkins’ Presence on Campus ULAA asserts that Coach Pitino’s failure to inform the compliance staff that Dawkins visited the UL campus in late May 2017 provides grounds for termination for cause, But the Complaint makes clear that Dawkins was not an “agent,” even under the NCAA’s broad Gefinition, and was no longer employed by the sports management company at the time of his campus visit. [See Complaint ff 14.b at n.2, 20 and n.3. and Interview of General Counsel for the National Basketball Players Association, attached as Ex. 3.] Dawkins had been associated with an AAU team. Coach Pitino knew Dawkins only in that capacity, not as an agent. [See Coach Pitino Affidavit]. Indeed, in a June 5, 2017 interview — that is, days after Brian Bowen decided to attend UL — Coach Pitino mentioned that he leamed about Bowen through an “AAU. director.” Coach Pitino understood that Dawkins visited UL with the Bowen family through an AAU connection. Coach Pitino never believed that Dawkins was an agent, and Bowen's mother has stated that Dawkins was not an agent in any regard for Bowen. (See Interview of Carrie Ann Malecke, Bowen's mother, attached as Ex. 4.) The campus visit was completely in compliance with University and NCAA rules and regulation. Thus, Coach Pitino had neither an obligation. nor a reason to notify “Athletics Compliance” of Dawkins’ presence on campus. [See Statement of Michael Bowden, October 10, 2017, attached as Ex. 5.] Indeed, there appears to be no such reporting requirement even for agents, [ld.] The allegation that Dawkins’ visit provides “just cause” for termination appears to be wholly specious.‘The USAO Criminal Investigation Finally, ULAA asserts that the USAO criminal investigation provides grounds for termination for cause, But the 29-page Complaint make only three mentions of Coach Pitino (assuming that he is “Coach-2"), and none credibly provides evidence of wrongdoing, First, 36.4 of the Complaint states that Brad Augustine — one of those charged in the case — bragged that “no one swings a bigger dick than” Coach Pitino at Adidas, and “all [Pitino has to do] is pick up the phone and call somebody, [and say] these are my guys, they're taking care of us.” That statement does not allege that Coach Pitino did anything, just that Augustine believed that Coach Pitino could do things given his clout with Adidas. Second, according to 4 36.¢ of the Complaint, Dawkins — another charged party — told others that he had spoken with Coach Pitino about getting additional money for Brian Bowen’s family, end had told him that he needed him to call James Gatto. Coach Pitino has unequivocally denied that such a conversation ever took place. But Dawkins” statement lacks credibility for multiple reasons. One, the FBI was listening to Dawkins’ telephone calls pursuant to a court-authorized wiretap — the “Dawkins Wiretap.” Had the conversation that Dawkins claimed he had with Coach Pitino actually taken place, the Complaint surely would have said so. ‘The Complaint does not even mention that any such call ever took place. Two, text messages between Dawkins and Coach Pitino show no conversations that even suggest any ineppropriate communications between them. [See Pitino-Dawkins records of text messages, attached as Ex. 6.] On the contrary, the text messages support that Dawkins and the Bowen family believed that UL and Coach Pitino were the best fit for this recruit. Three, Coach Pitino’s actions following * Augustine's belief about what Coach Pitino could do was not based on any celationship he had with Coach Pitino, In fact, in August 2017, Coach Pitino sent a text message to an assistant coach asking what he thought of Augustine, as Coach Pitino did not know him wellBowen's ultimate commitment to Louisville definitively prove that he had no knowledge of any illicit payments made to Bowen o his farnily. Specifically, in September 2017, Bowen's mother, Carrie Malecke, told Coach Pitino by text thatthe family had moved to Louisville with Brian Bowen and were living at the Galt House, After receiving this message, Coach Pitino openly directed an assistant coach to inquire into how the Bowen family could afford such a move, an order that multiple witnesses have corroborated. [See Interview and Statements of Staff, attached as Ex. 7,] When the assistant coach eventually reported to Coach Pitino that the family had legitimate resources to support the move, Coach Pitino told the assistant to inform compliance of his findings. Simply put, there is no way Coach Pitino would have taken these actions if he had been involved in or had knowledge of the alleged bribery scheme, ? ‘Third, 137 of the Complaint alleges that, according to telephone records, Coach Pitino ‘communicated with Gatto in late May and early Tune, But there is no allegation that those calls ‘were anything but entirely innocent, and no allegation that they had anything to do with an improper scheme. In any event, any communication with Gatto would not be surprising. Adidas has outfitted the UL men’s basketball team for several years, and the University and Adidas recently signed a $160 million, ten-year, contract extension in August 2017. At no time, however, have Coach Pitino and Gatto discussed — overtly, covertly, in code, through nuance, or in any other way — the provision of improper benefits to any UL basketball player or recruit. 2 For that mater, there may not have been any illicit payment to even know about. The Complaint describes a conspiracy to make payments, and cites conspirators” statements that they made payments, but doesnot contain, corroboration of those statements’ ruth, No Bowen family member was charged with weougdoing, Whether Dovwkins and others actually made payments, or whether they were also scamming Adidas into thinking that they ‘were doing so, is something that can only be learned asthe criminal ease unfolds 6Again, text messages between Gatto and Coach Pitino reveal that all communications ‘were completely appropriate.” [See Pitino-Gatto records of text messages, attached as Ex. 8.] In sum, then, none of the specific events cited in ULAA's letter provides “just cause” for termination of Coach Pitino’s contract, We therefore turn to the ways in which ULAA says that Coach Pitino violated his contract. ‘The Charges Disparaging Media Publicity ‘There is no doubt that both the escort matter and the USAO Complaint have resulted in disparaging media publicity, that the publicity is of a material nature, and that the publicity damages UL or ULAA’s good name. No one could reasonably think otherwise. But that is not enough to find cause for contract termination under § 6.1.2, Rather, that paragraph requires that the disparaging media publicity result ftom Coach Pitino’s “willful misconduct ” That clearly is not the case here, Coach Pitino denied any willful misconduct in the escort matter; UL denied any wilful ‘misconduct in the escort matter; the NCAA found no willful misconduct in the escort matter ‘There is, quite simply, no proof from which ULAA can find that any disparaging media publicity related to the escort matter resulted from Coach Pitino’s willful misconduct. Coach Piti 0 likewise denies any willful misconduct related to the events detailed in the Complaint. Nor does the Complaint, for reasons discussed above, provide any basis for inferring such willful misconduct, And, inthe interest of clearing his name, Coach Pitino has gone so far pat so left Coach Pino «voicemail message on June I, 2017, saying that he hd “heard th good ae” about es cision to atend UL, Gato would never have le such a message f Gatto and Coney a conspired to pay money to obtain Bowen's attendance,to take, and pass, a polygraph test. (See Polygraph Examination Report, October 6, 2017, einie, 8, attached as Ex. 9.) Onee again, there simply {sno proof from which ULAA can find that any disparaging media publicity related to the Complaint, and the events detailed in it, resulted from is Coach Pitino’s willful misconduct. fajor Rule Violation The recently unsealed Complaint contained no allegation that Coach Pitino engaged in ‘any conduct constituting a major ULAA, ACC, or NCAA rule violation, Noris there any proof ‘hat he engaged in that conduct. As a result, there is no basis for finding that Coach Pitino breached § 6.1.3 ofhis contract with respect to the USAO complaint ot the events detailed init. ‘The events underlying the escort matter took place during the time that Coach Pitino’s IL and Coach Pitino both dispute that finding, and the matter is under appeal, President Postel +has said that the NCAA's finding is “unfair to Coach Pitino” because he “could not have known about the illicit activities.” contradicted by the University and President Postel’s public statements, and the University’s formal position before the NCAA. But beyond that, the escort matter oecurred during the operation of Coach Pitino’s prior contract, Under § 6.1.3 of the prior contract, Coach Pitino “shall not be responsible for conduct of third partes, assistants, or other representatives of the athletic interests of [UL and ULAA] tnless [he] was aware of such misconduct and file to Promptly repor it... or failed to exercise diligent, careful supervision Which could have disclosed the Violation.” ULAA thus cannotterminate Coach Pitino’s current contract for events that occurred during his prior contract without finding that he failed to exercise diligent, careful supervision — a proposition that UL and President Postel have repeatedly and consistently rejected, Material Breach of Contract There thus is no plausible basis for ULAA to find that it ‘has cause to terminate Coach Pitino's contract for disparaging media publicity or a major rule violation, Rather, ULAA must find thatthe proof supports one of the six ways that it says Coach Pitino materially violated bis contract. For the following reasons, there is no such proof, First, ULAA says that Coach Pitino violated § 4.1.3 by failing to diligently supervise his ‘ssistnt coaches" compliance with rules, The proofs, however, that Coach Pitino diligently Supervised his staf and insisted on their compliance with the niles. He drilled compliance into his coaches and assistants at every meeting, He met with his coaches and assistants frequently and kept well informed about their activities. (See Bowden Statement, Ex. 3; see also Interview ‘and Statements of Staff, attched as Ex. 7 and 10,] Staffmeetings were videotaped and the tapes will confirm what Coach Pitino routinely did and said. He implemented and faithfully adhered ‘0 all eommencations that Athletic Director Tom Jusich and President Postel made after the Scontmatte, He thus di everything reasonably possible to maximize his diligent supervision Ofassistant coaches and staff: Juich’s recent submission supports Coach Pitino in this regard, Ofcourse, “diligent supervis(ion]” is not a guarantee of compliance fit were, the “oniract would have made Coach Pitino strictly liable for his assistant coaches" alleged misdeeds (and itdoes not). Indeed, any non-compliant subordinate — like any employee engaging in \wilfal misconduct in any employment setting — likely will seek to avoid detection despiteiligent supervision. ULAA thus cannot conclude that there was a failure of diligent supervision Just because of subordinates’ misconduct; otherwise, that would be requiring a guarantee, For ULAA to find that Coach Pitino failed to diligently supervise his staff, it must have proof; it cannot simply rely on the fact that stafT members misbehaved. That proof might consist of contrary evidence from assistant coaches and staff, or that Coach Pitino failed to implement or adhere to AD Jurich and President Postel’s recommendations, or that his supervision was deficient compared to other schools, or that his supervision was deficient compared to other times in UL history. But, absent that proof, ULAA has no basis for finding that Coach Pitino failed to diligently supervise his staff. ‘Second, ULAA says that Coach Pitino violated § 4.3 by failing to promote en atmosphere of compliance, academic integrity, and ethical conduct within the basketball program, and by failing to monitor the activities of all assistant coaches and administrators inthe program who report, directly or indirectly, to him. Once agein, “promotfion] of an atmosphere” or “monitorfing of]” activities cannot, and do not, guarantee compliance, Coach Pitino repeatedly stressed to his staff his insistence on rule compliance, integrity, and ethics, and routinely monitored staff activity. For ULAA to find that Coach Pitino failed to promote a required atmosphere, or filed to adequately monitor his staff, ©* diligently supervise his staff, it must have proof, it cannot simply rely on the fact that staff ‘members misbehaved.’ Again, that proof might consist of contrary evidence from assistant coaches and staff, or that Coach Pitino failed to implement or adhere to AD Jurich and President **Diligent supervision” isnot an obj jective standard, Bu, forthe reasons detailed inthe text, Coach Pitino has shown that he diligently supervised his staff under any reasonable definition ofthat ambiguous and vague standard. ‘Promotion ofan atmosphere” and “monitoring of actives” are nt objective standards ether. But, for the Sat cceced in the text, Coach Pitino has shown that he promoted an atmosphere of compliance, ane stored ‘Staff activites, under any reasonable definition of those ambiguous and vague standards 0Postet’s recommendations, or that his conduct was deficient compared to other schools, or that his conduct was deficient compared to other times in UL history. But, absent that proof, ULAA has no basis for finding that Coach Pitino failed to promote an atmosphere of compliance, integrity and ethics, or failed to monitor his staff. ‘Third, ULAA says that Coach Pitino violated § 4.3.5 by failing to notify compliance staff of concems or red flags relating to Brian Bowen’ late commitment and Dawkins’ presence on campus. As for Bowen, Coach Pitino had no reason to suspect that something illicit was behind his commitment. Indeed, as Coach Pitino testified, Bowen's mother has stated that she knew nothing about any money paid to Bowen’s father, and that Bowen committed to UL because he liked the staff and program and wanted to go to UL for entirely legitimate reasons.® [See Report of Interview with Carrie Ann Malecke, attached as Ex. 3; see also text message from Carrie Ann Malecke to Coach Pitino, attached as Ex. 11.] And although Bowen’s decision came late in the process, there were obvious basketball reasons supporting it.” In any event, Bowen’s surprise commitment was quite public, so the compliance staff knew as much about it as Coach Pitino did As for Dawkins, Coach Pitino has testified that he did not know, and had no reason to know, that Dawkins was on campus in any capacity other than through his AAU connections with the Bowen family. He was never told that Dawkins was an agent and, as the Complaint § Malecke's September 18, 2017 tex to Coach Pitino said that Bowen “chose Louisville because that was the best Place and postion for him plus he connection you both hud with ech other was undeniable!" Tha is etly Consistent with her June 3,2017 text to him: “Yam so excited to start this journey with you and your fay Yam so ¢hankful that you are welcoming (uso the ity. I believe that you have my son's best interest at hea” | Bowen found out ats that two players atthe University of Arizona —one of his inal six schools — had changed thes minds about entering the NBA. deaf, thus reducing the chance tat he would start as a eshman, Simariye Donovan Mitchell's May 5, 2017 decision to remain inthe NBA drafi meant thar UL had a scholarship available And Michel's departure made it more likely that Bowen could sta, or atleast play significant minutes, ae « freshman at UL. u| makes clear, Dawkins was not 8 registered agent, and was no longer employed PY & sports management company at te time of hs visit, And, according to Michael Bowden, there is no reporting requirement even if Dawkins was agent or acting as one, Coach Pitino thus was under no obligation to report Dawkins’ presence of campus. Fourth, ULAA says that Coach Pitino violated § 4.3.6 by failing to ensure staff cooperation with iavestgations, and by fling fo aeeePt responsibility for maintaining the sntegity ofthe investigation and enforcement process, On the contrary, Coach Pitino has done everything possible to ensure stff cooperation with investigations, and has voluntarily met with ifULAA has contrary proof, it is incumbent on it to and provided information to FBI agent produce it. Coach Pitino aso fully aecepts his responsibility for maintaining the integrity of the savestigation and enforeement process and believes that he has done so; A825, if ULAA has contrary proof, it is jncumbent on it to produce it. Moreover, he cannot fathom how ULAA can gmuge his failure to “take responsibility” when it hasn't communicated with him — except through disciplinary letters and verbal statements — since the USAO unsealed its Complaint. Fifth, ULAA sags that Coach Pitino violated § 43.7 by filing to take responsibility for is involvement i, or knowledge of violations. As detsiled above, he insists that he has done so, and that itis incumbent on ULAA to produce contrary proof if ithas any. Nor ean he fathom how ULAA can gauge his failure to “take responsibility” for violations when it hasn't communicated with him — again, except through disciplinary letters and verbal statements — since the USAO unsealed its Complaint. ‘Sixth, ULAA says that Coach Pitino violated § 4.3.8 by failing to actively monitor his staff's activities, resulting in the commitment of multiple NCAA Level-I violations. Coach Pitino did actively monitor those activities, and it is again incumbent on ULAA to produce any 2contrary proof. But, consistent with the “diligent supervisfion]" discussion above, “active monitoring” is not a guarantee of compliance. A staff member's non-compliance likely will be designed to avoid detection despite active monitoring. ULAA thus cannot conclude that there as a failure of active monitoring just because of a staff member's misconduct; otherwise, that would be requiring a guarantee, Here, the proof is that Coach Pitino actively monitored his staff and insisted on their compliance with the rules. He drilled compliance into his coaches and assistants at every ‘meeting. He met with his coaches and assistants frequently and kept well informed about their activities. He implemented and strictly adhered to AD Jurich and President Postel’s recommendations in the wake of the escort matter. For ULAA to find that Coach Pitino failed to actively monitor his staff, it must have proof, it cannot simply rely on the fact that staff members misbehaved, That proof might consist of contrary evidence from assistant coaches and staff, or that Coach Pitino failed to implement or adhere to AD Jurich and President Postel’s recommendations, or that his monitoring was deficient compared to other schools, or that his monitoring was deficient compared to other times in UL history. But, absent that proof, ULAA has no bi is for finding that Coach Pitino failed to monitor his staff. Summary and Conelusion For all these reasons: + There are no grounds whatsoever for finding cause related to Bowen's commitment or Dawkins’ appearance B Tl+ There are no grounds whatsoever for finding cause related to the escort matter, especially given UL’s position and findings, President Postel’s statements, the applicability of the 2012 contract, and the pendency of the sanctions appeal, «There are no grounds whatsoever for finding cause related to Coach Pitino's conduct in the USAO Complaint, All that remains of ULAA’s asserted grounds for terminating Coach Pitino’s contract for cause is its reliance on vague contract terms concerning the Coach’s duty to diligently supervise, ‘monitor, and oversee his staff. As to that, he has complied, Diligent supervision, monitoring, and oversight are not the same as an absolute guarantee that subordinates won’t misbehave. To find a failure of diligent supervision, monitoring, or oversight, ULAA must have roof that Coach Pitino deviated from a standard, There is no objective standard, so ULAA must ‘gauge deviation from a subjective standard. It cannot do that without proof: proof from remaining assistants or Coach Padgett that (and how) Coach ino fuiled to diligently supervise, ‘monitor, and oversee staff; proof that Coach Pitino’s supervision, monitoring, and oversight was less than that at other schools; proof that Coach Pitino's supervision, monitoring, and oversight \was less than at other times in UL history. Given that all that's left from ULAA’s letter is the series of allegations that Coach Pitino deviated from a subjective standard in supervising, monitoring, and overseeing his staff, if ULAA terminates Coach Pitino’s contract without proof of that deviation, it will be in breach of contract, and will be obligated to pay him the full balance due under his contract,Exhibit 1ARFIDAVIT OF RICHARD. Richard A. Pitino, having first been duly sworn, deposes and states as follows: 1, My name is Richard A. Pitino, I have served as the head coach of the University of Louisville (UL) men’s basketball team since 2001. I submit this affidavit for use at the hearing on the University of Louisville Athletic Association's (ULAA) proposed termination of my employment contract “for cause.” 2, 1 do not dispute ULAA’s right to terminate my employment at its discretion, But 1 vehemently reject its right to do so “for cause.” I have given no “cause” for termination of my contract, 3, I wtte to address two recent matters involving the men’s basketball tear, ‘The “escort matter” involved events divulged by Katrina Powell in the fall of 2015. The “bribery matter” involves alleged events discussed in a federal criminal complaint and FBI affidavit unsealed on September 26, 2017. 4, [knew nothing about the escort matter and had no reason to know of it. ‘That is why UL Interim President Postel announced on June 15, 2017 that UL deemed the NCAA's sanctions decision to be “beyond what we consider to be fair and reasonable.” Tt is why UL decided “to appeal all aspects of the penalties.” As for my knowledge and actions, President Postel stated that the “NCAA ruling is also unfair to Coach Pitino, who wwe believe could not have known about the illicit activities.” 5. That was UL’s position on September 26, 2017. And yet, on October 4, 2017 — cight days later, — ULAA asserted that I should have known about those sotivities, I reject that about-face. 1 believe that ULAA leamed nothing new about the escort matter between September 26 and October 4, 2017, to justify that about-face, hn ifr arg 1)6. In light of the escort matter, { met with and received recommendations from Athletic Director (AD) Tom Jurich and President Postel about ways to ensure strict compliance with NCAA and other applicable regulations. 1 faithfully implemented all of those recommendations and adhered to them at all times. I have striven to ensure that the UL men’s basketball program operates cleanly, properly, and in strict compliance with all NCAA and other regulatory requirements. I have demanded that my assistant coaches and staft members strictly comply with all such regulatory requirements. I have never authorized, tolerated, participated in, or otherwise condoned giving improper benefits to recruits or players, of to their families, especially as an inducement to have recruits join the UL men’s basketball program. I believe that the team’s assistant coaches and other staff will corroborate these statements, 7. The bribery matter stems from a criminal complaint that alleges that a Sports apparel company conspired to pay money to the family of members of recruits to induce the recruits to play basketball at a public university. 8. Thad no part — active, passive, or through willful ignorance — in the conspiracy described in the complaint. I had no reason to know about the conspiracy described in the complaint, and no reason to know about the complicity of any UL assistant coach or staff member in any bribery conspiracy. I never have had any part — active, passive, or through willful ignorance — in any effort, successful or unsuccessful, completed or abandoned, to pay any recruit, or any family member ofa recruit, or anyone clse on a recruit’s bebalf, as an inducement to attend UL. I specifically deny the Statement attributed to Christian Dawkins [in Special Agent Vourdetis’ Affidavit § 36.¢] that “he had spoken with {me} about getting additional money for (Bowen's) family and (Penn All ang 1 2informed {rne] that ‘Tneed you to call Jim Gatto...” No such conversation took place, 9, Once the documents detailing the bribery matter were ‘unsealed, T voluntarily met with FBI agents and answered their questions. 1 told them everything 1 new and fully answered any questions they had. 1 will eontinue to do so. also have voluntarily taken @ polygraph examination, which confirmed my statements th bad no knowledge of, and did not participate in, any bribery conspiracy. 10, The complaint asserts that I had telephone conversations with James Gatto, an employee of Adidas, Although I know and have communicated with Gatto by phone and by text, I have never discussed with him— overtly, covertly, in code, ‘through ance, or in any other way — the provision of improper benefits to any UL basketball player or recruit. 11, After the documents detailing the bribery matter were unsealed, I eceived « communication from Brian Bowen's mother. She stated that she knew nothing about any money paid to Bowen’s father, She also stated that Brian had committed to play at ive relationship UL because he Hiked the program and its staff, and because of his pos with the program's staff, 12, ULAA’s October 4, 2017 letter to me says that I should have known about any assistant coach of staff member's complicity in the bribery matter, T reject that assertion, No reasonable level of oversight — including the oversight that President postel and AD Jurich recommended and that I implemented — can guarantee that staff members will always act properly, Moreover, ULAA cannot have determined between September 26 and October 4, 2017 facts sufficient to justify its assertion, Instead, ULAA is rushing to judgment, condemning me for actions that the NCAA is only beginning to (Paint Hei 1)13. ULAA’s October 4, 2017 letter also faults me for failing to notify athletic compliance officials that Christian Dawkins was on campus in late May 2017. I never had a reason to report Dawkins’s presence on campus. I had known Dawkins through his association with an AAU program called Dorian’s Pride. He had accompanied Brian and his family during an authorized recruiting visit in May 2017 and also attended a practice. So far as 1 know, Christian Dawkins is not a sports agent. Given what I knew about Dawkins, I do not know why ULAA believes I should have reported Dawkins’s presence ‘on campus to athletic compliance. 14, Again, ULAA is free to fire me, just like any college is free to fire any coach. But its assertion that I have given it “just cause” under my contract for that firing is baseless. ‘The assertions contained in ULAA’s termination letter impugn my integrity, honesty, and commitment to ethics in sports. I reject those assertions, I will fight tirelessly to defend my reputation, Subscribed and swom before me by Richard A. Pitino on October /=-, 2017 ZL GES ‘Notary Public, Florida, State at Large My commission expires: June (5, 20/5 aUeL FTO. YOOMSSCNEF 20734 FR} DoPIRES: ne 15,2010 (Piao Ati oH 1) _Oo / E Exhibit 2University of Louisville (pis resent Org Poses sarnest os NCAR lg riven of Louis ener Pesto en 15,2017 “Today, we cid the ing from he Non Clete Aas Anais Commit econ inh ce ivalvng improper cites hat oo plate in Bly Mir al seve yer se ‘The commie bis acre ou sling pena mi Inve ional eee penal tht we belive arenes ‘Tecate Uo somaaniy x ane by at tok pla. owever the NCAA Dison Commitee infactons wet tui tae hepa and tg wy the tol aed severely pnt en 2016, Toy, ite conse tbe rand sons, We nen to appeal a pues ‘Te peso espns fortes ste, Ande Me, lon age ef he un veriyand Reh etn cooper wih ives fas Wee spp athe Incomms ot sopete, We waned the NCAA Enfectt Sl to tocve wh kapened: We ave oe ope and unspent iroughow his rset Tie NCAA knew Sow sou te uiversiy ten his ater om tha bepting. Once we ath tad ound wht ok ae, we ther hing by taking espe ad imposiag severe peas on oust, Wetelee be petals posed today ae nf he UL omer dt cesta fre se oy of whom hve aiendy pid henry pce fr estan att ovale ten. Thi ing ufo Coach Pine wc we aloe cou Five low att tac This abn very ero for Uo. | amconfder ft wht hand here wl ever happen eg We have changed ou recut pocfues inposed ‘Aton econ nth dec dt lb ciel tonal ing lsabers shat tee een tak pce Neves, the Comoe onan is etoo rant icen actions ht read We wl speom | Exhibit 3ADVANCED INVESTIGATIVE SOLUTIONS INC. Carl Christiansen October 4, 2017 Rick Pitino Matter Interview of Kirk Burger Privileged and Confidential Attorney Client Communication Created at Request of Counsel On October 4, 2017, Carl Christiansen telephonically contacted Kirk Burger who is the ‘Associate General Counsel at the National Basketball Players Association (NBPA). Burger stated his organization certifies all NBA Agents. He stated Christian Dawkins has never been an Agent registered with the NBPA.Exhibit 4ADVANCED INVESTIGATIVE SOLUTIONS INC. Carl Christiansen October 10, 2017 Ri Pitino Matter Interview of Carrie Ann Malecke Privileged and Confidential Attorney Client Communication Created at Request of Counsel On October 10, 2017, Carl Christiansen telephonically contacted Carrie Ann Malecke at | |. Malecke was advised that Christiansen is working on behalf of Rick Pitino and Pitino’s attorney, Steve Pence. Malecke stated that she was happy to answer questions, Malecke then advised as follows: Malecke stated that her son, who"s known as Tugs Bowen, has been playing basketball for years and in sixth or seventh grade played on an AAU team called Dorian’s Pride which is a team sponsored by Chris Dawkins. She stated that her son playing on Dorian’s Pride was how her family met Chris Dawkins. She stated that itis her understanding that Dawkins’ brother died on the basketball court and he decided to sponsor an AAU team called Dorian’s Pride to honor his brother. She stated that Dawkins has never been an agent in any regard, She stated that over the years they have had some contact with Dawkins and used him as a resource to help explain how the college recruiting process works, Malecke stated that Tugs Bowen’s father is Brian Bowen, She stated she and Brian have never been married but have lived together for about 21 yeats. Malecke stated that Tugs was primarily considering playing for Arizona. She stated the Arizona coach told Bowen that a couple of players were returning and their retum was going to make it 9:04 AM C= New iMessage Cancel To: Christian Dawkins Perfect ’ Apr 25, 2015, 11:16 PM Tue, May 23, 9:23 PM Coach- this is Christian Dawkins. | dealt with you on Jaylen Johnson. Would you have interest in Brian Bowen far ara vai dane racrnitina?all AT&T > 9:04 AM C= New iMessage Cancel To: Christian Dawkins Perfect } Apr 25, 2015, 11:16 PM oo ——— Coach. Hope t Uare well. This: 2 Js Christian] Bawls ‘ Michig: someo en se au division: swag wason him, Top 10 kid n his class. } Apr 26, 2015, 8:22 AM Ok having guys relatteaaiiin) out ‘Thx Tue, May 23, 9:23 PM Coach- this is Christian Dawkins. | dealt with you on Jaylen Johnson. Would you have interest in Brian Bowen far ara vai dane racrnitina?all AT&T > 9:04 AM New iMessage Cancel To: Christian Dawkins If he committed when should he report to campus? Do you have any feel for the NCAAs upcoming ruling © on the program? ll get with the guys this morning-the NCAA is over - we took our sanctions last year -could care some games from the past that's always a Foo3-5-11 0) 1) 9 ene ne Ok. Should I reach out to Kenny this morning? . Yes give us to 10:00 to talk eee a uur Coes War | Kenny call u at 11:00 Perfectall AT&T > 9:05 AM New iMessage Cancel To: Christian Dawkins Thu, May 25, 2:57 PM Pls call Brian's mom. Carrie ee Yale clin ed ub! until then” Thu, May 25, 4:40 PM Ok perfect. Wed, May 31, 7.21PM Tugs will be home in a couple hours. And we will talk to him then. We will know for sure on his decision tonight. eave Pouce edie ie) him in Appreciate u spending time. | eo tend Lande tah 6. O anneall AT&T > 9:05 AM t= New iMessage Cancel To: Christian Dawkins Appreciate u spending time. | will circle back with u & Kenny tonight . Thu, Jun 1, 4:44 PM PVE CH RUM tt es Ue) Paleo) You are welcome! | know u will get the best out of him! 100% Fr, Jur 2 Coach... do me a favor. Call big Brian. Everything is good. The Nike guys, Wes, everyone is hating that tugs choseall AT&T > 9:05 AM =. To: Christian Dawkins Louisville. We are 100% good. But I just want him to hear from u He's also reali New iMessage Cancel | | | | ; man, a du will take care if him.. but want him to hear it from you as well please. Uall good coach?all AT&T > 9:05 AM i= New iMessage Cancel To: Christian Dawkins him.. but want him to hear it | from you as well please. Send me # B.. Thu, Jun 18,1637 AM U all good coach? Sat, Sep 16, 11.48 AM Coach- | am in town today. Is it okay if | come to practice? #Exhibit 7ADVANCED INVESTIGATIVE SOLUTIONS INC. Carl Christiansen October 12, 2017 Rick Pitino Matter Interview of David Padgett Privileged and Confidential Attorney Client Communication Created at Request of Counsel ‘On October 9 and 12, 2017, Carl Christiansen spoke with David Padgett. Padgett was made aware that Christiansen is working on behalf of Rick Pitino and Pitino’s attorney, Steve Pence. Padgett then advised as follows: Padgett stated he would prefer not to provide a written signed statement since he is not certain how the University would perceive such a statement. However, he stated there is no question that since he began working with Pitino a handful of years ago, Pitino has always stressed the need for the program to be clean and coriduct its business within all rules. At virtually every staff ‘meeting he would repeatedly “hound” the staff to be sure to keep him advised of everything that \went on with the program, the players and recruiting. Padgett recalls Pitino telling the staff that hhe wanted to know “everything” even if a player broke up with a girlfriend. There was no detail to insignificant. Pitino made it clear that he was serious about running the program correctly. He said he would hold his staff members responsible if he learned of an issue before he was told by staff. He also repeatedly told the staff they should always feel free to contact the U of L ‘Compliance office and seek guidance if there was any doubt whatsoever about a particular issue. Padgett stated everyone in the program knew the coach was “dead serious”. There was no doubt hhe meant what he was saying, His admonishments were not simply “coach talk”. Everyone knew he genuinely wanted to know what was occurring with every aspect of the program and wanted to run the program correctly. Padgett stated he never once heard the coach even intimate his willingness to bend rules or operate in the gray area, Padgett recalls an instance about a month ago when Pitino leamed that the Bowen family had moved into the Galt House. He questioned both Kenny Johnson and Padgett as to why he wasn’t informed of that fact and whether they were aware of the fact. He told Kenny Johnson to check into the matter and find out how they could afford to live in the Galt House. Padgett stated he surmises Johnson responded to Pitino on his own because Padgett was not present when Johnson provided the coach further information about the Bowen's living at the Galt House. Padgett stated at the time neither he or Johnson were aware the Bowens we reliving at the Galt House. Padgett recalls Pitino may have leamed this as a result of a text from Brian Bowen's mother to Pitino,October 12% 2017 ‘To Whom it May Concern: I write this letter with the utmost conviction and certainty. I have worked for Coach Rick Pitino for over a decade. When I first started, Coach Pitino was simply my boss ‘and over the years he has become a mentor and one of my best friends. I have spent countless hours and days with Coach and not one time have | ever seen, over heard, or been a witness to anything that would violate any NCAA rules. Coach Pitino is 2 man of great integrity and pride himself on doing things the right way. He demonstrated this everyday in our office by preaching to the staff about always following the rules, and if anyone were ever unsure they would be directed to call the compliance office for clarification. For example, Coach Pitino got upset when he found out Brian Bowen's parents were living in the Gault house and asked from Kenny Johnson why he was not informed earlier and how they were able to afford this. Sincerely, / fordan SucherExhibit 8To: Jim Gatto white’ ee well that) a be easier for me to get. | Ma Pera tantecct up im: AU S part of our family . Hope you will reconsider, he's ~Jue, Aug 1, 10:01 PM Te Jim'-it's Rick Pit know Rozier messed up rang he's part of our family . Hope” you will reconsider, he's” Coal A (ey ElCoM ame him dearly. He's going toba real good one down the road Want to keep him with the ‘; Bee oS PUL aoe Wed, Aug 2,1125 AM Rick, thanks for the note. Terry put me ina difficult decision that went above me. VARIL Ln Lene beet cart aan shat Irt tte ERE EEE: To: Jim Gatto Wed, Aug 2, 11:25 AM Rick, thanks for the note. Terry put. me in a diffi : decision that w : Will be hard but will | can do. Thx. Jim. tage 4 I'm sure if we can work Pretec neti a Mike (len UL UL) Pee avail ie demonstrating. Thx © Tue, Aug 15, 4:52 PM Anything with Rozier ? Thu, Sep 28, 4:03 PM , Ok see u at Arena . Call Jordan n he will get u back DetiveredtExhibit 9Comples Inventions Forensic Accunaing Poiysraphy Security Asessment {oneal Consol Analysis Toning (Crisis Management Law Eafoerment Liason askground Investigations frmatiat Analysis Advanced Investigative Solutions Inc. Comprehensive Service to the Corporate and Legal Commoanities ° POLYGRAPH EXAMINATION REPORT Examinee: Richard A. Pitino Date of Exam: October 6, 2017 Date of Report: October 6, 2017 Examiner: Carl F. Christiansen Location of Exam: Miami, Florida Attorney/Client: Steve Pence Synopsis: On October 6, 2017 Rick Pitino voluntarily made himself available for a scheduled polygraph éxamination. The examinee was provided with a form entitled “Consent to Interview with Polygraph” which was read to him, and which he said he understood and signed. The examinee was then administered a polygraph exam consisting of the following relevant questions: ‘A. Did you participate in paying Bowen's family? (Answer-no) 8. Before 9-26-17, did you know Bowen's family had been paid? (Answer-no) Conclusion: It isthe opinion ofthe examiner the recorded responses to the relevant questions are nat indicative of deception (ND}). Carl E. Christiansen Signature of Examiner 1a shanpamasstienbenr ack HNO 6 SH TRE FASE Fails Mg LYS Caco #4 sayzatiauty choyExhibit 10October 10, 2017: To Whom It May Concern: Ihave been involved with Louisville Basketball and in particular, Coach Pitino for the last six years. Throughout my time here, I was placed in many different positions including: student-manager, student-athlete, assistant video coordinator, and currently, head video coordinator. Immediately after the report of the incidents at Billy Minardi Hall, Coach would continually inform us (his staf), on the importance of obeying and adhering to the NCAA rules, He made this a priority by continually reiterating the consequences that another violation would incur. Coach would always ask questions and monitor each staff member, especially focusing on being compliant with all rules surrounding visits, and recruiting. Coach P made it a priority for the entire staff to be present in meetings with the compliance staff, In addition to this, Coach required the basketball support staff to take the NCAA recruiting test. This was to confirm that ‘we were all aware and cognizant of the recruiting rules. Best regards, Logéf Baumann Senior Director of Video OperationsOctober 10, 2017 ‘To Whom It May Concern, Thave been involved with the Louisville Men's Basketball program since the fall of 2013, serving as a student manager. Coach Pitino hired me to his full time staff as Assistant Video Coordinator in May of 2016. During our initial one-on-one meeting, he stressed to me the importance of compliance throughout the program. Coach emphasized the heightened importance of NCAA compliance due to past mistakes and violations that, occurred in Billy Minardi Hall. Over the past sixteen months I have witnessed Coach Pitino’s compliant attitude to the NCAA regulations and to ensuring his staff was fully aware of the recruiting guidelines. | Coach Pitino required staff members to take the NCAA recruiting exam to ensure we ‘were aware and understood the recruiting policies. Coach would frequently ask questions to the staff to ensure we were compliant with all rules surrounding our role in the program. Sincerely, the Oy 7 Patrick Reilingh Assistant Video CoordinatorTo Whom It May Concern: recently Joined the staffhere at Louisville Basketball in May of 2017 asa Program Assistant. During my time here there has always been a culture of working hard and doing things the right way. In our staff meetings, Coach Pitino would routinely ask the staff questions about their day-to-day activities on all aspects of the program. He made it very clear how important it was to be compliant and obey the NCAA rules. Every time there was a meeting with compliance, Coach Pitino would always be present and attentive to new rule changes to make sure we were not violating any rules. To ensure that the entire program was knowledgeable of the rules, Coach had the entire staff take the NCAA Division 1 recruiting test. This is an action that exemplifies Coach Pitino’s attention to the NCAA rules and how he wanted his program to follow them. Z regards, whe Program AssistantExhibit 11 |oom araT Dae <@ Rick Thu, Sep 28,127 Pat Good afternoon Coach! | eerie to you to say that fam °*) praying fora positive. outcome for your family. | Sod mine, At amoiee? my focus is on Shild and nothing ate hnatters to me, Iwas tally blindsided by all Pligg and out afte 3 P dle to my #1 foc Please know that) wouldn't change where” my son picked togoto —/ ‘school and with his” choice, | trust his judgment and still do! He chose Louisville because that was the angwotedt! Thank you af, for all you do and! pray: that both of you willbe < on the court together soontA, @