FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. – The NCAA Division I Infractions Appeals Committee has denied the University of Arkansas’ appeal of the sanctions imposed against its men’s track and field program.
The University of Arkansas appealed the penalties assigned by the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions in its report of Oct. 25, 2007. In the appeal, the University argued that the penalties assigned by the NCAA Committee of Infractions were both “excessive and inappropriate.” The University also contended that the starting date of the probation period should reflect the beginning of the institution’s self-imposed probation.
“We are disappointed in the outcome of our appeal before the NCAA Division I Infractions Appeal Committee,” Arkansas Vice Chancellor and Director of Athletics Jeff Long said. “We believe that in our presentation before the appeals committee, we made clear and compelling arguments that the penalties assessed were excessive and that the starting date of the probationary period should include the nine months of self-imposed probation. Although we differ in our view in the appropriateness of the penalties and the application of the probation period, we respect the appeals process.
In its decision, the Appeals Committee directed the University to seek clarification from the NCAA committee responsible for scoring track and field events with respect to the proper manner for calculating a vacation of points. Accordingly, Jeff Long stated, “The University of Arkansas does intend to seek clarification on the vacation of records as it applies to the deduction of individual points. In the near future, we will communicate with the Division I Men’s Track and Field Committee to review this issue.”
“Obviously, I am disappointed in the decision of the Appeals Committee,” former Arkansas head track and field coach John McDonnell said. “As noted by the Appeals Committee, I believe it is important to seek clarification of the proper method for calculating the points that must be vacated. This determination will have an important impact on the ultimate outcome of the sanctions imposed against the University.”