« Money Players book available now | Main | Kevin Love's recruitment to UCLA »

January 16, 2008


Jim Acho, editor Sports Review Magazine.com

Marc: Your takes are always insightful. Not sure I agree with you here, though. Not sure about the tapes issue: evidence is evidence. I don't practice in California but I do know that tapes have been used as evidence in cases there, and not sure every time one party admitted to the other "hey, you're being taped." And saying "without the tapes you don't do the book" is like saying "without the dead body there's no homocide charge." And the fact S&S paid Lake for his book is just capitalism. To me, doesn't discredit him.

The fact he is a felon doesn't either. It means he made mistakes in a past life--it is inapplicable here. What if it was for a crime completely unrelated? And what if he was a much younger man? Should have no effect here and a court wouldn't allow his being a felon in as evidence if it didn't go to truthfulness. A DUI 3rd, or even attempted murder, for example, wouldn't be enough to call attention to the fact he's a felon. He'd obviously done enough to establish an agency. And from what I've seen, while he shouldn't have been giving a college player illegal bennies, it seems Bush gave him the same treatment he's giving Bob Kardashian's tramp of a daughter. Just my 2 cents.

Marc Isenberg


I don't practice law in general!! In California you are not allowed to tape without the other person's consent UNLESS someone reasonably believes he or she can prevent a fraud.

I just don't think that it is a reasonable argument that Lake was justified to secretly tape these conversations. Lake and his lawyers clearly knew it was against NCAA rules and CA state agent laws to pay college athletes (evidenced by the letter sent Lake's lawyer asking whether USC should be informed). This smacks of extortion more than fraud prevention.

Past criminal history should not automatically dog someone. But if someone is still breaking rules (NCAA) and laws (re: agent and wire tapping), I do think it is relevant.

In the final analysis, it took both sides to tango. One of the problems (there are many) with paying college athletes is that this strategy works so long as no comes along with a better offer.

USC cheated. Why try to sugarcoat it and make excuses???

Glenn G.

I especially wouldn't mess with someone who is married to a smart lawyer in California...............


Even if all this is true...USC didnt have anything to do with any of this. This isnt about getting Regiie to play for USC, this is about an agent trying to get Reggies NFL business. your "USC" cheated take has no merit.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Money Players: The book