Mosquera-Perea and Jurkin forced to sit out nine games by NCAA


Indiana freshman forwards Peter Jurkin and Hanner Mosquera-Perea will be required to sit out nine games by the NCAA and required to pay back benefits to charity. The reason for the suspension were the benefits both received from Mark Adams, the founder of the A-HOPE organization. The NCAA had originally considered the benefits legal, but learned that Adams had donated $185 to Indiana’s Varsity Club from 1986-92 and is therefore forever considered a booster of Indiana.

Indiana’s letter on the issue follows.

NCAA Enforcement Accepts Secondary Violations; NCAA Reinstatement Determines Peter Jurkin and Hanner Mosquera-
Perea Must Donate to Charity and Sit Nine Games; University to Appeal Number of Games
BLOOMINGTON, Ind. – Calling Indiana University’s corrective actions “substantial and meaningful,” the NCAA on October 31, 2012, accepted
as secondary a case IU filed with it on June 22, 2012. In short, that case involves the provision of what would generally have
been permissible expenses but for the provider’s donation of $185 to the IU Varsity Club between 1986 and 1992, rendering him forever a
“booster” under NCAA rules, notwithstanding that the donations were minimal in nature and occurred over 20 years ago.
Because the NCAA permits prospective student-athletes to receive normal and reasonable living expenses from an individual with whom
the student-athlete has an established relationship (such as a non-scholastic athletics team coach like in this case), most of the expenses
in this matter would have been generally permissible had not the benefactor been deemed a “booster” based upon those dated, nominal
Varsity Club donations. Since his last donation in 1992, twenty years ago, and more than 15 years before he first provided the expenses,
the benefactor has made no additional financial contributions in support of Indiana University. The benefactor, Mark Adams, fully disclosed
both his Varsity Club contributions and former student-athlete expenses at the time of the first eligibility determination in 2008 for Tijan
Jobe, and he has completely cooperated with this review.
As detailed in the NCAA’s October 31, 2012 decision letter:
The institution was aware that Mr. Adams and his nonprofit organization had provided support to Mr. Perea and Mr. Jurkin, but
believed such support was generally permissible pursuant to an NCAA June 6, 2000, interpretation, given Mr. Adams’ status as
their nonscholastic coach and Mr. Perea’s apparent legal guardian. At the time, the institution did not believe Mr. Adams to be
a representative of their athletics interests. From the summer of 2010 through April 2011, during the course of planning the
recruitment of Mr. Perea and Mr. Jurkin, the institution’s compliance staff worked closely with the conference office, the NCAA
AMA staff and NCAA enforcement basketball focusgroup staff regarding the relationship between Mr. Adams and the institu
tion’s men’s basketball program and how to ensure the permissible recruitment of prospective student-athletes with ties to Mr.
Adams’ nonscholastic team.
It was not until April 2011 that the then assistant athletics director for compliance revealed for the first time that he had knowl
edge that Mr. Adams previously had made donations to the institution’s booster club. After completing his degree in 1980,
Mr. Adams donated nominal amounts to the institution’s booster club. In total, Mr. Adams donated $185 between 1986 and
1992. He has made no other additional financial contributions in support of the institution’s athletics program.
Despite the minimal nature of Mr. Adams’ donations, and the fact that the last donation he made was more than 15 years before
he provided expenses to a prospective student-athlete who enrolled at the institution, Mr. Adams must be considered a represen
tative of the institution’s athletics interests
The NCAA Basketball Focus Group worked with Indiana University staff to review the interaction between the men’s basketball program and
Adams, A-HOPE, and Indiana Elite and have found no impermissible access or additional basis to further establish Adams as a representative
of Indiana University’s athletics interests.
INDIANA ATHLETICS UPDATE ON PETER JURKIN/HANNER PEREA • 2
“This matter was discovered internally and promptly reported to the NCAA,” said Fred Glass, Indiana University Vice President and Director
of Intercollegiate Athletics. “At the NCAA’s direction, we conducted an extensive and thorough review in cooperation and consultation
with the NCAA Basketball Focus Group. While I am very disappointed with these circumstances, I am very pleased with the way we have
responded and appreciative of the NCAA’s professional guidance and assistance. I would also like to thank Mark Adams for his forthright
candor and cooperation in this matter.”
After the completion of the internal review in consultation with the NCAA Basketball Focus Group, Indiana University self-imposed the
following penalties and corrective actions as part of its June 22, 2012, self-report: a $5,000 fine (based upon the NCAA’s established
formula for a failure to properly certify a student-athlete); a one-year suspension of the benefactor’s communication with the men’s
basketball coaching staff; and completion of the NCAA Student-Athlete Reinstatement process for the two incoming student-athletes,
Hanner Perea and Peter Jurkin. Again, the NCAA later characterized these actions as “substantial and meaningful.”
On July 27, 2012 Indiana University filed with the NCAA requests for reinstatement of student-athlete eligibility for Peter Jurkin and
Hanner Perea. Indiana University proposed that, based on the totality of these rather unusual circumstances, each student-athlete should
be immediately reinstated (that is, without being withheld from any games) and that Jurkin should repay $250 of his reportedly $6,000
in impermissible expenses and Perea $1,238.69 of his approximately $8,000 in impermissible expenses. These expenses included food,
clothing, housing, travel, toiletries, a cell phone, a laptop, and other miscellaneous items. On October 29, 2012, after receiving the final
set of requested facts from the university the previous week, the NCAA reinstatement staff issued its initial decision that it was requiring
Jurkin to repay $250 and Perea to repay $1,588.69 and that they each be withheld from the first nine games of this basketball season.
The university then submitted additional information for consideration on the evening of November 1, 2012. After thoroughly reviewing
the new information, the NCAA reinstatement staff issued its reconsideration decision the next day confirming its initial decision. Their
written decision was received by Indiana University on November 6, 2012. This week Indiana University will file with the Student Athlete
Reinstatement Committee its appeal of the staff’s action as to the number of games from which the student-athletes are to be withheld.
IU’s June 22, 2012 Self-Report for Secondary Violations and the NCAA’s October 31, 2012 acceptance letter thereof are attached to this
release.

Share the Scoop!

46 comments:

  • chris K. #1


    Tuesday, November 6, 2012 - 7:54 PM EDT

    All I want to know is, will they be eligible to play game 10 this season?

  • Spe #2


    Tuesday, November 6, 2012 - 7:55 PM EDT

    Really? Mixed feelings about this one but frankly this is a bit of a stretch.

  • chris K. #3


    Tuesday, November 6, 2012 - 7:58 PM EDT

    Well, we all know th NCAA’s rues & rulings don’t have to make sense, you just have to survive them.

  • Bft #4


    Tuesday, November 6, 2012 - 7:58 PM EDT

    The first nine games are vs nobody’s anyways

  • Harvard for Hillbillies #5


    Tuesday, November 6, 2012 - 7:59 PM EDT

    Nine games…? Nothing but a slap on the wrist. Told ya they would be just fine. We’ll have them for the big 10 season and the stretch.

    Hell, Remy hardly saw any PT until we were that deep into the season last year.

  • hiensohn #6


    Tuesday, November 6, 2012 - 8:00 PM EDT

    why self report when UK pays,cheats ,etc.Close the doors,give them nothing.Fight the NCAA all the way.They make me sick.

  • chris K. #7


    Tuesday, November 6, 2012 - 8:03 PM EDT

    Because if the NCAA were to find this out on their own, & knew that IU knew about it didn’t report it, this is a much bigger problem. The real question, as always w/ the NCAA is, REALLY???

  • Laffy #8


    Tuesday, November 6, 2012 - 8:06 PM EDT

    NCAA is a joke. That one player’s dad was actually asking for hundreds of thousands of dollars and they did NOTHING because they said, “Well, the dad did it instead of the kid.”

    The games may be against “nobodies” but they need the playing time/experience……especially with Elston hurt.

    I guess it could have been worse…….

  • Chet #9


    Tuesday, November 6, 2012 - 8:07 PM EDT

    Missed it by about 40 hours, dangit. But a a miss is still a miss.

  • nick #10


    Tuesday, November 6, 2012 - 8:09 PM EDT

    BFT – the first 9 games include Georgia, UCLA/Georgetown and UNC — not exactly nobodies. That being said, it’s not the end of the world. I do believe that this is excessive given the minimal amount of money donated and the time since last donation. Does the “Booster for Life” status really make sense when someone has donated so little?

  • Harvard for Hillbillies #11


    Tuesday, November 6, 2012 - 8:18 PM EDT

    Mike Fish caught a sickly bluegill. What a feast for the Establishment.

    Meanwhile, a Duke player buys $100,000 in diamond jewelry on road trips to NYC. But why on earth would the NCAA want to spend one dime of their efforts hunting down true corruption in college atheistic?

    We are so corrupt here in the corn belt. The NCAA let us slide on one major violation: It was discovered that Hanner was actually wiping his butt with toilet paper purchased by Adams. It’s simply criminal

  • Podunker #12


    Tuesday, November 6, 2012 - 8:18 PM EDT

    The NCAA is a corrupt organization and they have made “majoring in minors” an art form. What a joke! Because some guy donated $185 to IU over 20 years ago, before these players were even born, he’s considered a “booster.” For goodness sake, the statute of limitations is less than 20 years for many serious crimes!

    This penalty is no big deal, but it is just a reminder that the NCAA is a feckless organization that feeds off of collegiate athletes and feels compelled to penalize innocent young people because the organization is too impotent to find and punish the serious rule-breakers. The NCAA should either be empowered by the US Congress or it should be replaced with an organization that is accountable to the public.

  • Harvard for Hillbillies #13


    Tuesday, November 6, 2012 - 8:19 PM EDT

    oops. college athletics.

  • Geoff #14


    Tuesday, November 6, 2012 - 8:21 PM EDT

    Another reason to despise the corrupt, retarded (sorry, but it fits), and über-hypocritical Establishment that is the NCAA. There is very little they ever do that I agree with, but this surpasses the ridiculous.

    I will run back and change my vote if the other candidate says their first action will be to disintegrate the NCAA.

    Just for Harvard, I’ll make a preditction(!) – in 2 years, after the damage (albeit minimal) to IU has been done, the NCAA will put a monetary floor and statue of limitations on amounts donated by “boosters”.

    Of course it’s the right thing thing to do… Just like rolling back the ridiculous rules on recruit contact that brought Sampson down was. But it always takes an IU investigation and sanctions to shed a light on another stupid f*kcing NCAA rule.

  • Ron #15


    Tuesday, November 6, 2012 - 8:27 PM EDT

    So how is Perea to come up with $1200.00? Full time classes and basketball. Get a part time job? Can Mark Adams as his legal guardian pay it? Put a jar for donations at the ticket window? He was provided the $ for phone and laptop meaning he had little to no money.

    The 9 games is do-able but the repayment thing stinks. Guess we are lucky the NCAA does not over see the tax codes.

    Kinda like the oil industry. Need more money, make up reasons to increase the price. NCAA can just make up rules and have the fines paid.

  • Baguaphil #16


    Tuesday, November 6, 2012 - 8:30 PM EDT

    Typical reaction from NCAA, making mountains out of molehills, what a bunch of crap. They allow the real crooks to keep cheating but put penalties on minor infractions. There isn!t a brain in that entire organization.

  • Harvard for Hillbillies #17


    Tuesday, November 6, 2012 - 8:34 PM EDT

    Pretty much agree, Geoff. Then again, even if Sampson’s players were choir boys sweeter than all the future adopted children of a gay marriage between Jordy Hulls and Jonny Marlin, Hoosier fans would have ran Kelvin out of town over the 3-way/contact violation.

  • B-town88 #18


    Tuesday, November 6, 2012 - 8:35 PM EDT

    OK, $185 20 years ago. Does that even average out to 2 cups of Starbucks a year. Really?

  • Chet #19


    Tuesday, November 6, 2012 - 8:50 PM EDT

    He gave $185 between 1986 and 1992. That’s not even the per diem for tattoos at Kaintuck.

  • hoosierjc #20


    Tuesday, November 6, 2012 - 8:54 PM EDT

    The NCAA proves again that it is better to lie than tell the truth. What a sad organization.

  • Harvard for Hillbillies #21


    Tuesday, November 6, 2012 - 9:01 PM EDT

    $185..? That’s less than the two Italian dinners Patino had to pay for before he introduced his equipment manager’s wife to Cardinal Manicotti in the back restroom of Porcini’s.

  • IUSIG #22


    Tuesday, November 6, 2012 - 9:09 PM EDT

    Why do you guys say “oh well, it’s just 9 games”? This is about the NCAA being a dictatorship that rewards crooked fact-hiding institutions but doles out unreasonable punishments to honest ones! This is not an IU problem.

  • Harvard for Hillbillies #23


    Tuesday, November 6, 2012 - 9:09 PM EDT

    The main question: Can we get over the sense of shame? Will we be able to stomach the Seth Davis and Thad Matta smirks aimed directly into our cheating, corrupt souls? ]

    Why don’t they ever find violations at Purdue?

  • Chet #24


    Tuesday, November 6, 2012 - 9:13 PM EDT

    Purdue is never a threat to win anything.

  • Harvard for Hillbillies #25


    Tuesday, November 6, 2012 - 9:18 PM EDT

    …unless they’re playing the Washington Huskies.

  • Geoff #26


    Tuesday, November 6, 2012 - 9:55 PM EDT

    It will be interesting to see what (if there is one) the national narrative is on this. I am actually going to guess that the “media” will feel bad for IU and give the NCAA the “Tsk Tsk” for being so petty.

  • Geoff #27


    Tuesday, November 6, 2012 - 10:12 PM EDT

    Just read the ESPN article, which was just a reprint of an AP article… What a joke. You only have one chance to tell the story the first time.

    DUSTIN!!! You must have a line to Eammon… Shoot him an email and tell him to do this story the justice it deserves and print the facts from the article you provided. ESPN is the first place most sports fans go to get their news… If you care for the program at all, and have any contacts at The Network, please don’t let them tell half the story.

    DUSTIN!!! I’m begging you to call in a favor.

  • TsaoTsuG #28


    Tuesday, November 6, 2012 - 10:35 PM EDT

    That’s a very good question Ron, where will Mosquera-Perea come up with the $1200. (I did read somewhere that a Luis Amaranto Perea-Mosquera (last names reversed) is a Columbian professional soccer player of international level who played for top clubs (Boca Juniors of Argentina, Atletico Madrid of Spain and now plays for Cruz Azul in Mexico). They are likely related (usual order is maternal-paternal though the order here is confusing). So, there may be some money in the family.

    As for the rule; I’ve always known that the NCAA rule says clearly (and not obscurely)that once a ‘supporter’ declares himself (through contribution or recruiting of a kid, etc) a ‘representative of the athletic interests of a university, they remain so for eternity. A few of the Big Ten schools quote this specific section in their in the ‘athletics’ websites they display to supporters and alumni to make them aware of the do’s and don’ts of recruitment. IU should include such a section in their Athletics website.

    I think this may be a case where we knew we were running close to the margins with the Adams’ and their involvement and knew we were headed for a violation of a ‘technical’ nature. But between Tijan’s situation, these two and the entire ‘over-offering’ it may be time to take a look at some practices before they become a habit. Not saying there is unethical behavior, just a little slopynness or too willing to run at the edges.

    Crean’s response last week: “rrapinfanus sasqwatch gobledooga counter review of the wockledmus befista enrollment wackadoo we were always aware of”, I suspect this is no surprise and more likely a very well calculated risk.

    The only thing that bothers me is that the NCAA seems to get very ‘religious’ when it comes to application of the rules and crossing the Ts’ and dotting the Is’ in regards to non-nationals if IU’s experience is an indication. Both obviously had their acdemics in order from US schools, but when the review revealed nothing else it seems a bit too ‘picking fly doo-doo out of pepper’ to mine down into the ‘beer money donation’ twenty years ago.

    Nevertheless, the rule is the rule.(although, I admit the rule is the rule).

    Not sure that is not something that some very smart lawyer shouldn’t look at since the NCAA seems to want to impact recruitment and immigration of non-citizens. Any good civil rights/ constitutional lawyers out there?

  • Chet #29


    Wednesday, November 7, 2012 - 12:24 AM EDT

    Again.

    Post where we can pay for this.

    If no one else is interested, I’ll pay for it. This is both shameful and stupid.

    BTW, the election was called by 11:00 so I don’t expect to be broke in the next week (‘Rob me’ would have killed any of us with investments).

  • coachv #30


    Wednesday, November 7, 2012 - 9:38 AM EDT

    geoff,

    do you think the ncaa should put that statue of limitations in their lobby so we can all laugh at it?

  • Geoff #31


    Wednesday, November 7, 2012 - 9:55 AM EDT

    Did I write “statue”… That’s pretty funny. Yes I think it should be placed prominently in the lobby. Maybe a man with no legs and one arm holding up a scroll with the 10 year rule on it.

  • Dave / NM #32


    Wednesday, November 7, 2012 - 12:22 PM EDT

    It’s Cal’s fault

  • Chet #33


    Wednesday, November 7, 2012 - 1:55 PM EDT

    You never know how things are gonna work out. Hanner and PJ will probably be a little more polished and smarter, from watching from the bench all having things pointed out to them, than they might have been Friday night at Bryant.

    They will also be a fresh set of legs a third of the way into the season.

    The team will get a boost at the 10 game point and we are very deep. It will be Okay.

  • Podunker #34


    Wednesday, November 7, 2012 - 3:00 PM EDT

    Because of the NCAA’s stupidity, suddenly IU is not so deep and not so big for the first five weeks of the season. Let’s see, we’re missing a senior 6’9″ forward due to a knee injury, a 7’0″ freshman center, and a very gifted 6’8″ freshman forward. Looks like Hollowell is going to be getting some major minutes and Maurice Creek’s legs are going to be tested in the early part of the season. I hope Sheehey has added some muscle over the summer. Etherington is also going to get more playing time in the first nine games.

    This is going to hurt most in the UNC game. We can still win that game because its in Bloomington, but it just became more difficult.

  • Geoff #35


    Wednesday, November 7, 2012 - 3:33 PM EDT

    Podunker – shhhhhh… Don’t let Harvard hear you say that.

  • Geoff #36


    Wednesday, November 7, 2012 - 3:37 PM EDT

    Dustin – after I implored you to reach out to Eammon this story pops up on ESPN this morning…

    http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/66502/ncaas-indiana-suspensions-just-plain-silly

    Are you the friend he cites?

    It’s funny how different the tone of the comment sections on the 2 ESPN stories are. When you start adding details and perspective 95% of the haters stop posting.

  • Geoff #37


    Wednesday, November 7, 2012 - 3:53 PM EDT

    Looking at UNC’s roster, It may not hurt us as much you think… Certainly not as much as it would have against previous Tarheel teams. They basically have one proven player over 6’7″ – McAdoo. After that they have a couple highly rated freshman at 6’9″ and 6’10″… But neither are major impact freshman it doesn’t look like. So even with those 2 guys out, we’ll still match up size-wise just fine. We may even be slightly longer and bigger.

  • Podunker #38


    Wednesday, November 7, 2012 - 8:33 PM EDT

    I think we’ll beat UNC, but it would have been nice to be at full strength. Especially good experience for these two freshman.

    Maybe IU’s appeal will result in the number of games the players are suspended being reduced. UNC is the sixth game of the season.

    I hate the NCAA.

  • BDMW #39


    Thursday, November 8, 2012 - 5:08 PM EDT

    Crean is as dirty as they come. People think that this was all aboout 185 $ donation 15 years ago. CREAN HIRED THIS GUYS SON as his video coordinator and put him on the IU PAYROLL!!! This guy sat courtside at IU games. Crean has already had more violations in 4 years than Bob Knight did in 29. Crean had the Gary Harris illegal visit, illegal phone calls in year one and now AHOP!! Mark Adams has been Creans Papa Bear Sam Gilbert!! This is shameful. IU bball once stood for honesty and integrity, now it is just another rogue program.

  • Harvard for Hillbillies #40


    Thursday, November 8, 2012 - 5:44 PM EDT

    Elston didn’t get that much PT last season, and I doubt he’d be much of a factor against UNC even if he was ready.

    Yogi will be the major difference. They’ll have no answer for the court vision and exponentially improved transition defense. I have no worries about Tarschmeels.

    Remy, Jordy, Watford, Sheehey, Oladipo, Cody, Yogi, Hollowell…No worries.

    Of course, I would have swapped Patterson for the rest of the bench. Patterson, Roth, and Elston would have been just the right mix of bench strength(perimeter offensive punch and energy/deflections/tenacity on defense to send us into a potentially undefeated season.

    There will be some bumps…but none at home.

  • Katbluefan #41


    Thursday, November 8, 2012 - 6:19 PM EDT

    Well it looks like Crean is taking up where the past coach at IU was doing. What can be said, guess he drank to much of the kool-aid that flows so freely in Bloomington. I didn’t like Knight but he wasn’t afraid to take his team and play any place because he knew that all the drunks in Bloomingtom made it hard to get top ranked teams to come to Bloomington. Sorry Hoosers you will just another so-so teams again.

  • Geoff #42


    Thursday, November 8, 2012 - 7:34 PM EDT

    Yeah… No one respond to #41…

    Harvard – did you just say you’d trade Remy for Patterson!!!??? (or does that mean the players you didn’t mention? I think you should step up and include Remy)

  • Harvard for Hillbillies #43


    Thursday, November 8, 2012 - 8:46 PM EDT

    Never give up Remy. Didn’t you see him on my list of top 8?

    I would give up Perea and Jurkin(and the rest of the bench) for Patterson and Roth.

    Couldn’t go on repose without clearing that up.

    Prediction:

    We’ll lose six games this year(that includes one loss in the Big 10 tournament to Michigan). We’ll enter the NCAA undervalued as usual due to a few kicks to the teeth late in the season. We’ll make it to the Final Four but go down to the Bruins.

    Take care, Geoff.

  • martyks #44


    Friday, November 9, 2012 - 11:38 AM EDT

    This reminds me of a story my mom told me. Her friend had been stopped for doing 62 mph in a 55 mph zone. A corvette had roared past her just a minute bofore that. The lady asked the cop, “Why did you stop me and not that guy?” The cop said, “Because you were easier to catch.”

  • Ron #45


    Friday, November 9, 2012 - 11:48 AM EDT

    I tried to look at #41, but it’s blank. Nothing to see

  • Ron #46


    Friday, November 9, 2012 - 11:50 AM EDT

    Patterson & Roth..?

    Thinking someone is a little resistant to change.

Scoop Poll:

Can the Hoosiers make a bowl game without Nate Sudfeld?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

IU vs Michigan State Football



  • Harvard for Hillbillies:

    Sampson sure had horrible timing….He wrecked a program before Penn S [...]

  • Podunker:

    Nice slight-of-hand, Harvard. Who's talking about "a .500 career conf [...]

  • Harvard for Hillbillies:

    "The real corruption and very sick people in college athletics make [...]

  • Podunker:

    Well, this story might have produced an interesting string of comments [...]

  • Harvard for Hillbillies:

    I'm suggesting standing up to your word and not finding an EXCUSE to c [...]

  • Harvard for Hillbillies:

    correction: Raping children in showers, competing while athletes are [...]

  • 15 miles North:

    As usual, you are a little of base. Are you suggesting IU initiate s [...]




Find Notre Dame football coverage on NDInsider.com. © Hoosier Times Inc., all rights reserved.