Judgment day?

Lunch will be served during the meeting of the University Athletic Association of the Philippines (UAAP) Board of Trustees at the Casino Español off Taft Avenue today but I’m not sure if La Salle representatives Danny Jose and Lito Tanjuatco are ready to enjoy the food.

There’s nothing in the written agenda of the meeting to indicate a decision will be made on La Salle’s fate in the coming UAAP season. An update on the investigation of the Board’s fact-finding committee, formed to determine culpability in the enlistment of two ineligible La Salle players the last three years, is certain to be reported but whether it will lead to a conclusion or a vote to decide a penalty, if at all, is up in the air.

The scuttlebutt is some members of the Board are eager to put things to a head or in blunt terms, La Salle’s head on the chopping block. Whether the feeling of animosity is justified or not is debatable. But it’s widely speculated that at least three schools envy La Salle’s track record of academic and athletic excellence and can’t wait to pull the trigger.

The anti-La Salle bloc isn’t giving the school any credit for voluntarily coming out in the open to disclose the anomaly, which could’ve easily been swept under the rug and nobody would’ve noticed.

The penalty for fielding an ineligible player is the forfeiture of the game or games where he saw action. Aware of this sanction, La Salle surrendered the trophy it won two years ago when the ineligible players were on the roster. It has also yielded the runner-up points (in the computation for the UAAP overall championship) the Archers gained in this season’s senior basketball competition.

Next month, the UAAP Board convenes for its annual meeting where the official turnover of the hosting honors will be made. Whatever the Board decides as to La Salle’s fate should be known by then, meaning it’s possible a vote will be taken today.

How to deal with La Salle in light of its disclosure is causing a lot of headaches and heartaches.

The options available to the Board are to suspend La Salle from participating in all UAAP events for one or more years, to suspend La Salle only in men’s basketball for one or more years, to put La Salle on probation but allow the school to continue participating in all UAAP events or to leave things as they are, meaning no action will be taken for or against La Salle.

Because of the enlistment of ineligible players, the fourth option is not likely to be accepted.

To suspend La Salle only in men’s basketball will go against UAAP rules which stipulate every school must participate in two mandatory sports, basketball and volleyball. La Salle had previously asked for a leave of absence only from men’s basketball but the request was denied. It would be an act of inconsistency if the Board would now allow the leave of absence after the denial.

There is talk that at least two schools are considering to push for the selective suspension despite the denial of the leave of absence, citing La Salle’s own request as basis for justification. But that would be seriously impairing the Board’s credibility. Besides, La Salle has moved forward in fast-tracking its rationalization of the schools’ varsity program and it would be unfair to impose the selective suspension at this point.

Suspending La Salle from participating in all UAAP events isn’t only extremely out of proportion but also cruel. It would mean crushing the hopes of athletes, who had nothing to do with the anomaly, of participating in the UAAP.

Under UAAP rules, a suspension–whether selective or total–can only be meted out if it is proved that there is complicity of the school in an anomaly or violation of the rules. The rules also stipulate that in a motion to suspend, a member school must submit a charge sheet citing the grounds for suspension to the school under investigation and must prove beyond doubt the school’s complicity.

Surely, there will be much debate on what constitutes complicity and whether contracted team employees bind the school by their actions.

It won’t be easy to "railroad" a suspension by immediately calling for a vote because in the process of submitting a charge sheet, the accused school has the right to due process and can question the grounds for suspension. At least six votes are necessary to carry a vote of suspension.

If a suspension is slapped on La Salle, it will send a wrong message to the public that being transparent and honest doesn’t pay. You wouldn’t expect another school to voluntarily disclose something similar in the future.

Is illegal recruitment a rampant practice in the UAAP? Is it true that some schools don’t even subject star athletes to entrance examinations? Let he who has no fault cast the first stone.

La Salle president Bro. Armin Luistro has already declared if the UAAP Board accuses the school of complicity, it will sue for libel to defend the reputation of the institution.

Fr. Max Rendon of the UAAP Board has assured everyone that whatever is the decision on La Salle’s fate, it will be fair and just.

There is no room for envy, malice, hidden agendas and treachery in the UAAP Board. La Salle’s case is a rare opportunity for the UAAP Board to close ranks, set aside parochial interests and do something positive for the league.

La Salle has suffered enough humiliation. It’s time to move on.