BOND aie" & KING March 22, 2018 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Mr. Jonathan Duncan Vice President of Enforcement National Collegiate Athletic Association P.O, Box 6222 Indianapolis, IN 46206-6222 Re: Michigan State University Dear Jon: This is Michigan State University's (MSU, the University) reply to Oliver Luck’s January 23, 2018, letter addressed to former Director of Athletics Mark Hollis. Before addressing specifics, the University wishes to reiterate its appreciation to you and your staff for meeting with Bill Beekman, Kristine Zayko, Jennifer Smith and me on March 42 and for the phone conversations we have had to refine the issues to be addressed in regard to what we are referring to as the Nassar matter. Further, we appreciate your staff's acknowledgement that Mr. Luck's letter is not a Notice of Inquiry (Bylaw 19.5.3) or Notice of Allegations (Bylaw 19.7.1) and thus that the NCAA's inquiry is informational in nature rather than a signal that an infractions case has been initiated. The University welcomes the ‘opportunity to address the questions that have been raised and to explain why we believe no violations of NCAA rules occurred with regard to the criminal conduct of Dr. Larry Nassar, a former employee at the University.’ To be clear, the University finds Nassar's conduct to be abhorrent and a violation of every standard of conduct expected of University employees. The University's thoughts and prayers are with the survivors and their families. Currently, at the federal level, the U.S. Department of Education is conducting a Clery program review and Office of Civil Rights investigation, the U.S. Senate has requested information, and the U.S. House of Representatives has two inquiries underway. In Michigan, the House of Representatives thas requested production of documents and answers to questions. The Attomey Generals office, at the University’s request, is also conducting an investigation. President Engler and the Board of Trustees have pledged the University’s cooperation with each and every inquiry. * Nassar was never an employee of MSU athletics. He did provide services to MSU student-athletes via a contract between the Department of intercollegiate Athletics and the MSU Health Team. srasr.ssezamoreaveves svav0%s “Atomeys At Law| A Professional Lint Lsblty CompanyMr, Jonathan Duncan March 22, 2018 Page 2 | trust you will see that the University is in no way attempting to sidestep the issues facing it, and that if the University had any reason to believe the criminal conduct of Nassar also implicated NCAA rules violations, the University would accept responsibility in that area as well, However, after a thorough and analytical examination of NCAA legislation, and an application of the known facts associated with the Nassar matter to NCAA legislation, the University finds no NCAA rules violations. As an overview, Nassar pleaded gully in federal court on three counts of possession of child pornography. U.S. District Judge Janet Neff sentenced Nassar to serve 60 years in prison. Nassar also pleaded guity fo seven counts of criminal sexual conduct in Ingham County Court (Michigan), where Judge Rosemarie Aquilina sentenced Nassar to a minimum of 40 years and a maximum of 175 years in prison. Finally, Nassar pleaded guilty to three counts of criminal sexual conduct in Eaton County Circuit Court (Michigan), and Judge Janice Cunningham sentenced Nassar to a minimum of 40 years and a maximum of 125 years in prison. ‘As of this date, 267 individuals have come forward to identify themselves through the litigation process as victims of Nassar's conduct. Of the 267, 25 individuals were Michigan State student-athletes and the time period of these student-athletes’ contact with Nassar spanned January 1997 to August 2016. Of the 25 student-athletes, six alleged abuse by Nassar since 2014. With regard to Michigan State student-athletes in general, in reviewing the countless pages of court filings, law enforcement records, media reports, and victinvwitness statements (both written and oral), we found no evidence that Nassar provided any benefit that would be contrary to Bylaw 16.11.2. Nor have we found evidence that Nassar provided an inducement to a recruited prospective student-athlete contrary to Bylaw 13.2.1. Our analysis did not stop there, however. As you suggested, we also considered whether Nassar’s conduct might be considered a violation of the unethical conduct legislation of Bylaw 10.1{e). That bylaw addresses the provision of “banned substances or impermissible supplements to student-athletes, or knowingly providing medications to student-athletes contrary to medical licensure, commonly accepted standards of care in sports medicine practice or state or federal law.” Again, the University is unaware of any evidence that Nassar provided banned substances, impermissible supplements or medication to student-athletes contrary to approved guidelines and standards. Therefore, ‘we do not believe a violation of Bylaw 10.1-(e) occurred. With the guidance of your staff, we also researched the infractions case database to determine whether case precedent existed wherein the conduct at issue was sexually abusive contact. As your staff noted, the only cases even close in context are Wingate University, University of Incarnate Word and the University of California, San Diego, but each involved a head coach providing a prescription anti-inflammatory drug to one or more student-athletes, which is specifically addressed by Bylaw 10.1-(e). None of those cases sr4sr.t zanoves7ete orte0r8Mr, Jonathan Duncan March 22, 2018 Page 3 involved criminal sexual abuse such as committed by Nassar. Accordingly, case precedent likewise does not support a finding of an NCAA tule violation by Nassar. Mr, Luck’s letter also referenced that Bylaw 20.9.1.6 identifies the well-being of student- athletes as an imperative for Division | members. The University agrees wholeheartedly and is committed to providing the most safe and healthy environment possible for its student-athletes. Regrettably, we have learned that Nassar did not share the University’s commitment and violated criminal law. He will spend the rest of his life in prison as a result. As Bylaw 20.9.1 notes, the commitment to student-athlete well-being specified by Bylaw 20.9.1.6 serves as a guide for Division | members and is not subject to enforcement procedures. Nonetheless, the University wishes to assure the staff that, as President Engler has stated repeatedly and in the ‘strongest terms, the University is committed to understanding how this could have happened, how it could have gone undetected for so Jong, and what must be done to prevent it from ever happening again. Finally, the University will continue to monitor the ongoing legal cases and governmental reviews. Should any information be uncovered that Nassar or any other University employee engaged in conduct that forms the basis of a violation of NCAA rules, the University will fulfil its obligation of membership under Article 2.8.1 of the Constitution and Bylaw 19.2.2 and report such non-compliance to your office.” It is our hope that this report will satisfy the NCAA's request for information on the Nassar matter and allow your staff to conclude, as the University has, that the focus moving forward should be on the survivors’ healing and the prevention of recurring criminal conduct. Sincerely, BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC ATi Mike Glazier Mciyw co: Kristine Zayko Bill Beekman Jennifer Smith 2 Contrary to Mr. Luck’s letter, Constitution 2.8.1 and Bylaw 19.2.2 do not impose a reporting obligation on spossible” violafons. Rather, those legislative provisions require member institutions to report known Violations. s74s7.s azaposea7er8 1 ave