Area sports cheating cases drag secretive NCAA into spotlight The men and women of the NCAA enforcement staff prefer to work in secret. They almost never speak publicly about tips they receive or evidence they gather against cheaters in big-time college sports. Rarely will they acknowledge the existence of an investigation. Now several recent incidents - all in Southern California - have dragged them into the spotlight, raising questions about how they police athletes and coaches on campuses nationwide. In one of the cases, at UCLA, the lead investigator has been accused of prejudging UCLA freshman Shabazz Muhammad before all of the facts were gathered. Across town, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge in a defamation suit has portrayed other NCAA officials as potentially malicious for the way they dealt with a USC assistant coach linked to the Reggie Bush sanctions. Things could get worse. The judge could unseal files from that lawsuit, providing greater insight into this powerful, quasi-judicial organization. "The NCAA does not operate like a prosecutor's office or a police department where there are clearly understood constitutional limits," said Geoffrey C. Rapp, a University of Toledo law professor and editor of the Sports Law blog. They don't have a structure in place to ensure consistency. The NCAA declined to answer questions, responding instead with a brief statement that read, in part, "We are committed to providing a fair enforcement process for our members." The father of UCLA basketball player Kyle Anderson, who was investigated this fall, sees the process from a different angle. "I'm a schoolteacher, and the big thing in school now is bullying," Kyle Anderson Sr. said. That's exactly what the NCAA is ... the prototype of a bully. Money and television The influx of television and donor money makes college sports vulnerable to corruption. Though almost no one denies the need for supervision, critics have often questioned the NCAA's enforcement policies. The two-part procedure begins with an enforcement staff of 57, which includes "former coaches, student athletes and compliance officers - as well as investigators that are former practicing attorneys," the NCAA statement said. Investigators gather information and submit a report for the second part: adjudication. The Committee on Infractions, its members drawn from colleges, conferences and the public, hears testimony and renders a decision. The committee has been criticized for inconsistent penalties in recent cases against USC, Ohio State, Auburn and Penn State. The recent cases in Los Angeles deal primarily with the investigative part of the process. Staff members face at least one major hurdle: They lack subpoena power, meaning they cannot compel outsiders such as former athletes and agents to talk. To compensate, member schools have authorized the use of an ethics bylaw to penalize current athletes and coaches who refuse to cooperate. "There's not, in my opinion, any sort of conspiracy on the part of the NCAA or the enforcement staff to incriminate people who have not committed violations," said Dan Matheson, a former investigator who now teaches at Iowa. Not everyone agrees.