 |
| Technically jousting memos rather than dueling, but, hey, horses are involved. Or, since it's horses, should I have said "hay"? |
The ongoing battle over the discontinuation of the UC-Davis equestrian program continues with dueling memos concerning on audit:
Memo 1:
A Statement from Rocko DeLuca, Director of Athletics
7-13-2026
Today, UC Davis released the findings of an independent audit examining the evaluation and transition of our equestrian program. I fully supported the university pursuing this review, and I want to share directly what it means and what it doesn't, from my perspective as the Director of Athletics.
Six months ago, the university's decision to discontinue varsity status of our NCAA Division I equestrian program disappointed many student-athletes, alumni, parents, and supporters. That disappointment was real and understandable. As with any complex and multi-faceted decision, it is also understandable that some people disagreed with the decision itself.
What followed, though, went well beyond disagreement. I, along with members of our Athletics leadership team and other university officials, have been repeatedly and very publicly harassed, accused of dishonesty, of manipulating financial information, and of taking this difficult action in bad faith or devoid of sympathy. My integrity, and the integrity of colleagues who have given years of service to this institution, have been called into question. My own family has been threatened and harassed, through acts that go far beyond expressing professional disagreement.
The independent audit found no evidence of misconduct, misrepresentation, or premeditated motives in how the decision was made, and it concluded that the allegations of intentional falsification were unsubstantiated. It did identify opportunities for us to strengthen financial reporting documentation, improve oversight of ancillary fundraising activities, and more carefully review consultants' scope in future engagements. I fully support those recommendations. Continuous improvement is part of the job.
What matters most to me in the audit's findings is this: the decision was made through established university processes, based on a full review of budget-reduction options presented to campus leadership. After that comprehensive review, and taking into account all impacts, discontinuing the varsity status of equestrian was determined to be the option that best met our required $1M budget reduction target. The audit confirms that the decision was reached honestly, through the right process and was the result of a collaborative process with and the backing of university leadership.
The last six months have taken an enormous toll on so many devoted UC Davis employees, current student-athletes and coaches, on me and on my family. I understand that public leadership brings scrutiny, criticism, and difficult questions. I have never objected to good-faith disagreement; it is part of the responsibility of serving a public institution, and it can make it better.
But some actions went far beyond disagreement. Personal threats, intimidation, repeated visits to my home, and efforts to involve family members in a university decision crossed a line that should matter to everyone in our community.
In addition, images from my personal social media — showing my daughter with UC Davis cheerleaders at home games — were used to suggest that I elevated our STUNT program for her benefit or for her potential future involvement at UC Davis.
That allegation is entirely false.
My daughter has been a patient at Shriners Children's for much of her life, and her condition has never allowed her to participate in sports — let alone something as physically demanding as cheerleading. There is never a reason to bring families into professional matters, and those who weaponized a false assumption to repeatedly use online, on campus, and in public meetings should be ashamed.
As we move forward, I hope this experience reminds us that accountability and compassion are not competing values. We can ask hard questions, advocate passionately, and disagree strongly while still treating one another with dignity. That is the standard UC Davis Athletics will continue to uphold.
The independent review has now reiterated the original facts. My hope is that this clarity allows our community to move forward based on facts, respect, and a shared commitment to UC Davis.
I am grateful to the Athletics staff, campus colleagues, coaches, student-athletes, alumni, and friends who continued to lead, support one another, and represent this university with professionalism throughout these past several months.
I believe deeply in the future of Aggie Athletics. While the last six months have been difficult, they will not define us. What will define us is the standard we continue to uphold – accountability, transparency, resilience, and confidence in UC Davis Athletics.
Source: https://ucdavisaggies.com/news/2026/7/13/a-statement-from-rocko-deluca-director-of-athletics.aspx.
==
Memo 2:
Vindication or
Validation?
The Long-Awaited
Audit Raises More Questions Than Answers
(Sacramento, CA)
— Nearly two weeks after UC Davis' promised deadline, the university released
its audit regarding the elimination of the Division I Women's Equestrian
program.
While the
report's release is appreciated, it is important to understand what it does —
and does not — address.
Far from
providing the unequivocal vindication described in Director DeLuca's
accompanying statement, the audit identifies clear deficiencies with the
Athletic Department's financial reporting, fundraising oversight, and
consultant review processes — the very systems relied upon to justify
eliminating the program. The audit and corresponding statements also leave many
of the questions most important to stakeholders unanswered.
First, this was a
compliance audit, not the independent forensic investigation that student athletes, families,
donors, alumni, and legislators have requested since they were blindsided by
the university's January 9 decision. The compliance audit's scope is
significantly narrower than expected.
The audit did not
examine Title IX concerns, false and misleading recruiting practices, or the
assumptions underlying projected STUNT costs. It reviewed only two external
communications despite months of internal e-mails and public statements
alluding to predetermination regarding the program's elimination. Even its
review of fundraising was limited, with auditors expressly acknowledging that a
comprehensive assessment fell outside the scope of their work and would need to
be addressed in a future audit.
The audit also
identified several significant process failures within UC Davis Athletics,
including inadequate documentation supporting NCAA financial reporting,
insufficient oversight of fundraising activities, and consultant analyses that
relied upon financial information not intended for internal budgeting
decisions. The report recommends improved documentation, stronger validation
procedures, clearer oversight, and more rigorous review of consultant
assumptions and methodologies before they are relied upon in decision-making.
These are not
minor administrative recommendations. They are acknowledgements that financial
and oversight processes relied upon during one of the most consequential
athletic decisions in recent university history were insufficient and require
corrective action.
Perhaps most
notably, the audit acknowledges that Collegiate Consulting relied on NCAA financial data
intended for external reporting rather than internal budgeting decisions. The
audit concludes that the consultant's assumptions and methodology should have
been validated against the university's own accounting records before being
used to support a major strategic decision. This is significant because
Collegiate Consulting's analysis portrayed equestrian as costing substantially
more than comparable calculations now suggest, yet that analysis was repeatedly
cited to justify eliminating the team. Questions about the consultant's
analysis have been at the center of stakeholders' calls for a broader
independent review. In April, stakeholders of the team released the initial
findings of an independent review conducted by OSKR, an economic and accounting
firm, which challenged the financial assumptions used to justify the program's
elimination.
If that report
served as independent support for eliminating a Division I program,
stakeholders deserve to know why its assumptions and underlying financial
inputs were never validated before the decision was made.
The university
now recommends new procedures to ensure consultant assumptions, methods, and
financial inputs are carefully reviewed before being relied upon in the future.
This is particularly significant because Collegiate Consulting's analysis
portrayed equestrian as costing roughly twice as much as comparable
calculations now suggest. The university has effectively acknowledged that the
consultant's report relied on inaccurate financial inputs, yet that same report
was repeatedly cited in support of eliminating the team. Moreover, the
financial figures used by the consultant were also reflected in Athletics' own
analyses and public representations regarding program cost and the same budgets
and financial data that Collegiate Consulting relied upon in their report
justifying the program’s elimination.
The report
further asks stakeholders to accept its conclusions without releasing the
detailed financial analyses, calculations, schedules, and supporting
documentation necessary for independent review. In effect, the university is
again asking the public to trust an opaque process that the audit itself says
lacked sufficient documentation, review, and oversight.
Transparency
requires more than assurances — it requires factual information.
Finally, the
audit does not address one of the central concerns raised throughout this
process: not simply whether certain budget figures could be reconciled, but how
those figures were presented to jus fy elimina ng the program. It does not
evaluate repeated public claims that equestrian was among the university's most
expensive sports or had the highest cost per student-athlete, nor does it examine
whether those comparisons accurately reflected the underlying financial data
and provided appropriate context. Those concerns are even more significant now
that the university has acknowledged errors in the financial information relied upon by its consultant and reflected in
NCAA reporting data. Those claims played a major role in shaping public opinion
and decision, yet they remain largely unfounded and unexamined.
The university
has consistently maintained that this was a financial decision. Yet, supporters
offered to explore funding solutions, including an endowment or bridge funding
that could sustain the program for two to four years and provide current
student-athletes and recruits an opportunity to complete their collegiate
careers or transition in an orderly manner. Despite those efforts, the
university declined to pursue those discussions.
Ultimately, the
audit answers far less than the university suggests. While it identifies
problems and deficiencies in financial reporting, fundraising oversight, and
consultant review processes, including the use of inaccurate financial information
in analyses that helped support the program's elimination, it leaves many of
the questions that prompted calls for independent scrutiny unresolved. Rather
than putting this matter to rest, the report reinforces why an independent external
investigation remains necessary. The university must also release the financial
analyses, calculations, and supporting documentation used to justify this
decision; not another statement and message that took weeks to create by a PR
department.
The university
may consider this matter
resolved. For those still
seeking the evidence behind the decision, it remains anything but.
