View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
osubeavers
Joined: 07 Jan 2017 Posts: 277 Location: West Hills, Portland, OR
Back to top |
Posted: 01/09/19 10:37 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
myrtle wrote: |
osubeavers wrote: |
pilight wrote: |
Statement by AHSAA Central Board of Control President Johnny Hardin
http://www.ahsaa.com/Media/AHSAANOW/News-Articles/ArticleID/1399/statement-by-ahsaa-central-board-of-control-president-johnny-hardin
Quote: |
However, if exceptions are made, there would no longer be a need for an Amateur Rule. The Rules are applied equally to ALL athletes. Furthermore, most eligibility violations are the result of adults failing to follow the rules. Here, the student’s mother as a certified AHSAA Coach should know the rules; the School’s Principal should know the rules, the Head Basketball Coach, as not only a Coach but also as a former Central Board member, should know the rules. |
|
Students often have to pay the price for the mistakes of their parents or coaches. Always have always will. Let this serve as an example to those adults to be responsible to the children who rely on their knowledge and judgment. In the bigger picture, a high school athlete losing a season of eligibility due to a clear rules violation is hardly the end of the world. If she is talented she will not be denied a college scholarship opportunity. |
wow! I think if you were in that situation yourself, or your kid, you would hardly feel that way. For a top athlete to miss out a whole year playing the sport you love and excel at because of bureaucratic nonsense could in fact feel like the end of the world for that kid. If it had happened to me as a senior in high school, I would have been devastated. Again, this was an error from USAB - perhaps USAB should be fined rather than punishing the kid. |
A list of the number of things the average high-schooler might consider “the end of the world” would be lengthy. And it wouldn’t necessarily involve their health, security or future opportunities.
_________________ Stepping out of a triangle into striped light - Everything is wrong, at the same time it's RIGHT!
|
|
CourtsideTix
Joined: 19 Nov 2004 Posts: 4565 Location: Washington, DC
Back to top |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 67058 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
Posted: 01/10/19 2:10 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
If she's not reinstated, USA Basketball should go ahead and give her the $850
_________________ I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005 Posts: 11192
Back to top |
Posted: 01/10/19 5:03 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
pilight wrote: |
If she's not reinstated, USA Basketball should go ahead and give her the $850 |
Post of the month ...
_________________ Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
CourtsideTix
Joined: 19 Nov 2004 Posts: 4565 Location: Washington, DC
Back to top |
|
taropatch
Joined: 24 Feb 2009 Posts: 814 Location: Kau Rubbish Dump
Back to top |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 67058 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
|
toad455
Joined: 16 Nov 2005 Posts: 22476 Location: NJ
Back to top |
Posted: 01/11/19 8:38 am ::: |
Reply |
|
This should be that complicated. Just let her play!!
_________________ LET'S GO LIBERTY!!!!!!
Twitter: @TBRBWAY
|
|
Ex-Ref
Joined: 04 Oct 2009 Posts: 8975
Back to top |
Posted: 01/11/19 9:03 am ::: |
Reply |
|
OK, so let's say that her mother does know the rules about accepting payment (which she probably does).
It sounds like they knew that USAB was going to contact the AHSAA and get approval before sending the payment.
So when a check arrives (they don't do automatic deposit???*), isn't it fair to think that the AHSAA approved it and take it to the bank?
*Would that have made a difference the Savarese if it had be auto deposit or would he still say that it was accepting payment?
_________________ "Women are judged on their success, men on their potential. It’s time we started believing in the potential of women." —Muffet McGraw
“Thank you for showing the fellas that you've got more balls than them,” Haley said, to cheers from the crowd.
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005 Posts: 11192
Back to top |
Posted: 01/11/19 10:18 am ::: |
Reply |
|
No one has yet explained to me why it should be a problem if any high school player gets paid to play basketball.
Again, if a girl in drama gets paid to be in a summer stock production, is she prohibited from being in the school play?
_________________ Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
Ex-Ref
Joined: 04 Oct 2009 Posts: 8975
Back to top |
Posted: 01/11/19 10:35 am ::: |
Reply |
|
ClayK wrote: |
No one has yet explained to me why it should be a problem if any high school player gets paid to play basketball.
Again, if a girl in drama gets paid to be in a summer stock production, is she prohibited from being in the school play? |
My guess is that no one has explained it to you because we are all getting tired of explaining it to you.
_________________ "Women are judged on their success, men on their potential. It’s time we started believing in the potential of women." —Muffet McGraw
“Thank you for showing the fellas that you've got more balls than them,” Haley said, to cheers from the crowd.
|
|
CourtsideTix
Joined: 19 Nov 2004 Posts: 4565 Location: Washington, DC
Back to top |
Posted: 01/11/19 11:26 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Today's New York Times: "An Adult’s ‘Clerical Error’ Threatens a Girl’s High School Hoop Dreams"
Quote: |
Tara Davenport emphasized that neither she nor her daughter hid the check. They simply thought that U.S.A. Basketball had done its due diligence and that they could accept it.
“I reported it as soon as I knew that Maori wasn’t supposed to have it,” she said.
Kelley, the high school principal, and Miller, the U.S.A. Basketball spokesman, focused on how institutionalized these payments are. After U.S.A. Basketball sent the check but before Davenport received it, Kelley wrote, she received a call from Jeff Walz. Walz is the women’s basketball coach at the University of Louisville, and was also the coach of the United States under-18 team. Walz asked Tara Davenport if she had received the check yet. She said she had not, and asked whether Maori could accept it. Walz told her that she was allowed to, and that it was permitted by the N.C.A.A.
Louisville officials did not respond to a request to comment. |
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/11/sports/basketball/alabama-girl-maori-davenport-.html
|
|
FrozenLVFan
Joined: 08 Jul 2014 Posts: 3518
Back to top |
Posted: 01/11/19 11:32 am ::: |
Reply |
|
The AHSAA member schools, including Davenport's school, previously determined what payments are allowable and what aren't. Davenport broke the rules, The AHSAA administrators are obligated to uphold the rules which are in effect. It's as simple as that. Unless/until the schools vote to change the rules, or there is a legal challenge to the rules which will likely take until the season is over, she remains ineligible. I don't understand why this is so incomprehensible.
It's sad that neither USAB, Davenport's school, or her mother were looking out for her interests. USAB needs to clean house of incompetent staff, and the school needs to revamp its education for its coaches.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 67058 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
Posted: 01/11/19 11:50 am ::: |
Reply |
|
FrozenLVFan wrote: |
The AHSAA member schools, including Davenport's school, previously determined what payments are allowable and what aren't. Davenport broke the rules, The AHSAA administrators are obligated to uphold the rules which are in effect. It's as simple as that. Unless/until the schools vote to change the rules, or there is a legal challenge to the rules which will likely take until the season is over, she remains ineligible. I don't understand why this is so incomprehensible.
It's sad that neither USAB, Davenport's school, or her mother were looking out for her interests. USAB needs to clean house of incompetent staff, and the school needs to revamp its education for its coaches. |
They've made exceptions before.
The idea that the AHSAA is looking out for her interests is just silly.
_________________ I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 67058 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005 Posts: 11192
Back to top |
Posted: 01/11/19 12:10 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Sometimes justice is delivered ...
_________________ Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013 Posts: 14550
Back to top |
Posted: 01/11/19 12:23 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
That's what you get when you have elected judges. Politics. Ever see Miracle on 34th St.?
It's highly unlikely there is even a shred of a legal claim here, but the popular thing is to let her play until they hold a hearing and the association responds to the suit. I can almost hear the judge's campaign manager telling him he's got to rule for the player.
He'll probably schedule the hearing for mid April.
|
|
toad455
Joined: 16 Nov 2005 Posts: 22476 Location: NJ
Back to top |
Posted: 01/11/19 12:59 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
About time!
_________________ LET'S GO LIBERTY!!!!!!
Twitter: @TBRBWAY
|
|
BamaEd
Joined: 11 May 2014 Posts: 860 Location: United States
Back to top |
Posted: 01/11/19 3:46 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Very happy my home state had someone to at least temporarily end this PR nightmare.
I think she should be allowed to play. If they want to punish her, then consider the games she's missed as punishment.
Some folks on the board are adamant that she should be suspended for the season. Is it because that's what the AHSAA said the rule is so it should be upheld? Or is it because you believe in the rule and how it was interpreted? I'm just curious is all.
|
|
Youth Coach
Joined: 23 Mar 2008 Posts: 4760
Back to top |
Posted: 01/11/19 6:19 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I don't know that anyone should get all excited about the judge letting her play. If she plays and at the end of the upcoming hearing the board wins, they'll just retroactively punish the team and strip them of any wins/titles they may win because they used what they'll consider an ineligible player.
It's stupid, but you know damn well it will happen. |
|
toad455
Joined: 16 Nov 2005 Posts: 22476 Location: NJ
Back to top |
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005 Posts: 8254 Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
Posted: 01/12/19 1:06 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Youth Coach wrote: |
I don't know that anyone should get all excited about the judge letting her play. If she plays and at the end of the upcoming hearing the board wins, they'll just retroactively punish the team and strip them of any wins/titles they may win because they used what they'll consider an ineligible player. |
That's right, and also the school may be retroactively fined. Here's a good legal analysis of what will happen after the judge's ex parte restraining order expires after 10 days:
Despite Temporary Motion to Play, Maori Davenport's Eligibility Case Is Far From Settled
I'm discomfited that a judge would interfere with the decisions of a purely private and voluntary athletic organization, and moreover do so on an ex parte basis (i.e., without the other party, the AHSAA, even having the opportunity to respond). Unfortunately for our three branch democracy, judicial arrogance and tyranny have been on the rise at every level for the past 60 years, with individual judges imposing their own subjective social, cultural and political preferences, instead of deferring to the legislative and executive branches where those decisions are intended to be made. And Art Best is correct: a locally elected judge is most likely to bend to perceived voter pressures rather than sticking to the rule of law.
On the tangential question of why schools or athletic associations should have rules about amateurism, "pure amateurism" is, like it or not, the entire purpose of the AHSAA, for which schools such as Davenport's voluntarily join. The second sentence of the AHSAA's founding Constitution declares: "The object of this Association shall be to promote pure amateur athletic competition in the high schools of Alabama." |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 67058 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
Posted: 01/12/19 1:29 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
The schools join the AHSAA, not the students, so any punishment should be levied against the school
_________________ I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
calbearman76
Joined: 02 Nov 2009 Posts: 5167 Location: Carson City
Back to top |
Posted: 01/12/19 1:31 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
GlennMacGrady wrote: |
Youth Coach wrote: |
I don't know that anyone should get all excited about the judge letting her play. If she plays and at the end of the upcoming hearing the board wins, they'll just retroactively punish the team and strip them of any wins/titles they may win because they used what they'll consider an ineligible player. |
That's right, and also the school may be retroactively fined. Here's a good legal analysis of what will happen after the judge's ex parte restraining order expires after 10 days:
Despite Temporary Motion to Play, Maori Davenport's Eligibility Case Is Far From Settled
I'm discomfited that a judge would interfere with the decisions of a purely private and voluntary athletic organization, and moreover do so on an ex parte basis (i.e., without the other party, the AHSAA, even having the opportunity to respond). Unfortunately for our three branch democracy, judicial arrogance and tyranny have been on the rise at every level for the past 60 years, with individual judges imposing their own subjective social, cultural and political preferences, instead of deferring to the legislative and executive branches where those decisions are intended to be made. And Art Best is correct: a locally elected judge is most likely to bend to perceived voter pressures rather than sticking to the rule of law.
On the tangential question of why schools or athletic associations should have rules about amateurism, "pure amateurism" is, like it or not, the entire purpose of the AHSAA, for which schools such as Davenport's voluntarily join. The second sentence of the AHSAA's founding Constitution declares: "The object of this Association shall be to promote pure amateur athletic competition in the high schools of Alabama." |
If the AHSAA were truly interested in pure amateurism there would be a lot of high quality football talent sitting at home on Friday night and Saturday during the fall. There have many cases of football players getting large sums of money, sometimes just for playing for high school teams and more often in the college recruiting process. There was also the case of Chuck Person being involved in paying high school basketball players to play at Auburn. The holier than thou concept of "pure amateurism" is much more of a "don't ask don't tell" policy where everyone looks the other way at major violations but then tries to show how tough they are by ruling against a girl. For what - accepting a payment from an organization that fosters girls amateur sports that made a mistake, and then repaying it when the issue was raised.
If I sit at a traffic light that doesn't change for 20 minutes that cycles through several times but never displays an arrow to turn left I am justified to go through that light when it is safe to do so. No rule is 100% inviolable and the judge was right to view the equities of the case.
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005 Posts: 8254 Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
Posted: 01/12/19 3:44 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
calbearman76 wrote: |
GlennMacGrady wrote: |
Youth Coach wrote: |
I don't know that anyone should get all excited about the judge letting her play. If she plays and at the end of the upcoming hearing the board wins, they'll just retroactively punish the team and strip them of any wins/titles they may win because they used what they'll consider an ineligible player. |
That's right, and also the school may be retroactively fined. Here's a good legal analysis of what will happen after the judge's ex parte restraining order expires after 10 days:
Despite Temporary Motion to Play, Maori Davenport's Eligibility Case Is Far From Settled
I'm discomfited that a judge would interfere with the decisions of a purely private and voluntary athletic organization, and moreover do so on an ex parte basis (i.e., without the other party, the AHSAA, even having the opportunity to respond). Unfortunately for our three branch democracy, judicial arrogance and tyranny have been on the rise at every level for the past 60 years, with individual judges imposing their own subjective social, cultural and political preferences, instead of deferring to the legislative and executive branches where those decisions are intended to be made. And Art Best is correct: a locally elected judge is most likely to bend to perceived voter pressures rather than sticking to the rule of law.
On the tangential question of why schools or athletic associations should have rules about amateurism, "pure amateurism" is, like it or not, the entire purpose of the AHSAA, for which schools such as Davenport's voluntarily join. The second sentence of the AHSAA's founding Constitution declares: "The object of this Association shall be to promote pure amateur athletic competition in the high schools of Alabama." |
. . . the judge was right to view the equities of the case. |
You're missing the socio-political and legal points.
First of all, no judge, as a general rule, should be interfering in the decisions of a voluntarily organized private group. For example, should judges be deciding whether a boy scout was properly denied a merit badge or whether someone violated a membership rule of the Moose Lodge? Secondly, the judge acted without considering "the equities of the case." He acted solely on completely unproven and unsupported ex parte allegations of "arbitrariness, collusion and fraud" by the AHSAA without the AHSAA having any opportunity to make an appearance or to be heard. The judge should not have issued the temporary restraining order, but should simply have scheduled an evidentiary hearing to listen to both sides. That will now happen at some unknown date in the future.
I have no knowledge about your football examples, but a better traffic violation analogy would be speeding, which like the AHSAA's monetary prohibition is a strict liability offense. It's not a defense that you didn't know that speeding was against the law, or that you didn't know the exact speed limit, or that you didn't know you were speeding, or that you didn't intend to speed, or that your speedometer gave you mistaken information, or that the person who gave you the car said it was legal to speed in it, or that you slowed down to a legal speed after you saw the cop, or that you promise not to speed in the future.
It's possible that due to public pressure that the AHSAA will not contest the lawsuit at the eventual hearing and that Davenport will fully prevail that way. Such a duck would allow the AHSAA to say that they upheld their rule, as their bylaws required them to, but were stymied by the court. |
|
|
|