College Entrance Scam includes former Yale Women's Soccer Coach

[dk_b]

If UCLA was ok with coaches making offers that took fundraising into consideration, or boosting team gpa, or recruiting only forwards and no defenders, whatever. If UCLA was not ok with it and Cromwell received a personal bribe to do something that was contrary to UCLA’s interests, well that is a crime against UCLA and the taxpayers. That did not happen obviously.

I personally know someone who was admitted to UCLA solely because a sibling was a baller. Who cares?

I hope you are right that Cromwell did not receive a personal benefit beyond the satisfaction of doing a favor for a friend (even if some would call it morally questionable at best - if it wasn’t, why go to such charade and dishonesty in having her appear on the roster?). But I find it interesting that you can with such certainty that “that did not happen obviously” unless you are privy to the case being closed not just for lack of evidence but because the evidence clearly exonerates her. And if you are privy, I can’t imagine anyone from UCLA would be too delighted in you posting on a bulletin board, even anonymously.

 

[EOTL]

I hope you are right that Cromwell did not receive a personal benefit beyond the satisfaction of doing a favor for a friend (even if some would call it morally questionable at best - if it wasn’t, why go to such charade and dishonesty in having her appear on the roster?). But I find it interesting that you can with such certainty that “that did not happen obviously” unless you are privy to the case being closed not just for lack of evidence but because the evidence clearly exonerates her. And if you are privy, I can’t imagine anyone from UCLA would be too delighted in you posting on a bulletin board, even anonymously.

It is patently obvious. Singer would have implicated her. So would Salcedo. The LA Times would not have found something in the texts and emails and reported on it. UCLA would have also found it and fired her. She did not get fired because she did not deserve to get fired. Duh.

 

[dk_b]

It is patently obvious. Singer would have implicated her. So would Salcedo. The LA Times would not have found something in the texts and emails and reported on it. UCLA would have also found it and fired her. She did not get fired because she did not deserve to get fired. Duh.

as I said, unless you are privy to the inside discussions, you can speculate (we all do that) but concluding all of this with certainty is just not possible. Your conclusion that she did not get fired because she did not deserve to get fired may be correct but how they got there is and likely will remain a black box. To drop in a “duh” is juvenile and to say it is “patently obvious” is silly. Again, unless you are an insider (well, the “duh” would still be juvenile).

We have no idea what the LA Times’ FOIA request yielded. We don’t know what labor and employment protections may govern this situation (likely more complex than at, say, USC since UCLA is a California entity and not private). We have no idea what negotiations may still be going on. And we don’t know if AC herself may have been a cooperating witness in exchange for immunity. We don’t know anything other than the fact that the player was on the roster, that she had no business being on the roster from a soccer standpoint and yet there were a lot of unusual steps in listing her. And we know that AC kept her job, is a good coach and had a solid run last year and continues to recruit excellent talent so her run will prob continue year after year. And unless and until she or UCLA or someone else wants to offer a comprehensive explanation, her situation will remain cloudy to some. Maybe even many. But patently obvious? Or duh? Come on.

 

[espola]

It is patently obvious. Singer would have implicated her. So would Salcedo. The LA Times would not have found something in the texts and emails and reported on it. UCLA would have also found it and fired her. She did not get fired because she did not deserve to get fired. Duh.

Has she made a public statement anywhere that she didn't know what was going on and just did a favor for a friend? She might have, but I don't recall having seen it.

 

[EOTL]

as I said, unless you are privy to the inside discussions, you can speculate (we all do that) but concluding all of this with certainty is just not possible. Your conclusion that she did not get fired because she did not deserve to get fired may be correct but how they got there is and likely will remain a black box. To drop in a “duh” is juvenile and to say it is “patently obvious” is silly. Again, unless you are an insider (well, the “duh” would still be juvenile).

We have no idea what the LA Times’ FOIA request yielded. We don’t know what labor and employment protections may govern this situation (likely more complex than at, say, USC since UCLA is a California entity and not private). We have no idea what negotiations may still be going on. And we don’t know if AC herself may have been a cooperating witness in exchange for immunity. We don’t know anything other than the fact that the player was on the roster, that she had no business being on the roster from a soccer standpoint and yet there were a lot of unusual steps in listing her. And we know that AC kept her job, is a good coach and had a solid run last year and continues to recruit excellent talent so her run will prob continue year after year. And unless and until she or UCLA or someone else wants to offer a comprehensive explanation, her situation will remain cloudy to some. Maybe even many. But patently obvious? Or duh? Come on.

Sure. Maybe she was the only one Singer didn’t rat out because Cromwell only uses the lesbian thing as a cover to hide that they’re secret lovers. Maybe the LA Times is holding the story back because it’s much bigger than just Cromwell, and they’re about to shine the spotlight on Gavin Newsom’s direct order to put Isacksen on the team as part of a plot to gain the presidency using the Isacksen’s wealth and power. Maybe UCLA failed to read any of the emails that implicated Cromwell before they sent them to the LA Times and therefore failed to realize that she received millions in bribe money. Or maybe a FISA court has issued secret gag orders on everyone as part of the government’s ongoing investigation into foreign spies that have infiltrated the youth soccer system, Isacksen of course being one of them. Duh.

Get over it. This is dead in the water, just like GDA.

 

[EOTL]

Has she made a public statement anywhere that she didn't know what was going on and just did a favor for a friend? She might have, but I don't recall having seen it.

Why on earth would she do that? There are maybe three people in the world who care, and they’re just whackadoo conspiracy theorists who hang out on some youth soccer website for conspiracy theorists. It’s like 4Chan only worse.

 

[espola]

Why on earth would she do that? There are maybe three people in the world who care, and they’re just whackadoo conspiracy theorists who hang out on some youth soccer website for conspiracy theorists. It’s like 4Chan only worse.

It's not hard to think of a reason why she would not do that.

 

[dk_b]

Sure. Maybe she was the only one Singer didn’t rat out because Cromwell only uses the lesbian thing as a cover to hide that they’re secret lovers. Maybe the LA Times is holding the story back because it’s much bigger than just Cromwell, and they’re about to shine the spotlight on Gavin Newsom’s direct order to put Isacksen on the team as part of a plot to gain the presidency using the Isacksen’s wealth and power. Maybe UCLA failed to read any of the emails that implicated Cromwell before they sent them to the LA Times and therefore failed to realize that she received millions in bribe money. Or maybe a FISA court has issued secret gag orders on everyone as part of the government’s ongoing investigation into foreign spies that have infiltrated the youth soccer system, Isacksen of course being one of them. Duh.

Get over it. This is dead in the water, just like GDA.

get over what exactly? And what does GDA have to do with it? Have I advocated for GDA? Is that supposed to slay like your “duh”? You are clearly taking this personally and all I’ve said is that none of us really knows. We speculate based on what’s out there and what’s not. But we don’t know and we can’t know. And if you read what I have written, I don’t take issue with your points only your certainty based on those points. But you really have that “duh” down now. That shows power and great intelligence. You have me positively cowering in the corner. And I’m sure others are a bit intimidated as well.

I’ve never internetted well because I’d rather not call people names or say someone’s points or conclusions are stupid and I’d rather simply discuss points of disagreement instead of trying to ridicule. I also try not to speak (or write) in black and white unless I know something as a fact. The analysis is the fun part - and your analysis makes a lot of sense to me. But it does not resolve a key point - the lengths to which UCLA soccer went to mislead re the presence of a player on the roster. If it is no big deal, why the deception (and there is no question there was deception)? We know AC still has her job (I’m glad) but we don’t know why she emerged publicly unscathed. Again, it’s not knowable.

But a socially distant toast to your certainty, your patent obviousness and your use of “duh”. It will be an enjoyable nightcap. Cheers!

 

[MacDre]

get over what exactly? And what does GDA have to do with it? Have I advocated for GDA? Is that supposed to slay like your “duh”? You are clearly taking this personally and all I’ve said is that none of us really knows. We speculate based on what’s out there and what’s not. But we don’t know and we can’t know. And if you read what I have written, I don’t take issue with your points only your certainty based on those points. But you really have that “duh” down now. That shows power and great intelligence. You have me positively cowering in the corner. And I’m sure others are a bit intimidated as well.

I’ve never internetted well because I’d rather not call people names or say someone’s points or conclusions are stupid and I’d rather simply discuss points of disagreement instead of trying to ridicule. I also try not to speak (or write) in black and white unless I know something as a fact. The analysis is the fun part - and your analysis makes a lot of sense to me. But it does not resolve a key point - the lengths to which UCLA soccer went to mislead re the presence of a player on the roster. If it is no big deal, why the deception (and there is no question there was deception)? We know AC still has her job (I’m glad) but we don’t know why she emerged publicly unscathed. Again, it’s not knowable.

But a socially distant toast to your certainty, your patent obviousness and your use of “duh”. It will be an enjoyable nightcap. Cheers!

Interesting debate. I do not think there’s a lack of evidence in this case. In fact, I think there is strong circumstantial evidence that Cromwell is a reliable source cooperating with the government to avoid prosecution. As I’m sure you know dk_b circumstantial evidence can be and is as reliable as direct evidence in a court of law. So, I respectfully submit that the fact that Cromwell knowingly had that kid on the roster is more than enough evidence to send Cromwell to “club fed” for a very long time on a CONSPIRACY charge. Ladies and gents can someone tell me why Cromwell hasn’t been charged with conspiracy? I’d bet a kidney it’s because she’s a rat... a nasty rodent!

 

[espola]

Interesting debate. I do not think there’s a lack of evidence in this case. In fact, I think there is strong circumstantial evidence that Cromwell is a reliable source cooperating with the government to avoid prosecution. As I’m sure you know dk_b circumstantial evidence can be and is as reliable as direct evidence in a court of law. So, I respectfully submit that the fact that Cromwell knowingly had that kid on the roster is more than enough evidence to send Cromwell to “club fed” for a very long time on a CONSPIRACY charge. Ladies and gents can someone tell me why Cromwell hasn’t been charged with conspiracy? I’d bet a kidney it’s because she’s a rat... a nasty rodent!

I wouldn't consider her a rat if the feds came to her and said "This is what we know. Now tell us about your involvement" and she just told them the truth, and the truth is that she was just doing a favor for a friend and the college and knew nothing about the big money because she didn't get any of it.

Unless, of course, she was fully in on the conspiracy and knew what was happening all long, and is trying to keep her role hidden.

 

[gotothebushes]

Interesting debate. I do not think there’s a lack of evidence in this case. In fact, I think there is strong circumstantial evidence that Cromwell is a reliable source cooperating with the government to avoid prosecution. As I’m sure you know dk_b circumstantial evidence can be and is as reliable as direct evidence in a court of law. So, I respectfully submit that the fact that Cromwell knowingly had that kid on the roster is more than enough evidence to send Cromwell to “club fed” for a very long time on a CONSPIRACY charge. Ladies and gents can someone tell me why Cromwell hasn’t been charged with conspiracy? I’d bet a kidney it’s because she’s a rat... a nasty rodent!

If you watched the documentary on HBO called "The Scheme". A FBI investigation into a basketball corruption scandal led to the arrest of executives at Adidas and assistant coaches at major college programs. FBI wanted Christian Dawkins to rat on getting NCAA Rick Pitino.

The UCLA's case, the FBI wanted Salecedo and they pressured Cromwell for information. That's the way the FBI works and Cromwell gave the FBI what they needed to build a stronger case.

 

[dad4]

If you watched the documentary on HBO called "The Scheme". A FBI investigation into a basketball corruption scandal led to the arrest of executives at Adidas and assistant coaches at major college programs. FBI wanted Christian Dawkins to rat on getting NCAA Rick Pitino.

The UCLA's case, the FBI wanted Salecedo and they pressured Cromwell for information. That's the way the FBI works and Cromwell gave the FBI what they needed to build a stronger case.

Makes more sense than a P5 coach wasting a slot as a favor.

 

[Copa9]

Genuinely curious about how far this goes. I mean, are you saying that if a wealthy parent at State College X bribes Coach Y and also makes a sizable donation, that justifies Coach Y using her or his preferred admissions slots for the kid of the wealthy parent? W/o the bribe, you seem to feel like it's clearly ok - not just "no harm no foul" but, in fact, it's a benefit to the school and student body at large and it really does not cost the program much b/c this player will be the 28th person on the roster. The donation justifies an odd student here or there who is admitted outside of normal channels (what Singer called a side door, I think). But does it change if it also involves direct payment to a coach or other individual who can earmark an otherwise undeserving student? ("undeserving" in the sense that an athletic slot is being used for a non-athlete or athlete that is clearly not the caliber of the squad at State College X)? That is, is what makes UCLA's situation OK to you (as you seem to be indicating) that the coach of the squad impacted received (presumably) nothing in return? Or is whether or not she received anything irrelevant so long as there was SOME direct donation to the school?

Based on the facts that are public, I can understand both sides though I find it hard to imagine that most schools would be OK with this sort of arrangement as a favor and I find it hard to imagine that it was not done w/full visibility by the coaching staff.

Remember, the top college coaches spend hours and hours scouting recruits. They study videos, check their transcripts, attend showcases, sit around a table and debate which player will fill their needs on the field. Anyone who says they don't know who is on their roster is lying, period. If you believe they don't know, by the way it is their job to know, I have a diamond mine I would like to sell you really cheap and you don't even have to check it out.

 

[EOTL]

get over what exactly? And what does GDA have to do with it? Have I advocated for GDA? Is that supposed to slay like your “duh”? You are clearly taking this personally and all I’ve said is that none of us really knows. We speculate based on what’s out there and what’s not. But we don’t know and we can’t know. And if you read what I have written, I don’t take issue with your points only your certainty based on those points. But you really have that “duh” down now. That shows power and great intelligence. You have me positively cowering in the corner. And I’m sure others are a bit intimidated as well.

I’ve never internetted well because I’d rather not call people names or say someone’s points or conclusions are stupid and I’d rather simply discuss points of disagreement instead of trying to ridicule. I also try not to speak (or write) in black and white unless I know something as a fact. The analysis is the fun part - and your analysis makes a lot of sense to me. But it does not resolve a key point - the lengths to which UCLA soccer went to mislead re the presence of a player on the roster. If it is no big deal, why the deception (and there is no question there was deception)? We know AC still has her job (I’m glad) but we don’t know why she emerged publicly unscathed. Again, it’s not knowable.

But a socially distant toast to your certainty, your patent obviousness and your use of “duh”. It will be an enjoyable nightcap. Cheers!

Gosh, maybe you are right. Maybe a youth soccer forum in which anonymous people regularly assert conspiracy theories and make defamatory accusations about a college soccer coach should be taken more seriously. Maybe all of you deserve more respect for the important speculative speculation that you speculate about.

I’m sorry it isn’t any fun that UCLA investigated all of this and determined she did nothing to merit termination. That the LA Times did not find her correspondence to be newsworthy. That Singer didn’t implicate her although his cooperation agreement required him to do so. That the Isacksens also didn’t implicate her although their full cooperation was a condition of their plea agreement. That your “taxpayer status” doesn’t give you any right to any information from UCLA.

It is certainly more fun to accuse her of taking bribes and conspiring with UCLA to help her beat the rap with the feds by, among other things: (1) implementing a cone of silence; (2) fighting the LA Times FIOA request and then destroying documents implicating her; (3) Dan Guerrero taking the fall to protect Cromwell (did I get that right @full90?); (4) the Isacksen’s secret grandma Annenberg (who knew?) donating 10s of millions of dollars when Isacksen was in middle school to build the soccer stadium in exchange for admission just in case the hundred million she gave to USC wasn’t enough to get her in there. I’m not kidding about that last one. @Soccer43 actually speculated that all by himself.

So what ever happened with that class action lawsuits that you speculated ECNL/GDA players and taxpayers would file against schools for denying kids roster spots in exchange for coaches taking bribes?

 

[EOTL]

If you watched the documentary on HBO called "The Scheme". A FBI investigation into a basketball corruption scandal led to the arrest of executives at Adidas and assistant coaches at major college programs. FBI wanted Christian Dawkins to rat on getting NCAA Rick Pitino.

The UCLA's case, the FBI wanted Salecedo and they pressured Cromwell for information. That's the way the FBI works and Cromwell gave the FBI what they needed to build a stronger case.

Yes this makes a lot of sense. I do have some questions though. If Christian Dawkins still went to prison and still lost his job, how on earth did Cromwell manage to avoid that herself? Do you think maybe it was because she didn’t do anything that was either criminal or deserved getting fired? And how on earth did the feds manage to convince the state of California to not do anything when fed immunity deals have no effect on state law crimes or employment? I’m so confused.

 

[dad4]

Gosh, maybe you are right. Maybe a youth soccer forum in which anonymous people regularly assert conspiracy theories and make defamatory accusations about a college soccer coach should be taken more seriously. Maybe all of you deserve more respect for the important speculative speculation that you speculate about.

I’m sorry it isn’t any fun that UCLA investigated all of this and determined she did nothing to merit termination. That the LA Times did not find her correspondence to be newsworthy. That Singer didn’t implicate her although his cooperation agreement required him to do so. That the Isacksens also didn’t implicate her although their full cooperation was a condition of their plea agreement. That your “taxpayer status” doesn’t give you any right to any information from UCLA.

It is certainly more fun to accuse her of taking bribes and conspiring with UCLA to help her beat the rap with the feds by, among other things: (1) implementing a cone of silence; (2) fighting the LA Times FIOA request and then destroying documents implicating her; (3) Dan Guerrero taking the fall to protect Cromwell (did I get that right @full90?); (4) the Isacksen’s secret grandma Annenberg (who knew?) donating 10s of millions of dollars when Isacksen was in middle school to build the soccer stadium in exchange for admission just in case the hundred million she gave to USC wasn’t enough to get her in there. I’m not kidding about that last one. @Soccer43 actually speculated that all by himself.

So what ever happened with that class action lawsuits that you speculated ECNL/GDA players and taxpayers would file against schools for denying kids roster spots in exchange for coaches taking bribes?

UCLA investigated and that proves something? Are you telling me you’ve never heard of a big university deciding to ignore problems when the coach is winning?

Don’t post trash like that. Think, man.

 

[MacDre]

Yes this makes a lot of sense. I do have some questions though. If Christian Dawkins still went to prison and still lost his job, how on earth did Cromwell manage to avoid that herself? Do you think maybe it was because she didn’t do anything that was either criminal or deserved getting fired? And how on earth did the feds manage to convince the state of California to not do anything when fed immunity deals have no effect on state law crimes or employment? I’m so confused.

Because it was a Federal investigation and not a joint task force with State law enforcement.

 

[dk_b]

Remember, the top college coaches spend hours and hours scouting recruits. They study videos, check their transcripts, attend showcases, sit around a table and debate which player will fill their needs on the field. Anyone who says they don't know who is on their roster is lying, period. If you believe they don't know, by the way it is their job to know, I have a diamond mine I would like to sell you really cheap and you don't even have to check it out.

you’re asking those rhetorically, right? Because I agree with you. And that’s what I meant by the deception in rostering this player.

 

[espola]

Gosh, maybe you are right. Maybe a youth soccer forum in which anonymous people regularly assert conspiracy theories and make defamatory accusations about a college soccer coach should be taken more seriously. Maybe all of you deserve more respect for the important speculative speculation that you speculate about.

I’m sorry it isn’t any fun that UCLA investigated all of this and determined she did nothing to merit termination. That the LA Times did not find her correspondence to be newsworthy. That Singer didn’t implicate her although his cooperation agreement required him to do so. That the Isacksens also didn’t implicate her although their full cooperation was a condition of their plea agreement. That your “taxpayer status” doesn’t give you any right to any information from UCLA.

It is certainly more fun to accuse her of taking bribes and conspiring with UCLA to help her beat the rap with the feds by, among other things: (1) implementing a cone of silence; (2) fighting the LA Times FIOA request and then destroying documents implicating her; (3) Dan Guerrero taking the fall to protect Cromwell (did I get that right @full90?); (4) the Isacksen’s secret grandma Annenberg (who knew?) donating 10s of millions of dollars when Isacksen was in middle school to build the soccer stadium in exchange for admission just in case the hundred million she gave to USC wasn’t enough to get her in there. I’m not kidding about that last one. @Soccer43 actually speculated that all by himself.

So what ever happened with that class action lawsuits that you speculated ECNL/GDA players and taxpayers would file against schools for denying kids roster spots in exchange for coaches taking bribes?

Has UCLA made any statement about any investigation they may have done on their own?

(I apologize for my ignorance if this is already common knowledge - when issues like this stretch out love months it is hard for me to remember all the details)

 

[dk_b]

Gosh, maybe you are right. Maybe a youth soccer forum in which anonymous people regularly assert conspiracy theories and make defamatory accusations about a college soccer coach should be taken more seriously. Maybe all of you deserve more respect for the important speculative speculation that you speculate about.

I’m sorry it isn’t any fun that UCLA investigated all of this and determined she did nothing to merit termination. That the LA Times did not find her correspondence to be newsworthy. That Singer didn’t implicate her although his cooperation agreement required him to do so. That the Isacksens also didn’t implicate her although their full cooperation was a condition of their plea agreement. That your “taxpayer status” doesn’t give you any right to any information from UCLA.

It is certainly more fun to accuse her of taking bribes and conspiring with UCLA to help her beat the rap with the feds by, among other things: (1) implementing a cone of silence; (2) fighting the LA Times FIOA request and then destroying documents implicating her; (3) Dan Guerrero taking the fall to protect Cromwell (did I get that right @full90?); (4) the Isacksen’s secret grandma Annenberg (who knew?) donating 10s of millions of dollars when Isacksen was in middle school to build the soccer stadium in exchange for admission just in case the hundred million she gave to USC wasn’t enough to get her in there. I’m not kidding about that last one. @Soccer43 actually speculated that all by himself.

So what ever happened with that class action lawsuits that you speculated ECNL/GDA players and taxpayers would file against schools for denying kids roster spots in exchange for coaches taking bribes?

You may be confusing me with someone else. I have no idea. But the only thing I am questioning is the degree of certainty you have. Evidently you are in the know but b/c I have not seen other sourcing, I will only speak for myself - I'm an outsider so I have no idea. I have no idea what the FOIA request yielded (you may be right that it was nothing incriminating). I have no idea what negotiations may have occurred between the Feds and Singer or between AC and the Feds or between the Feds and Salcedo (but you may be right that it was nothing to implicate AC). I have no idea that the Isacksons implicated or did not implicate AC (you may be right that they certainly didn't). You may be right about all of it. But your conclusions based on the absence of information is simply speculation - even speculation with a logical thread is speculation. You don't want to address the clear deception re listing the player on the roster (her soccer credentials were complete bullshit but maybe that's just a laughable oversight and maybe my use of "deception" is unfair b/c it was simply an innocent favor. I can't say "you may be right" here b/c you have not addressed this point). I have not accused AC of taking bribes - and I am hopeful she did not - nor did I accuse her of conspiring with UCLA. If you are going to use hyperbole in a response to me, your point is more interesting and certainly more valid if you can show where I have done that.

In the end, I will 100% support your argument and stand right behind the certainty if you can show the proof beyond your logical speculation.

And I certainly don't remember ever speculating about ECNL/GDA players filing class actions. Way back in the early thread, we may have discussed what possible "damage" someone could claim but b/c it is very difficult to show that any one player was denied a highly coveted spot, I cannot imagine that such a suit would succeed. So while I don't remember, it is certainly possible. I doesn't sound like me to say "ECNL/GDA players and taxpayers" but I could just be foggy at my age. But I will play with the line: "what ever happened?" Here's my speculation: if a group of families or even taxpayers sought advice from a plaintiffs' lawyer, they were probably told that the likelihood of success is small and the cost of mounting such a case may be quite large. And for what end? What is the relief for the class that, in a given year, the 28th player would have been someone else? So, what happened? It probably fizzled.

 

[EOTL]

Because it was a Federal investigation and not a joint task force with State law enforcement.

I see. Cromwell admitted committing a bunch of crimes to the feds, but the feds hushed it up so the state would never find out and then use it to terminate Cromwell’s employment and charge her under state laws. So the feds were part of the conspiracy too, eh? Along with the LA Times killing the story? This really does go to the highest levels.