Why did she have 3 different Birth certificates 2 that said o5 and 2 different cal south cards ...My dd has ALWAYS HAVE ONE OF EACH !!!
What's going on Cal South and State Cup Semi's?
- Thread starter sdb
- Start date
Daniel Miller
SILVER ELITE
I never said "the girls" were cheaters. It is the club, the coach and the parents who drove the decision to roster and play the girl. Based on everything that has been said so far on these boards, the evidence seems overwhelming that an overrage player was used, and that others on the team must certainly have known her true age.
1. She supposedly had a cousin on the team and a third player was part of the "set" coming with her from her last team. Are you seriously trying to convince me they didn't know her true age?
2. Her prior club supplied Surf with her 2005 birth certificate, and Surf allowed her to play as a 2006.
3. The lawyer admits that there were "issues" with her birth certificate.
4. The lawyer's defense is not based on the girl's true age, but on the grounds that Surf allowed her to play because Surf did not know better.
5. The girl was apparently disqualified for the rest of State Cup, or at least no explanation has been offered for why she did not play further.
No, 2hearts, I don't blame the "girls" on the team for cheating. If it happened, and it sure sounds like it did, then I blame you, and people like you, for allowing the cheating to go on.
Many years ago when I first heard of a situation like this where overage players were used by a team, the coaches and registrars responsible got long-term banishments, and the players were "sentenced" by Cal South to play a year above their age until they aged out.
Have you seen 3 Different BC's? I haven't. I know My DD is legit and worked hard to be where she is and I'm tired of hearing people talked negative about her team when they know nothing but RUMORS. If you have proof then put it up here for all to see otherwise stop spreading RUMORS and LIES about 10 year olds.
gauchosean
SILVER
Was she disqualified or was she eligible to play?
I think the gripe most people have is if she was disqualified from playing the last 2 games then the whole team should have been disqualified. If she was proven to have a 2006 birthday then why was she disqualified from playing?
The girls are obviously not cheaters. Coach, manager and parents that allowed this to happen might be.
Daniel Miller
SILVER ELITE
I don't know who your daughter is or whether she is "legit" or not. And I have no reason to believe she is personally responsible for this scandal. But even if it is no fault of her own, she is tainted by the scandal because nobody will ever believe that her team earned its medal honestly.
You're just gonna have to live with that.
I can care less about your team!! Best of luck to you and your dd..People know more than you think...
softwaretest
SILVER ELITE
Wow I missed this part. Assuming your representing AS and or SDS you've now confirmed there are documents floating around that "tell another story". This is a clear admission that at some point someone submitted fraudulent documentation.
Which do we believe??? That is the most absurd thing I have seen written. When fraudulent documents are submitted you don't get a do over to have Cal South "pick which one to believe"! Unless this latest information is proven untrue this player can never be allowed in the system again, I'm stunned that Cal South allowed the team to continue, and I'm embarrassed that I initially defended BW and the team manager when people discussed this.
Finally, until BW or the team manager provides a reasonable explanation for how this player obtained a new registration that "told a different story" without notifying Cal South, I'm going to assume you cheated. With that assumption comes disappointment because that would mean on Friday evening when you had one final opportunity to do the right thing you instead continued this charade which forced LAGSB's girls to wake up Saturday morning to the news that they were removed from the tournament. To say I'm disappointed is an understatement. Please tell me my assumptions are wrong and I've missed something.
softwaretest
SILVER ELITE
If Thunderbolt is in fact legal counsel for the club then these are no longer rumors.
Chicharito
BRONZE
The Truth
Did Eddie follow counsel's advise when he fired than unfired than fired Kyle Thomas for his decision to move to another club? Or Lindsey? Or Amy? Or the Irvine(s)? His own brother? Or Luis Balboa? What about most recently Fonseca? Eddie did not care some of these team(s) would be left out of State Cup or impacted is these situations?
Did Eddie follow counsel's advise when he disqualified a player, in his club, the week before State Cup after the parent's fell behind on payments? He most definitely was not concern with the impact to that team.
Does Eddie follow counsel's advise when he stops talking to parents/coaches who decide to leave the club?
Eddie has made much harder choices when there was less at stake. Has BW been fired for all his drama? Did Eddie keep the girl in question on the team only because the parents paid their fees? Is having the coach (BW) of Villa Park on AS staff really that important? Is Thunderbolt really a Carillo trying to clear the clubs name?
fantasyfutbol
SILVER
letsgetmessi and 2hearts:
AS is obviously an amazing team. They should be proud of winning that final. It is clear that someone in your organization is lying. That has nothing to do with your dd. In fact the reason for the lying may not have been to gain an advantage, it could be something as simple as parents wanting their family members playing on the same team. Not to get an advantage but simply to have them on the same team.
The problem is...that is against the rules. So whatever the motivation was, and regardless if the whole team knew, AS should have been disqualified. The rules are the rules. YOU should be upset with your club lying to YOU and putting something your dd worked so hard for at risk.
AS is obviously an amazing team. They should be proud of winning that final. It is clear that someone in your organization is lying. That has nothing to do with your dd. In fact the reason for the lying may not have been to gain an advantage, it could be something as simple as parents wanting their family members playing on the same team. Not to get an advantage but simply to have them on the same team.
The problem is...that is against the rules. So whatever the motivation was, and regardless if the whole team knew, AS should have been disqualified. The rules are the rules. YOU should be upset with your club lying to YOU and putting something your dd worked so hard for at risk.
Calisoccer10
BRONZE
Seriously ? And the team parents & Club didn't know about this? What is the reality?
Chicharito
BRONZE
A parent that coaches a Mex Lea team local to the IE markets a three girl package deal because he is making the long commute to AS. BW decides to keep team as an 06 then parent shows up with new paperwork. Does it really have to be spelled out? Some are choosing to bury their head in the sand but the bottom line is no one can plead ignorance to all the shenanigans in that team.
Chicharito
BRONZE
With or without the guest players?
cookiesncream
BRONZE
Why hasn't AS post anything on their State Cup Win? You would think they would post it on their Website or Facebook page. Hmmmm.
Kicknit22
GOLD
As Gouchosean put it, "adults manipulating things to thier own advantage". Harder to do when you have honest people present.
Kicknit22
GOLD
You just don't get it 2hearts! NOBODY is attacking or spreading rumors about 10/11 year olds. Wanting answers from ANY of the ADULTS involved is what is everyone is after. You don't have to defend your DD. We all understand when you say she worked hard all year. She had an awesome opportunity to play on the big stage. But, honestly, did she or her teammates REALLY deserve that opportunity? By what has been presented thus far, the answer is a resounding NO! If the kid in question was LEGAL, then she should have played. It's as simple as that. If there is still a shred of doubt on Cal Souths part, which by ruling her ineligible, there is, then the DQ should not have been overturned. Until real proof is presented to prove otherwise, you'll have to deal with reading about it on this forum.
If Cal South had decided to not change the ruling determined by their investigator this situation would know be a muted one. They opened the door for all to scrutinize the evidence that was handed to them. The argument that documents were provided at a late juncture thus changing the earlier decision by a previous poster were untrue. The investigator for Cal South had these documents before a judgement was made. A final decision by this individual was not final till they had the opportunity to speak with another club official who attested BW was no longer in their employment for trying to falsify documents. When said closed door meeting was held it was done without the Cal South investigator. In fact Cal South has not yet spoken to this individual since her findings and judgement.
3SoccerLadies
SILVER ELITE
All,
At this point, no one will say anything unless the governing body hears our voices. Here is the link:
http://www.calsouth.com/en/board/
I recommend emails to Barraza, Carlson and Quan. By all indications, Carlson and Quan were in the closed door meeting with Surf GC and that is the group that made this decision.
At this point, no one will say anything unless the governing body hears our voices. Here is the link:
http://www.calsouth.com/en/board/
I recommend emails to Barraza, Carlson and Quan. By all indications, Carlson and Quan were in the closed door meeting with Surf GC and that is the group that made this decision.
TheyBothPlay
BRONZE
I can't help keep rubbernecking on this chain. With an admitted lack of knowledge of any of the facts here but In the spirit of The Onion and recent SNL skits, offer the following proposed interpretive guidance and safe harbor so everyone can have their desired transparency should a similar situation arise in the future:
Interpretive Guidance:
For purposes of State Cup gaming competition, the "age" of a participant shall be determined solely, exclusively and conclusively by a proof of age/birth document submitted by the member club in response to a request by Cal South. For the avoidance of doubt, "age" shall under no circumstances refer to the chronological age of a participant and shall be determined without reference to any proof of age/birth documents previously submitted by or on behalf of such participant to either the instant member club, any other Cal South Club, or Cal South. The proof of age/birth document to be considered by Cal South for State Cup eligibility purposes may be chosen by the member club in its sole and absolute discretion and, for the avoidance of doubt, need not be the same documentation provided to the member club by the participant at the time of enrollment or at any other time during the gaming season.
Safe Harbor:
Under no circumstances shall any extrinsic evidence be considered by a member club in determining what proof of age/birth document to rely upon or submit to Cal South, and as long as the proof of age/birth document was not physically altered or manipulated by the member club or its agents, the member club shall conclusively be deemed to have acted in good faith and, notwithstanding any other applicable Cal South rule or regulation to the contrary, any penalties or sanctions for violation of otherwise applicable Cal South rules shall be vested solely upon the individual participant and not upon the member club, member club's personnel, or participant's team.
Interpretive Guidance:
For purposes of State Cup gaming competition, the "age" of a participant shall be determined solely, exclusively and conclusively by a proof of age/birth document submitted by the member club in response to a request by Cal South. For the avoidance of doubt, "age" shall under no circumstances refer to the chronological age of a participant and shall be determined without reference to any proof of age/birth documents previously submitted by or on behalf of such participant to either the instant member club, any other Cal South Club, or Cal South. The proof of age/birth document to be considered by Cal South for State Cup eligibility purposes may be chosen by the member club in its sole and absolute discretion and, for the avoidance of doubt, need not be the same documentation provided to the member club by the participant at the time of enrollment or at any other time during the gaming season.
Safe Harbor:
Under no circumstances shall any extrinsic evidence be considered by a member club in determining what proof of age/birth document to rely upon or submit to Cal South, and as long as the proof of age/birth document was not physically altered or manipulated by the member club or its agents, the member club shall conclusively be deemed to have acted in good faith and, notwithstanding any other applicable Cal South rule or regulation to the contrary, any penalties or sanctions for violation of otherwise applicable Cal South rules shall be vested solely upon the individual participant and not upon the member club, member club's personnel, or participant's team.