Innocent of what? No one has provided any evidence that she did anything to deserve getting fired. No one has even provided any evidence that Cromwell knew or did any specific thing. It’s not my job to prove a negative. It’s my job to keep conspiracy theorists like you wound up.
College Entrance Scam includes former Yale Women's Soccer Coach
- Thread starter Dos Equis
- Start date
Innocent of what? No one has provided any evidence that she did anything to deserve getting fired. No one has even provided any evidence that Cromwell knew or did any specific thing. It’s not my job to prove a negative. It’s my job to keep conspiracy theorists like you wound up.
@EOTL Me and the team have been working hard with all this extra time on our hands. Shaggy and Scooby have been killing it. Velma has brought her top game and Daphne has been wonderful. The one I give all the credit is little Scrappy doo. Thanks again for helping us navigate all this through the hardest damm time any of us have had to experience. I'm not talking about soccer either.
I believe UCLA did whatever they could to protect Amanda. Dan knew he was resigning (or this hastened it) and maybe tried to take all the brunt with him.
She knowingly added a player on her roster who did not deserve to even be a practice player or grade booster player. That’s a fact. Maybe she was asked to or pressured to or told that this family would contribute to the new stadium or provide oak lockers in the new locker room. But she added the kid.
She knowingly added a player on her roster who did not deserve to even be a practice player or grade booster player. That’s a fact. Maybe she was asked to or pressured to or told that this family would contribute to the new stadium or provide oak lockers in the new locker room. But she added the kid.
What? Where did I accuse Cromwell of anything? I don’t have a dog in that hunt. I have no opinion on whether Cromwell committed any infraction, felony, misdemeanor, or high crime.
I just pointed out that EOTL’s logic was really, really, really bad. that’s all. ( still is, btw.)
Yes, maybe Dan Guerrero took one for the (women’s soccer) team, but not the men’s. That makes so much sense. It’s definitely been his m.o.
Cool if Isacksen’s family donated money to the school. Good for taxpayers saving money in cool stuff that was paid for by private donation instead of taxpayer dollars. Good for students who benefit from the donations. Everybody wins except for @ElleJustus’ kid, whose spot as a practice cone was pulled out from under her.
dk_b
GOLD
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.
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?
dk_b
GOLD
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
GOLD
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.
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.
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.
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
GOLD
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
PREMIER
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
GOLD
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.
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.