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.
Things do tend to fizzle when they have no basis. That is probably the real lesson to be learned.
I do like your argument that I should stop speculating that the stuff about which you speculated is just speculative, so you can carry on with more speculation.