Hayfield Football Coach Fired

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its lucky for Hayfield that they are playing a low income school that has very low turnout for away games.

They’re playing a school whose boundaries have essentially the same median income and is located less than 3 miles away.

Not exactly a huge trek required.

Edison has significantly more FARMs kids than Hayfield

I think Edison has the recently renovated building however.

Well, so does Justice, but the beautiful campus is half-empty b/c no one wants to attend school there.

I thought FCPS just opened a gleaming new addition there with large windows that overlook the football stadium.

This is DCUM, where there are people and then people who matter.

Justice has over 2300 students, so obviously plenty of kids attending the school. It's being expanded to 2500 seats with an addition that costs about $30 million.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I cannot believe it is SOP for residency checks to involve pre-calling the parents to let them know you are stopping by. Like, that simply cannot be how it is supposed to be done.

I’m not sure but I’d think it against the law to ask a minor where they live. Heck, the police can’t speak with a minor without an adult present. Flashing a badge and expecting answers is not how it’s done either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We've already seen what FCPS "external investigations" look like and they are BS.

External will be by Blankenship firm. They are the winners here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Its lucky for Hayfield that they are playing a low income school that has very low turnout for away games.

Wait a minute, now it’s bash Edison, when earlier it was show up show out and boo and chant and act ignorant as adults at a kids game

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its lucky for Hayfield that they are playing a low income school that has very low turnout for away games.

Wait a minute, now it’s bash Edison, when earlier it was show up show out and boo and chant and act ignorant as adults at a kids game

How is that bashing Edison? Its a low income school with low turnout at away games. Its a fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So as speculated--the Times reporting that VHSL does in fact have reams of evidence--which they have been collecting as they investigated this situation for months.

Good luck in court on Dec. 4th Hayfield!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Cheaters.

Good luck tonight. #Hayfieldby60 Line up and play. Or bow down and forfeit. Teach your boys all about how to TURN and RUN.

It’s “70”. (which has been posted online)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

VHSL found Hayfield guilty of cheating so its not an accusation at this point: its a statement of fact.

Well they shouldn’t have, which is why the Commonwealth courts issued the injunction.

This is patently false. The injunction was issued due to a procedural matter with the VHSL. If corrected by Dec 4th, the real fun begins, and hopefully the truth comes out.... ALL OF IT

How will they correct the procedural matter? Go back and do another ban of some sort following their own handbook?

The issue was that it was initiated by the director and not a committee. All they need to do is initiate again with a committee backing

Without stating an opinion, what exactly is the truth. If I'm being honest every Hayfield opposition says the same thing. They cheated and 20+ kids followed there coach. If that is the same line and logic VHSL presented, I fully understand why Hayfield is playing football tonight. We live a world that on most occasions you actually have to provide proof of your accusations. You're not RIGHT just because a lot of people are saying the same thing a lot of times.

[Anonymous]

Can someone please clarify some details about the fcps investigation. They confirmed residency how? And confirming residency was to prove that the players lived within bounds? And the players likely lied by...?

It sounds like what was done by the Hayfield coach was legal if not ethical. Reid is siding with Hayfield because of legal considerations not because they were fair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When will we know if Edison decides to play? My son and his friends want to go to support Edison but its a drive for us. I dont want to schlep out there for nothing.

An out of the way family trip for this? Oy.

Many FCPS HS athletes are very invested in this story and were shocked and disappointed hat the school system backed the cheaters. The kids put in a ton of time into their sports and respect the game and the rules.

We live in one of the most fascinating areas on earth with tourists eager to see all that the DMV offers. And you choose to road trip to…a high school football game in a far, uninteresting part of Fairfax Cnty at an unaffiliated school. Likely so that you can boo some kids you don’t know as a family. Stay home, have some cocoa with the kids, and watch a movie instead.

Do you know any high school boys? LOL.

Do you? Do you think your “son and his friends” just want to drive far away to an unaffiliated school to just cheer on Edison and not boo and provoke Hayfield? Do better.

Personally, if it were my kids I think that would be a fine way for FCPS student athletes to express their disdain and disgust for FCPS's support of cheating.

A bunch of high school boys set out to boo and intimidate kids from another school at a game that already is filled with heated emotions. What could go wrong?

This is what FCPS wanted, right? Sporting events with no rules, integrity or sportsmanship.

America wants this for our country as well....hence Trumpty dump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

VHSL found Hayfield guilty of cheating so its not an accusation at this point: its a statement of fact.

Well they shouldn’t have, which is why the Commonwealth courts issued the injunction.

This is patently false. The injunction was issued due to a procedural matter with the VHSL. If corrected by Dec 4th, the real fun begins, and hopefully the truth comes out.... ALL OF IT

How will they correct the procedural matter? Go back and do another ban of some sort following their own handbook?

The issue was that it was initiated by the director and not a committee. All they need to do is initiate again with a committee backing

Without stating an opinion, what exactly is the truth. If I'm being honest every Hayfield opposition says the same thing. They cheated and 20+ kids followed there coach. If that is the same line and logic VHSL presented, I fully understand why Hayfield is playing football tonight. We live a world that on most occasions you actually have to provide proof of your accusations. You're not RIGHT just because a lot of people are saying the same thing a lot of times.

VHSL had extensive proof. They don't share their evidence publicly. You have to FOIA it from FCPS.
The Times article reported on some of their proof: the principal, coach and DSA all had different stories that didn't match.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So as speculated--the Times reporting that VHSL does in fact have reams of evidence--which they have been collecting as they investigated this situation for months.

Again, Overton should be fired right now. He should not be on school property for tonight’s game. At a minimum, in every other profession, a leave of absence is ordered immediately, where there is an ongoing investigation. The SB is derelict in not demanding this.

Reid is standing by her man. She fully supports Hayfield and Overton.

I am not talking about Reid, I am talking about the SB. Reid works for the SB, they pay her salary w/FFX tax dollars. They have the duty to make sure that money is spent wisely, regardless of what Reid does. The SB cannot hide behind Reid on this. It’s too public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please clarify some details about the fcps investigation. They confirmed residency how? And confirming residency was to prove that the players lived within bounds? And the players likely lied by...?

It sounds like what was done by the Hayfield coach was legal if not ethical. Reid is siding with Hayfield because of legal considerations not because they were fair.

Its not legal or illegal. Recruiting is against the rules of VHSL, which governs FCPS sports and which coaches agree to abide by.

You are talking about eligibility. VHSL was unimpressed with FCPS's eligibility investigation, finding they missed many transfers and did not thoroughly investigate issues. However, the VHSL finding was based on breaking RECRUITING rules and SPORTSMANSHIP principles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

VHSL found Hayfield guilty of cheating so its not an accusation at this point: its a statement of fact.

Well they shouldn’t have, which is why the Commonwealth courts issued the injunction.

This is patently false. The injunction was issued due to a procedural matter with the VHSL. If corrected by Dec 4th, the real fun begins, and hopefully the truth comes out.... ALL OF IT

How will they correct the procedural matter? Go back and do another ban of some sort following their own handbook?

The issue was that it was initiated by the director and not a committee. All they need to do is initiate again with a committee backing

Without stating an opinion, what exactly is the truth. If I'm being honest every Hayfield opposition says the same thing. They cheated and 20+ kids followed there coach. If that is the same line and logic VHSL presented, I fully understand why Hayfield is playing football tonight. We live a world that on most occasions you actually have to provide proof of your accusations. You're not RIGHT just because a lot of people are saying the same thing a lot of times.

VHSL had extensive proof. They don't share their evidence publicly. You have to FOIA it from FCPS.
The Times article reported on some of their proof: the principal, coach and DSA all had different stories that didn't match.

They had extensive proof that they didn't present in court which hurt their chances of keeping the playoff as they created and causing this scheduling clusterf@ck. Yes, that makes perfect sense.

[Anonymous]

The Court hearing was not a place to present proof. The judge had already read the procedural steps and decided VHSL had not followed their correct process by having one of their three decisions made by one person instead of a three person committee. The hearing was not on the merits whatsoever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please clarify some details about the fcps investigation. They confirmed residency how? And confirming residency was to prove that the players lived within bounds? And the players likely lied by...?

It sounds like what was done by the Hayfield coach was legal if not ethical. Reid is siding with Hayfield because of legal considerations not because they were fair.

Its not legal or illegal. Recruiting is against the rules of VHSL, which governs FCPS sports and which coaches agree to abide by.

You are talking about eligibility. VHSL was unimpressed with FCPS's eligibility investigation, finding they missed many transfers and did not thoroughly investigate issues. However, the VHSL finding was based on breaking RECRUITING rules and SPORTSMANSHIP principles.

Sounds like VHSL needs to update and define what exactly intel's 'recruiting'. The issue I say, is in order to recruit somebody they have to actually say they've been recruited, which will never happen in this case. You can define recruiting by saying, they followed Overton to Hayfield. Recruiting would be that Overton persuaded them to come to Hayfield. Which is would be a hailmary in any court room trying to prove with the parents and kids saying otherwise.