Hayfield Football Coach Fired

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I get that, however they were still allowed to present their findings which they said they did not have. The judge obviously caught VHSL by surprise when he highlighted the procedural mishap. That said, If they didn't have that procedural mishap I would think VHSL would still want to leave with the best case scenario for their ruling, which would be to keep everything in place.

That said, without VHSL interviewing parents or students, it's virtually impossible to prove they were 'recruited', unless they have text messages which I'm 1000% sure they don't have the authority to have.

Dude, the parents and students admitted online that they were transferring specifically to play football. Thats all the evidence the VHSL needs. Its against their rules to transfer for the purpose of playing for a different team.

That's not correct. Parents never said they were switching schools to play Football.

The comments on Snapchat/Tick Tock by the kids who transferred does not count on a ruling. LOL.

A kid saying he changed schools to play football would absolutely be evidence.

and what's wrong with that? The amount of time and money parents dedicate towards prepping their student needs an appropriate pathway to demonstrate what the student has learnt. Public school excellence is all about student learning to the best of their individual ability. Is it not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I get that, however they were still allowed to present their findings which they said they did not have. The judge obviously caught VHSL by surprise when he highlighted the procedural mishap. That said, If they didn't have that procedural mishap I would think VHSL would still want to leave with the best case scenario for their ruling, which would be to keep everything in place.

That said, without VHSL interviewing parents or students, it's virtually impossible to prove they were 'recruited', unless they have text messages which I'm 1000% sure they don't have the authority to have.

Dude, the parents and students admitted online that they were transferring specifically to play football. Thats all the evidence the VHSL needs. Its against their rules to transfer for the purpose of playing for a different team.

That's not correct. Parents never said they were switching schools to play Football.

The comments on Snapchat/Tick Tock by the kids who transferred does not count on a ruling. LOL.

A kid saying he changed schools to play football would absolutely be evidence.

and what's wrong with that? The amount of time and money parents dedicate towards prepping their student needs an appropriate pathway to demonstrate what the student has learnt. Public school excellence is all about student learning to the best of their individual ability. Is it not?

Its against VHSL rules. Plain and simple. If you don't want to follow their rules, homeschool or go to private schoolzs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I get that, however they were still allowed to present their findings which they said they did not have. The judge obviously caught VHSL by surprise when he highlighted the procedural mishap. That said, If they didn't have that procedural mishap I would think VHSL would still want to leave with the best case scenario for their ruling, which would be to keep everything in place.

That said, without VHSL interviewing parents or students, it's virtually impossible to prove they were 'recruited', unless they have text messages which I'm 1000% sure they don't have the authority to have.

Dude, the parents and students admitted online that they were transferring specifically to play football. Thats all the evidence the VHSL needs. Its against their rules to transfer for the purpose of playing for a different team.

That's not correct. Parents never said they were switching schools to play Football.

The comments on Snapchat/Tick Tock by the kids who transferred does not count on a ruling. LOL.

A kid saying he changed schools to play football would absolutely be evidence.

Would it be evidence of proselytizing, or of something that could be used to declare the player ineligible? Because they didn't make the latter argument.

Thats's recruiting/not eligibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I get that, however they were still allowed to present their findings which they said they did not have. The judge obviously caught VHSL by surprise when he highlighted the procedural mishap. That said, If they didn't have that procedural mishap I would think VHSL would still want to leave with the best case scenario for their ruling, which would be to keep everything in place.

That said, without VHSL interviewing parents or students, it's virtually impossible to prove they were 'recruited', unless they have text messages which I'm 1000% sure they don't have the authority to have.

Dude, the parents and students admitted online that they were transferring specifically to play football. Thats all the evidence the VHSL needs. Its against their rules to transfer for the purpose of playing for a different team.

That's not correct. Parents never said they were switching schools to play Football.

The comments on Snapchat/Tick Tock by the kids who transferred does not count on a ruling. LOL.

Those may or may not be admissible in a court of law. For VHSL to decide to ban a school, it's enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ok, I'm just trying to make sense of her email and stance. She made it seem like the VHSL policies are ambiguous so that's why what was done was ok. Or am I misinterpreting?

That is the problem with her email. It was misleading. It talked eligibility of 14 players. That is not why VHSL sanctioned Hayfield. She said everyone frustrated with VHSL. Not everyone is. She said the court found VHSL sanctions were wrong. The court only found a procedural error. The same way if don’t serve papers correctly on a party then cannot say they were properly served- but has nothing to do with the merits of the case. Reid’s message read alone is hugely misleading and attempts to craft a narrative to sway those who have not been reading about this case to date. For those who have been reading, it was offensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I get that, however they were still allowed to present their findings which they said they did not have. The judge obviously caught VHSL by surprise when he highlighted the procedural mishap. That said, If they didn't have that procedural mishap I would think VHSL would still want to leave with the best case scenario for their ruling, which would be to keep everything in place.

That said, without VHSL interviewing parents or students, it's virtually impossible to prove they were 'recruited', unless they have text messages which I'm 1000% sure they don't have the authority to have.

Dude, the parents and students admitted online that they were transferring specifically to play football. Thats all the evidence the VHSL needs. Its against their rules to transfer for the purpose of playing for a different team.

That's not correct. Parents never said they were switching schools to play Football.

The comments on Snapchat/Tick Tock by the kids who transferred does not count on a ruling. LOL.

Those may or may not be admissible in a court of law. For VHSL to decide to ban a school, it's enough.

It’s the "I’m white and I say so”rule. That’s the go to when all else fails for white supremacists

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I get that, however they were still allowed to present their findings which they said they did not have. The judge obviously caught VHSL by surprise when he highlighted the procedural mishap. That said, If they didn't have that procedural mishap I would think VHSL would still want to leave with the best case scenario for their ruling, which would be to keep everything in place.

That said, without VHSL interviewing parents or students, it's virtually impossible to prove they were 'recruited', unless they have text messages which I'm 1000% sure they don't have the authority to have.

Dude, the parents and students admitted online that they were transferring specifically to play football. Thats all the evidence the VHSL needs. Its against their rules to transfer for the purpose of playing for a different team.

That's not correct. Parents never said they were switching schools to play Football.

The comments on Snapchat/Tick Tock by the kids who transferred does not count on a ruling. LOL.

Those may or may not be admissible in a court of law. For VHSL to decide to ban a school, it's enough.

It’s the "I’m white and I say so”rule. That’s the go to when all else fails for white supremacists

No, it's not that. You can keep posting nonsense but you're only making yourself look dumb. Might be time to stop?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I get that, however they were still allowed to present their findings which they said they did not have. The judge obviously caught VHSL by surprise when he highlighted the procedural mishap. That said, If they didn't have that procedural mishap I would think VHSL would still want to leave with the best case scenario for their ruling, which would be to keep everything in place.

That said, without VHSL interviewing parents or students, it's virtually impossible to prove they were 'recruited', unless they have text messages which I'm 1000% sure they don't have the authority to have.

Dude, the parents and students admitted online that they were transferring specifically to play football. Thats all the evidence the VHSL needs. Its against their rules to transfer for the purpose of playing for a different team.

That's not correct. Parents never said they were switching schools to play Football.

The comments on Snapchat/Tick Tock by the kids who transferred does not count on a ruling. LOL.

Those may or may not be admissible in a court of law. For VHSL to decide to ban a school, it's enough.

Actually in a youtube video where they were being interviewed a few of the parents did actually state that they moved to follow the Coach and not for the academics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ok, I'm just trying to make sense of her email and stance. She made it seem like the VHSL policies are ambiguous so that's why what was done was ok. Or am I misinterpreting?

That is the problem with her email. It was misleading. It talked eligibility of 14 players. That is not why VHSL sanctioned Hayfield. She said everyone frustrated with VHSL. Not everyone is. She said the court found VHSL sanctions were wrong. The court only found a procedural error. The same way if don’t serve papers correctly on a party then cannot say they were properly served- but has nothing to do with the merits of the case. Reid’s message read alone is hugely misleading and attempts to craft a narrative to sway those who have not been reading about this case to date. For those who have been reading, it was offensive.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

For those wondering Ryan McElveen's letter attacking FCPS investigation has over 400+ likes as of now on Twitter, while poor Meren's defending the investigation on Facebook has ZERO likes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those wondering Ryan McElveen's letter attacking FCPS investigation has over 400+ likes as of now on Twitter, while poor Meren's defending the investigation on Facebook has ZERO likes.

That lets you know how racist Fairfax County is doesn’t it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those wondering Ryan McElveen's letter attacking FCPS investigation has over 400+ likes as of now on Twitter, while poor Meren's defending the investigation on Facebook has ZERO likes.

Meren is the one who refused to open schools, while hiring a private teacher for a "pod" for her own kids, and letting her children play travel sports for socialization. That Meren?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those wondering Ryan McElveen's letter attacking FCPS investigation has over 400+ likes as of now on Twitter, while poor Meren's defending the investigation on Facebook has ZERO likes.

That lets you know how racist Fairfax County is doesn’t it?

No, that wasn't the conclusion a reasonable person would draw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I get that, however they were still allowed to present their findings which they said they did not have. The judge obviously caught VHSL by surprise when he highlighted the procedural mishap. That said, If they didn't have that procedural mishap I would think VHSL would still want to leave with the best case scenario for their ruling, which would be to keep everything in place.

That said, without VHSL interviewing parents or students, it's virtually impossible to prove they were 'recruited', unless they have text messages which I'm 1000% sure they don't have the authority to have.

Dude, the parents and students admitted online that they were transferring specifically to play football. Thats all the evidence the VHSL needs. Its against their rules to transfer for the purpose of playing for a different team.

That's not correct. Parents never said they were switching schools to play Football.

The comments on Snapchat/Tick Tock by the kids who transferred does not count on a ruling. LOL.

Those may or may not be admissible in a court of law. For VHSL to decide to ban a school, it's enough.

It’s the "I’m white and I say so”rule. That’s the go to when all else fails for white supremacists

No, it's not that. You can keep posting nonsense but you're only making yourself look dumb. Might be time to stop?

You really can’t go to court and tell a judge that, then expect to win can you? At least not with this many people following you can’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those wondering Ryan McElveen's letter attacking FCPS investigation has over 400+ likes as of now on Twitter, while poor Meren's defending the investigation on Facebook has ZERO likes.

That lets you know how racist Fairfax County is doesn’t it?

Agree.
The entitlement from the parents in those, predominant white, schools and whining is just ridiculous.