Message
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:You can’t “recruit” someone that is already at the school. Don’t propose something so preposterous. You come across as foolish.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:At this point, FCPS should just assume ffx times has more screenshots of texts
100%
Overton and his crew didn’t do their research on the likes of Asra Q. Nomani (not all that surprising). Once she got involved the smart bettors knew this was going to be a death by 1000 cuts type situation. She’s likely sitting on a mountain of evidence and just slowly going to let it drip out.
Yep. I disagree with her politics but she is a great journalist. She's like a dog with a bone.
She’s diligent and uncovers stuff that others wouldn’t look for or find. She isn’t always accurate - for example, she suggested the Herndon FB coach recently resigned over FCPS’s handling of the Hayfield situation and he completely disavowed her claim.
The Herndon coach was recruiting. I know that for a fact.
All this slandering of other programs and coaches with NO PROOF is pathetic.
Exactly - my kid went to preschool with most of those players. They've lived there their whole lives.
My kids have been knowing them since preschool as well and there are some kids who haven’t lived in the zone that long.
I know for a fact the Herndon football coach was recruiting and trying to sway a kid with private school opportunities, but lived in the zone into attending Herndon.
They do it for basketball too, as there is a sophomore playing for Herndon whose home address is zoned for a different school. He was persuaded by the basketball coach to attend Herndon.
I'm not sure this is the type of "recruiting" that violates the rules. The student was already slated to attend Herndon as he lived in the Herndon district. The coach seemed to be simply asking him to stay to and play there as opposed to attend the private school. In fact, it really isn't recruiting. The kid was going there anyway if he didn't decide to attend a private high school.
Recruiting is recruiting, he wasn’t going anyway, and probably won’t be back next year.
Seems the VHSL is selective as to who the enforce these rules against.
Neither of those kids mentioned at Herndon were at the school.
This is happening all around the county.
Updated timeline of the Hayfraud parents and coaches response to this mess:
1. First it was "We didn't cheat"
2. Then it pivoted to "Everyone who says we cheat is a racist"
3. Now it is "Sure we cheated, but good luck proving it" (as of 8AM this morning)
4. And now they have finally got to the last refuge of a cheater...claiming that everyone else is doing it.
Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know if there is any Federal or state grant money associated w/these homelessness claims?
Short answer: yes.
The bill authorizes spending for: Transitional housing; supportive services; short- and medium-term rent subsidies; and, among other things permanent housing. Also, as being homeless almost automatically implies that you fall below a certain income level (especially if you are a minor) it automatically qualifies you for a host of other government-funded benefits, including SNAP. So, if the rumors are true, these young men committed welfare fraud and they, and whomever instructed them to do it, should be held accountable.
If these young men did commit welfare fraud, the manner in which they did it (claim homelessness in this instance) also likely means they were committing residence fraud. Not a good day to be a Hayfraud football recruit...
Anonymous wrote:FrankWinston wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:That the DSA and Principal knew Overton would cheat and that they were happy to assist him.
That wasn't my takeway from reading the supposed screen shots. Good luck proving that.
So, to track the timeline of the Hayfraud parents and coaches:
1. First it was "We didn't cheat"
2. Then it pivoted to "Everyone who says we cheat is a racist"
3. Now it is "Sure we cheated, but good luck proving it."
#3 was never said. They didn’t cheat is their claim. And your post’s have had racial overtones so I can see how you could get called a racist.
Literally from the comment before mine: "That wasn't my takeway from reading the supposed screen shots. Good luck proving that." So yes, #3 was literally just said.
Also, please do tell me what in this comment and the comment you replied to that I also wrote has a "racial overtone."
Or...you can take some solid advice and take the L and go home.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:That the DSA and Principal knew Overton would cheat and that they were happy to assist him.
That wasn't my takeway from reading the supposed screen shots. Good luck proving that.
So, to track the timeline of the Hayfraud parents and coaches:
1. First it was "We didn't cheat"
2. Then it pivoted to "Everyone who says we cheat is a racist"
3. Now it is "Sure we cheated, but good luck proving it."
Anonymous wrote:Where are all the Hayfield Boosters who were asking for proof? Are they hiding now? Anyone going to come out to defend a bunch of cheaters now?
I just assume they will pivot to claiming the AD, and possibly iPhones (as Fritts is obvious using an iPhone), are racist.
Anonymous wrote:FrankWinston wrote:Anonymous wrote:Next to Madison, Hayfield has the best chance to win the championship of any FCPS this season. Can we get rid of the hate for the next month so the kids can focus on football. These are children we are talking about.
So to you, high school football is more important than finding out the truth, seeing if laws were broken etc. Yikes.
Also, these aren't children we are talking about, most are in their late teens. Don't try and make them more sympathetic figures by framing them in the same lens as a ten year old. Also, most of us are talking about the adults who got the "children" as you call them to lie and possibly break the law and not the "children" themselves, many of whom had to know they were violating rules at a minimum.
A teenager is a child. Are you insane? And if an adult tells a child this is where you are going to school, what do you expect a child to do? I don't like this whole thing but blaming kids is where you lost me. Are you sick?
Sweet comment Karen.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:My kid is graduating this year. Other than back to school night and graduation I don't visit school.
My daughter drives to school as she is a senior and the first three years she took bus. I have no clue about other parents or the student parking lot.
What is the OP so invested, maybe she should get a job
Why are you so I invested in your child’s life? Poor kid. Maybe you should work less and find out what’s going on in your kids life.
"Why are you so I invested in your child’s life?"
Perhaps you should spend less time on this website and more time learning how to construct a cogent sentence. Then maybe, just maybe, you would be a positive role model in the life of your kid. God you are pathetic.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Genuine question. How come schools like Oakton, McLean, and Langley do not have this football cheating issue?
Good question. I think it starts with the adults. Parents, coaches, administrators at schools like Oakton, McLean, and Langley have different priorities, it appears, than their "peers" at Hayfield. For example, parents, coaches, administrators at schools like Oakton, McLean, and Langley seem to deprioritize things like illegal recruiting and winning at all costs and instead prioritize things like teaching the kids under their purview important life lessons. It also seems that parents, coaches, administrators at schools like Oakton, McLean, and Langley don't feel the need to live vicariously through their children, whereas parents at Hayfield do. So, because of this, at the end of the day, schools like Oakton, McLean, and Langley don't end up cheating at football.
I am guessing that wasn't the answer you were looking for as you picked three very specific schools that might look demographically similar in nature and you were again trying to play the race card, but my answer is correct. Take the L.
OMG, you can't be serious. Shaking my head.
-signed a McLean parent
Nah, the OP's response seems pretty spot-on. Then again, McLean families who have kids who aren't bright enough to get into the likes of Visi, Madeira, Gonzaga etc. tend to respond in this manner.
Anonymous wrote:FrankWinston wrote:Anonymous wrote:FrankWinston wrote:Anonymous wrote:Next to Madison, Hayfield has the best chance to win the championship of any FCPS this season. Can we get rid of the hate for the next month so the kids can focus on football. These are children we are talking about.
So to you, high school football is more important than finding out the truth, seeing if laws were broken etc. Yikes.
Also, these aren't children we are talking about, most are in their late teens. Don't try and make them more sympathetic figures by framing them in the same lens as a ten year old. Also, most of us are talking about the adults who got the "children" as you call them to lie and possibly break the law and not the "children" themselves, many of whom had to know they were violating rules at a minimum.
Anyone under 18 is still a child. These are kids persuing special interests, growing, and navigating through life.
There is a hot special place for every one of the white supremacists targeting this children and interfering with the Hayfield season because of the color of their skin and their coaches skin.
Yet again, all you can clutch to is false claims of racism because you don't have facts, logic or anything else to cling to. Also, medically speaking, almost none, if any, of those you are pretending to defend are children. The term "child" medically speaking is typically defined a person between birth and the start of puberty. Again, sit this one out.
Black's Law Dictionary defines a child as a person under 18 years of age, but your probably right though since your probably white.
Hey look, Hayfraud parents suddenly think they have their JD's.
Cite where Black's writes explicitly that a child is "a person under 18 years of age."
And if you were smart you would know why I asked the question.
Anonymous wrote:FrankWinston wrote:Anonymous wrote:Next to Madison, Hayfield has the best chance to win the championship of any FCPS this season. Can we get rid of the hate for the next month so the kids can focus on football. These are children we are talking about.
So to you, high school football is more important than finding out the truth, seeing if laws were broken etc. Yikes.
Also, these aren't children we are talking about, most are in their late teens. Don't try and make them more sympathetic figures by framing them in the same lens as a ten year old. Also, most of us are talking about the adults who got the "children" as you call them to lie and possibly break the law and not the "children" themselves, many of whom had to know they were violating rules at a minimum.
Anyone under 18 is still a child. These are kids persuing special interests, growing, and navigating through life.
There is a hot special place for every one of the white supremacists targeting this children and interfering with the Hayfield season because of the color of their skin and their coaches skin.
Yet again, all you can clutch to is false claims of racism because you don't have facts, logic or anything else to cling to. Also, medically speaking, almost none, if any, of those you are pretending to defend are children. The term "child" medically speaking is typically defined a person between birth and the start of puberty. Again, sit this one out.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Also, what about the 2023 Hayfield players that were summarily booted (or chased) off the team when Overton showed w/his crew from PWC ? Do you care about those children ? And I am some of those had to be black, given the makeup of the school.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Next to Madison, Hayfield has the best chance to win the championship of any FCPS this season. Can we get rid of the hate for the next month so the kids can focus on football. These are children we are talking about.
Nope, we only root for non-cheating teams here in FCPS
None were booted. The kids that wanted to compete, stayed.
No, they were pretty much chased off. No intelligent person believes your lies.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:No one is rooting for Hayfraud. They shouldn’t even be able to play because of their VHSL violations. No one likes a cheater.
How’d they cheat?
If you have to ask that question, you've likely had your head in the sand for the past six months OR wouldn't understand the answer.
Anonymous wrote:Next to Madison, Hayfield has the best chance to win the championship of any FCPS this season. Can we get rid of the hate for the next month so the kids can focus on football. These are children we are talking about.
So to you, high school football is more important than finding out the truth, seeing if laws were broken etc. Yikes.
Also, these aren't children we are talking about, most are in their late teens. Don't try and make them more sympathetic figures by framing them in the same lens as a ten year old. Also, most of us are talking about the adults who got the "children" as you call them to lie and possibly break the law and not the "children" themselves, many of whom had to know they were violating rules at a minimum.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Genuine question. How come schools like Oakton, McLean, and Langley do not have this football cheating issue?
Good question. I think it starts with the adults. Parents, coaches, administrators at schools like Oakton, McLean, and Langley have different priorities, it appears, than their "peers" at Hayfield. For example, parents, coaches, administrators at schools like Oakton, McLean, and Langley seem to deprioritize things like illegal recruiting and winning at all costs and instead prioritize things like teaching the kids under their purview important life lessons. It also seems that parents, coaches, administrators at schools like Oakton, McLean, and Langley don't feel the need to live vicariously through their children, whereas parents at Hayfield do. So, because of this, at the end of the day, schools like Oakton, McLean, and Langley don't end up cheating at football.
I am guessing that wasn't the answer you were looking for as you picked three very specific schools that might look demographically similar in nature and you were again trying to play the race card, but my answer is correct. Take the L.
BS. My kid has friends at Langley and I’m familiar with the Langley football roster. All of those kids don’t live within the zoning boundaries and some left private school to play football at Langley.
Langley has even had far worse off field scandals due to the actions of the head football coach and a teacher this year.
Langley has white kids and white coaches so there is no outrage and not even much mention.
And yet you do nothing about these issues you are intimately aware of. That speaks volumes of you.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Ok so now things are getting real for Hayfield. No more weak or easy teams on their schedule. They are about to start getting tested.
Fairfax next, then the winner of WSHS vs Lake Braddock, assuming they win those they will play the rested winner of the Madison vs W&L game. If they win that they have to see a team a team who has had a tougher schedule than any other team Hayfield has seen in the playoffs.
Irrelevant for this thread. Win or lose doesn’t change that they violated rules. Every game is one they shouldn’t be playing.
So is the threat to hate on Hayfield and come up with a bunch of lies and reasons to hate the program. If that’s the case you ought to take your posts over to Fairfax Underground.
I have not seen a single lie about Hayfraud in this thread other than those being peddled by Overton and those who support the violations and crimes committed by Hayfraud football players, coaches, administrators etc.