How have you had so much litigation experience that you don't even know that the Commissioner cannot overrule the hearing officer? Apparently, you must have either 1) had a case that was eventually mooted or 2) won a case at the local level that was never heard. Rather that her overruling as you surmise, her ruling, as I read the rules, comes first in the current process. Then it goes to the board of control, at least for now. That Commissioner, and those that come both before and after her, are empowered AND EXPECTED to uphold the rules as they are printed. They change nearly every year due to the desires of the schools, so you can never fully expect a set of cases to be identical since 1) the circumstances are different in each case, and 2) the rule is a rather moving target and tough to pin down.

 

There is a proposal drawn up by a Commission formed by KBE that has recommended that procedure change to allow her the final answer rather than a politically appointed/elected Board. That would be a tremendous step as I see it to both speed up the cases, and allow for more consistency. My sense of that recommendation would be that the Commissioner's office would be much less likely to overturn the recommendation of an independent hearing officer for fear of costly litigtation, rather than the self-centered power-grab you seem to envision.

 

And remember counselor, as you are well aware, a validly issued injunction that later is declared invalid at the appeals or Supreme Court level is as though it were never issued at all. Don't let the truth get in the way of your far too skewed opinions. That's why there is an appeals court system. If the injunctions survives the test of time and levels of appeal, as I read their rules, no school can be penalized. In addition, from what I have read, there was a 2007 case where the KY Supreme Court upheld not only the procedures uses by KHSAA, but the actual validity of the Transfer Rule in a case in Bullitt County. A case that hopefully, all local circuit judges have reviewed.

 

All this is why, as HDE so aptly points out, it is far better to have an agency managed decision making body in dealing with this, than the potential whim of the legal system trying to decide between a local constituent, and statewide consistent application. IN most cases, as expected, I would think that the local level would side with the local case, and then simply allow the appeals court to be the "second guesser". That way, all is fine at the local level. This is not a negative to any judge anywhere, just an acknowledgement of a potentially flawed system.

 

 

The problem most people have however is the unfairness and inconsistencies of the KHSAA. I think most people are saying some changes need to be made to the rulings to make them either less broad or if they are going to be that broad I think they should be more leniant.

How was it solved?

 

School was put on probation and has had no foreign exchange student athletes in any sport since.

To paraphrase Sam Elliott in Tombstone, No ONE is saying your child cannot participate in athletics, just not saying they should participate in athletics through schools.

 

Honestly, if it went that route it would be sad.

 

And this whole problem is the ADULTS who cannot control themselves to not bend and push the rules to the point of breaking them and/or simply break them.

 

Too many adults look at the rules and try to figure out what they can do to get past them without breaking them and that is the issue.

 

Along with the ADULTS who simply break them and then scream, "You are penalizing the poor kids, you mean, mean KHSAA."

 

 

Amen and preach on!!!! :thumb:

And athletics is not the only place in a school that those traits can be learned. And yet athletics is where all the problems and a vast amount of money being spent.

 

BINGO!!! Let's take 2 options. A kid plays varsity baseball at school A his freshmen year. He transfers his sophomore year and has to sit out.

 

Option 2: A kid plays on the varsity academic team at school A his freshmen year and transfers his sophomore year but competes at the varsity level without any questions being asked.

 

Is this NOT discrimination???

 

Why are sports the only thing that is mandated? Within most schools, student grades are checked on athletes but NOT on Marching Band, Academic Teams, etc. I realize that these are NOT KHSAA affiliated sports but isn't the purpose of the transfer rule and grade checks to make sure that no-one is cheating and that the students are getting the job done in the classroom. If a student has the grades to participate, why not let them participate, no matter what school the parents choose to send them. Isn't this the right of a parent.

 

I think it is ridiculous that the KHSAA has the authority to dictate what school a kid can play and NOT play at. It should be the parents right to send them to whatever school they want, whether for academic or athletic reasons. For example, if Ben Revere would have started out at Madison Central and then moved to Lexington Catholic for the purpose of getting more exposure to be drafted out of high school for baseball, is that wrong. Ben would probably tell you that he has multi-million reasons why this is right.

 

THE REAL WORLD: If you are in a profession working at Chrysler and Toyota wanted to hire you, pay you more money, etc. wouldn't you go. This would be no different than the 2 kids wanting to go to Scott County to play basketball. It doesn't make sense that the KHSAA could keep this from happening.

 

What if O.J. MAYO started his high school career at Rose Hill and transfered to Louisville Ballard to get more exposure. Is this wrong? I believe he would have received more exposure. High school is suppose to be about Education; this means academics first and Athletics second, not where you live...

THE REAL WORLD: If you are in a profession working at Chrysler and Toyota wanted to hire you, pay you more money, etc. wouldn't you go. This would be no different than the 2 kids wanting to go to Scott County to play basketball. It doesn't make sense that the KHSAA could keep this from happening.

This is exactly why the transfer and recruiting rules are in place and are important.

What if O.J. MAYO started his high school career at Rose Hill and transfered to Louisville Ballard to get more exposure. Is this wrong? I believe he would have received more exposure. High school is suppose to be about Education; this means academics first and Athletics second, not where you live...

You think he would have gotten more publicity then "Sports Illustrated" and "ESPN"?

BINGO!!! Let's take 2 options. A kid plays varsity baseball at school A his freshmen year. He transfers his sophomore year and has to sit out.

 

Option 2: A kid plays on the varsity academic team at school A his freshmen year and transfers his sophomore year but competes at the varsity level without any questions being asked.

 

Is this NOT discrimination???

 

Why are sports the only thing that is mandated? Within most schools, student grades are checked on athletes but NOT on Marching Band, Academic Teams, etc. I realize that these are NOT KHSAA affiliated sports but isn't the purpose of the transfer rule and grade checks to make sure that no-one is cheating and that the students are getting the job done in the classroom. If a student has the grades to participate, why not let them participate, no matter what school the parents choose to send them. Isn't this the right of a parent.

 

I think it is ridiculous that the KHSAA has the authority to dictate what school a kid can play and NOT play at. It should be the parents right to send them to whatever school they want, whether for academic or athletic reasons. For example, if Ben Revere would have started out at Madison Central and then moved to Lexington Catholic for the purpose of getting more exposure to be drafted out of high school for baseball, is that wrong. Ben would probably tell you that he has multi-million reasons why this is right.

 

THE REAL WORLD: If you are in a profession working at Chrysler and Toyota wanted to hire you, pay you more money, etc. wouldn't you go. This would be no different than the 2 kids wanting to go to Scott County to play basketball. It doesn't make sense that the KHSAA could keep this from happening.

 

What if O.J. MAYO started his high school career at Rose Hill and transfered to Louisville Ballard to get more exposure. Is this wrong? I believe he would have received more exposure. High school is suppose to be about Education; this means academics first and Athletics second, not where you live...

 

While KHSAA is the whipping boy on this site, you do realize that there are many organizations besides the KHSAA that tell a parent where they can and cannot send their child to school.

 

Local board of educations, the state board of education, the general assembly have all had hands in telling parents where they can and cannot send their child to school.

 

For example, you could live in Kenton County and Boone County Board of Education has told you that you cannot send your child to their schools.

 

For example, the state department, BOE, general assembly has determined that your child is to attend a public school in the community where you live. If you choose to have them attend somewhere else, you will have to gain that district's approval before you could do that.

It should be the parents right to send them to whatever school they want, whether for academic or athletic reasons.

 

It is already guaranteed that those parents have the right to send them to school at wherever they want for education, that's protected. However, for the PRIVILEDGE of playing sports, there are criteria, and must be. And should be.

 

You do make an interesting argument about the other activities. it was actually proposed in early 1990s that all other extra curriculars have statewide governance. Talk about backlash! So the Board of Ed decided to leave athletics as the "controlled" area.

 

What is interesting to me is that so many schools do drug testing on sports, some on other extra curriculars, both as condition to participate. But then get lost in the argument whenever band is brought up as people should about it being "co-curricular" and therefore difference. Everybody has their opinion, and seemingly, good reasons to defend it.

^^ I believe like I think you do re: drug testing. They should test them all if they test one. Test them all anyway.

It is already guaranteed that those parents have the right to send them to school at wherever they want for education, that's protected. However, for the PRIVILEDGE of playing sports, there are criteria, and must be. And should be.

 

You do make an interesting argument about the other activities. it was actually proposed in early 1990s that all other extra curriculars have statewide governance. Talk about backlash! So the Board of Ed decided to leave athletics as the "controlled" area.

 

What is interesting to me is that so many schools do drug testing on sports, some on other extra curriculars, both as condition to participate. But then get lost in the argument whenever band is brought up as people should about it being "co-curricular" and therefore difference. Everybody has their opinion, and seemingly, good reasons to defend it.

 

^^ I believe like I think you do re: drug testing. They should test them all if they test one. Test them all anyway.

 

Disagree. There is no inherent danger in a flutist being high on drugs while there is a danger in an athlete being high on drugs.

 

Plus, cost makes it not feasible to test all.

Disagree. There is no inherent danger in a flutist being high on drugs while there is a danger in an athlete being high on drugs.

 

Plus, cost makes it not feasible to test all.

 

Your going to have to explain this one. A soccer player running up and down a field is more dangerous than a person marching up and down the field in marching band?

Your going to have to explain this one. A soccer player running up and down a field is more dangerous than a person marching up and down the field in marching band?

 

Well, the soccer player looks to slide tackle the opponent and not being clear heading could easily end up with someone hurt. High on something and their reactions are slowed and they slide tackle high and right into the knee.

 

The flutist from my watching of marching band does not to physically try and take out the tuba player.

Disagree. There is no inherent danger in a flutist being high on drugs while there is a danger in an athlete being high on drugs.

 

Plus, cost makes it not feasible to test all.

 

So are you saying that safety of participation is the only reason to test for drugs?

So are you saying that safety of participation is the only reason to test for drugs?

 

No, but one of them. A major one.

 

If a school puts an athlete on the field/floor, it seems they have a responsibility to make sure that athlete is properly trained, equipped and drug-free, both for the safety of the participating athlete and the other athletes.

No, but one of them. A major one.

 

If a school puts an athlete on the field/floor, it seems they have a responsibility to make sure that athlete is properly trained, equipped and drug-free, both for the safety of the participating athlete and the other athletes.

 

How do you make sure an athlete is drug-free unless you test them?

No, but one of them. A major one.

 

If a school puts an athlete on the field/floor, it seems they have a responsibility to make sure that athlete is properly trained, equipped and drug-free, both for the safety of the participating athlete and the other athletes.

 

The same logic would say that if a school puts a floutist on the field to be in the marching band they have a responsibility to put a properly trained, drug free participant on the field.

 

If we are going in order of danger from use of drugs as the testing criteria, then all students who drive should be tested first.

 

Extra curricular activities would be after that and imo, there should be no particular order - as they should all be viewed the same by school administrators.