I don't agree with everything the KHSAA does, especially with this insane 15th Region alignment that should have prompted a march on the offices in Lexington, but overall they do a good job.

 

What cases were they biased in?

 

The schools and their fans are usually ones with the ulterior motives.

 

When I get a chance, I'll PM you.

I don't agree with everything the KHSAA does, especially with this insane 15th Region alignment that should have prompted a march on the offices in Lexington, but overall they do a good job.

 

What cases were they biased in?

 

The schools and their fans are usually ones with the ulterior motives.

 

 

Look at the Lexington Herald article for starters. That would be a great starting point when it talked about the 2 sisters (one could play and the other couldn't) for example. There were other examples in the same article. I think the kid from Montgomery Co. last year who should be eligible as well. Also, I think there was a bias against the kids going to Scott Co. Also, last season it took them half of the season to allow the Warren kid at Hazard to play. The one that moved from Bell Co. Coach Whitaker had legal custody of him and they still wouldn't let him play for a long time.

 

Then there are other examples of kids getting eligible that I have a hard time differentiating with what they do and what these students' families did.

If I remember the story, one of the sisters didn't participate in sports last year, which is why she was eligible, and the other one did, which is why she wasn't. That's remarkably simply for anyone who understands the rules, which the Herald-Leader reporter didn't.

 

You have the bias on the Scott County issue for obvious reasons. Did you ever think anyone who transferred there in the past few years shouldn't have been eligible?

 

I'm surprised Warren was eligible at all. Didn't he just get custody before moving?

If you do not think the KHSAA and the board of control are biased than there is no point in discussing this with you because we are at a complete disagreement on this one.

The way I see it you could trust the opinion of a judge who has been educated and trained and has credentials to make decisions like this, or trust the KHSAA who I believe from time to time do have alterior motives.

You're entitled to your opinion, and here's a chance to back it up ...

 

Cite me a specific case in which you think the KHSAA had an ulterior motive in an eligibilty ruling.

The legislature for the state of Kentucky are homers? I am sorry, but I trust the judgment of a judge who is trained to make that ruling rather than someone from the KHSAA making the ruling. Also, I don't see how a kid can be recommended to be eligible by the clearing officer at that hearing, yet still not be eligible.

I've been around some eligibility cases, and I have seen cases where the hearing officer rules a kid eligible even if the KHSAA rules seem to clearly oppose it.

 

If the hearing officers were always so objective, I doubt they would rule for eligibility about 99 percent of the time, as seems to be the case. I have never heard of a case where the hearing officer recommended ineligibility, although it may have happened sometime in the past.

Will someone in the know please sequentially outline the legal procedure for eligibility or other hearings before the "hearing officer" and then on down the line? Where does it start, where does it end, and what happens in between? How much authority is given to the ruling of the hearing officer? Thank you.

You're entitled to your opinion, and here's a chance to back it up ...

 

Cite me a specific case in which you think the KHSAA had an ulterior motive in an eligibilty ruling.

 

In the KHSAA letter Jackson was ruled out simply because he played on the same AAU team as Euton.....since when is guilt by association a basis for ruling a student ineligible?

In the KHSAA letter Jackson was ruled out simply because he played on the same AAU team as Euton.....since when is guilt by association a basis for ruling a student ineligible?

What is the ulterior motive?

If I remember the story, one of the sisters didn't participate in sports last year, which is why she was eligible, and the other one did, which is why she wasn't. That's remarkably simply for anyone who understands the rules, which the Herald-Leader reporter didn't.

 

You have the bias on the Scott County issue for obvious reasons. Did you ever think anyone who transferred there in the past few years shouldn't have been eligible?

 

I'm surprised Warren was eligible at all. Didn't he just get custody before moving?

 

There was another example in the paper of a girl that moved from Conner's school district to Highlands. The girl was ruled ineligible and appealled the decision, but was then rule eligible after the season was over. Another situation was where the boy moved from his mother's home to his father's home and tried to play football in the district he moved to. I can think of a lot of good reasons for a child to move from one parent to another, yet hes not allowed to play sports when he does move.

 

As for the Warren situation, I can't go into the details, but the young man definitly deserved to play.

I will agree that the appeals process should be speeded up. They should be able to decide within a month or so.

What is the ulterior motive?

 

The KHSAA couldnt find a reason to deem Jackson ineligible so they claim guilt by association and claim he's ineligible, IMO the ulterior motive is to find a way to penalize the student athlete and Scott County when everything was done on the up and up.

The KHSAA couldnt find a reason to deem Jackson ineligible so they claim guilt by association and claim he's ineligible, IMO the ulterior motive is to find a way to penalize the student athlete and Scott County when everything was done on the up and up.

You're entitled to your opinion, no matter how biased it is ...

I have never heard of a case where the hearing officer recommended ineligibility, although it may have happened sometime in the past.

 

Don't let your bias show too badly. I did some googling and found this. I think KHSAA sends this in on a regular basis. Looks to me like that quite often the recommendation is ineligible.

 

http://www.education.ky.gov/Users/spalmer/February%202008%20APPEALS%20REPORT%20KHSAA%20Attach.pdf

Don't let your bias show too badly. I did some googling and found this. I think KHSAA sends this in on a regular basis. Looks to me like that quite often the recommendation is ineligible.

 

http://www.education.ky.gov/Users/spalmer/February%202008%20APPEALS%20REPORT%20KHSAA%20Attach.pdf

I should have said "high-profile case" ... indeed, I still haven't heard of one where the hearing office recommended ineligibility.

 

What is my bias? I'm on the record saying that I think Euton and Jackson should probably be eligible.

 

Interesting data, nonetheless ... thanks for posting it.

Don't let your bias show too badly. I did some googling and found this. I think KHSAA sends this in on a regular basis. Looks to me like that quite often the recommendation is ineligible.

 

http://www.education.ky.gov/Users/spalmer/February%202008%20APPEALS%20REPORT%20KHSAA%20Attach.pdf

 

The hearing officer ruling IMO is always legit, but this should put to rest the arguments of the people being critical of the judge when you see it is legit and everyone is not ruled eligible.