Your understanding is correct. All the comparisons to ballgames is absurd.IMO It's not a ball game, it is more like a Chess team playing several matches at the same time.They deserve sanctions for what HE did, but there were no players from Russell that cheated. The event in question would not have counted toward what the other players had already competed in, just the overall points. The event in question, the coach, and any event the missing student was to have competed in should have been the only things disqualified. All costs incurred by the other schools should be reimbursed. The events the other students were in should stand. I'm sure some of you will still say "kill em all and let God sort em out" and your headline would read "Russell kids caught cheating". Just remember, Russell's kids still had the highest score, it was the coach that got the F.:thumb:

 

Gettting a little bit over the top here, don't you think? Please point to a single post on this thread that in any way blamed the kids. Still, to not punish the team would send the wrong message and I believe could lead to a team seeing how far they could push the rules in the future.

Gettting a little bit over the top here, don't you think? Please point to a single post on this thread that in any way blamed the kids. Still, to not punish the team would send the wrong message and I believe could lead to a team seeing how far they could push the rules in the future.

I disagree, I think that this ruling would, if nothing else, draw a clear line of how far the board will go to keep the integrity of the coaches in check. No students were involved with the transgression and to punish them would be retarded.

I disagree, I think that this ruling would, if nothing else, draw a clear line of how far the board will go to keep the integrity of the coaches in check. No students were involved with the transgression and to punish them would be retarded.

 

I'm sorry, but this made me laugh. This academic thread and you used the term "retarded". It made my sick mind laugh. I guess that is where this thread has gone for me.

 

I agree, spindoc. The kids should not be punished. That being said, I thought the KAAC handled this situation the best way they could. It will definitely set a precedent.

I disagree, I think that this ruling would, if nothing else, draw a clear line of how far the board will go to keep the integrity of the coaches in check. No students were involved with the transgression and to punish them would be retarded.

 

So, you're saying no team should ever face the consequences of their coach cheating?

So, you're saying no team should ever face the consequences of their coach cheating?

Did the coach cheat on any of the material the students covered? Did the students have anything to do with the coaches decision? Seems to me, the students were the upright ones. To answer your question with an answer instead of a flurry of questions,,,,,I suppose there are instances where I would agree that a team should face the consequences of a coach. In this case it seems that selfish ambition may have been the issue and I think the board made the correct decision.

I am pleased with the decision. The coach is punished severely, the team is punished (to send a message), but individuals can still compete. I couldnt draw a better conclusion no matter how many times I hashed it over.

Just an observation from someone not involved in the tournament or any of the schools mentioned. It is my understanding they did not count Russell's scores in 5 of the 8 events and they still had enough points to win region. If this is true Russell is the best cheaters I have ever heard of or they really did not need the one student to win. I can also understand why the other teams would feel as helpless as they do. If I got beat playing 8 on 3, I would be frustrated.

 

If that's the case then the actions of this adult is even more ludicrous!! If they had enough points to win regardless . . . why even set up this hoax placing everyone in jeopardy?

If that's the case then the actions of this adult is even more ludicrous!! If they had enough points to win regardless . . . why even set up this hoax placing everyone in jeopardy?

 

Its to my understanding that it was more for the girl and not the team. He was just trying to help her out in a very STUPID way when the girl should have made the choice whether it be Goveners cup or scholarship interview. Mr Knupp IMO failed his team by trying to manipulate the rules.

I don't believe WSAZ's Randy Yohe was on his best behavior either by crashing into the closed testing site after being told to leave several times.

I had no idea that there were paparazzi in Huntington.

I had no idea that there were paparazzi in Huntington.

:laugh:

 

LOL

Gettting a little bit over the top here, don't you think? Please point to a single post on this thread that in any way blamed the kids. Still, to not punish the team would send the wrong message and I believe could lead to a team seeing how far they could push the rules in the future.

 

:thumb: I agree here. Even though it is the hard way it is a lesson to be learned....the whole team suffers a penalty even if the coach is the one that violated the rules. As I stated in an earlier post, that's the way it is, has been and always will be.......A thing called life. Also, if there was one post that blamed a kid then please....someone point it out. I'll save them the time, there wasn't.

Again, I believe and agree that the Russell kids are the ones that were hurt and cheated in this thing, no one at any time blamed them and is sad that they have to pay a price but that's the way it is. That is what the ruling from the State board was and imo the kids are going to accept it better than some of the parents.

Should someone want to blame somebody for the Rusell students/team members not getting to compete for a team title then you need only to look at the Russell academic team coach and teacher, no one else.

Edited February 27, 200917 yr by oldrambler

I disagree, I think that this ruling would, if nothing else, draw a clear line of how far the board will go to keep the integrity of the coaches in check. No students were involved with the transgression and to punish them would be retarded.

 

But what about all the other students involved? You know, the ones who showed up when they were supposed to. And maybe made difficult decisions about other conflicting events?

 

Sounds like the punishment was lenient to fair, at best.

Did the coach cheat on any of the material the students covered? Did the students have anything to do with the coaches decision? Seems to me, the students were the upright ones. To answer your question with an answer instead of a flurry of questions,,,,,I suppose there are instances where I would agree that a team should face the consequences of a coach. In this case it seems that selfish ambition may have been the issue and I think the board made the correct decision.

 

I also agree with the decisions made. I just believe that a team has to face the consequences of it's coaches actions.

I have read everyone's opinions and I keep coming back to the point that this appears to be an isolated incident. It is highly unlikely to happen again and certainly the ruling by KAAC has made sure that coaches think twice before trying to pull a fast one. I applaud the KAAC for a swift decision that was as severe and fair as possible. It is impossible to have a ruling that is agreeable to all, but I believe everyone can atleast look at this decision and realize that they were trying to do what was best for everyone. For this, I am extremely satisfied.

I just had a patient from Russell that told me, "The only reason this is a story is because Ashland is jealous. If it had been any other school, we wouldn't see it in the paper or the news stations would not be at school following it." Anyone want to chime in on this opinion, which by the way is not mine......just a comment that was said to me.

I think we are all missing the most shocking thing in this thread.......Sidelinedoc had a patient!!!!! :lol::lol::lol::deadhorse: