The only way they did not lie is if they said "we are switching schools because our son was arrested and convicted of a crime and he is not allowed to play at WV." IMO that doesn't meet the requirements set forth by the KHSAA. However, that requires that the question actually be asked by the KHSAA and we do not know if it was asked. You do not have to list a reason for transferring on the transfer form.

 

Change of residence is a good enough reason for a transfer. If they lied, what did they say? Maybe Family X can clarify it for us so all of us won't have to speculate and make all kinds of assumptions. Again, these are just allegations and none of them have been substantiated. Can't wait to see the outcome.

Change of residence is a good enough reason for a transfer. If they lied, what did they say? Maybe Family X can clarify it for us so all of us won't have to speculate and make all kinds of assumptions. Again, these are just allegations and none of them have been substantiated. Can't wait to see the outcome.

 

Incorrect.

 

Read Section 3 of the transfer rule section.

Completely agree. His case (according to the suit) had all ready been disposed of prior to his transfer so all parties should have known about it. The allegation says, "they lied about the reason for the transfer" but does not state what their reason was. I would like to know what Family X (most people know who they are so why do they get privacy?) stated as the lie. Anyone can make allegations but they are nothing unless proven. The kid was sentenced in court for his wrongdoing. You don't have to be blind to see what the family wants ($$$$$$). Gov. Beshear better be on guard, because he may be alleged in the suit!

 

Do you think this is wrong? I am of the belief that we are an overly-litigious society, but there is a time and place that civil suits and monetary compensation are appropriate. If the facts as alleged in this case are true, or even mostly true, do you not feel the girl and family sustained legitimate mental and emotional pain and suffering worthy of being compensated?

Do you think this is wrong? I am of the belief that we are an overly-litigious society, but there is a time and place that civil suits and monetary compensation are appropriate. If the facts as alleged in this case are true, or even mostly true, do you not feel the girl and family sustained legitimate mental and emotional pain and suffering worthy of being compensated?

 

I will assume that's rhetorical.

Incorrect.

 

Read Section 3 of the transfer rule section.

 

Is the below what you are referring to Clyde?

 

If the change in schools is to nullify or circumvent the actions of

representatives or rules of the previous school or if the student

left the sending school under penalty which would have resulted

in the student’s ineligibility at the sending school;

I will assume that's rhetorical.

 

Sure, but my read of madman's post was that he somehow finds that suing for money is wrong and automatically de-legitimizes the allegations. Just curious if he actually felt that way.

Do you think this is wrong? I am of the belief that we are an overly-litigious society, but there is a time and place that civil suits and monetary compensation are appropriate. If the facts as alleged in this case are true, or even mostly true, do you not feel the girl and family sustained legitimate mental and emotional pain and suffering worthy of being compensated?

 

If they are true, then there will be compensation. If they are not true then the family should be sued for defamation of character and all the personal losses and anguish that go with it. You can't make false allegations without consequences.

KHSAA needs to seriously consider some type of rule which states that a student who is expelled or forced to leave a school under circumstances such as a criminal conviction in which the sentence forbids attending that school is ineligible to participate in sports at his new school for one year. The student should absolutely and obviously have the right to find another school that fits his/her education needs, but athletics is a privilege and you should forego that privilege, or at least of portion of it, under circumstances such expulsion. What lesson is learned when someone can immediately continue play sports - possibly at a more successful sports school - win championships, have newspaper articles written about them, etc.... ?

If they are true, then there will be compensation. If they are not true then the family should be sued for defamation of character and all the personal losses and anguish that go with it. You can't make false allegations without consequences.

 

Completely agree.

KHSAA needs to seriously consider some type of rule which states that a student who is expelled or forced to leave a school under circumstances such as a criminal conviction in which the sentence forbids attending that school is ineligible to participate in sports at his new school for one year.

 

They do. Read Section 3.

 

http://www.khsaa.org/handbook/bylaws/bylaw6.pdf

KHSAA needs to seriously consider some type of rule which states that a student who is expelled or forced to leave a school under circumstances such as a criminal conviction in which the sentence forbids attending that school is ineligible to participate in sports at his new school for one year. The student should absolutely and obviously have the right to find another school that fits his/her education needs, but athletics is a privilege and you should forego that privilege, or at least of portion of it, under circumstances such expulsion. What lesson is learned when someone can immediately continue play sports - possibly at a more successful sports school - win championships, have newspaper articles written about them, etc.... ?

 

Isn't that what this rule states? Can someone clarify please? Should Sullivan have been ineligible at NCC according to this rule in Section 3?

 

If the change in schools is to nullify or circumvent the actions of

representatives or rules of the previous school or if the student

left the sending school under penalty which would have resulted

in the student’s ineligibility at the sending school;

Isn't that what this rule states? Can someone clarify please? Should Sullivan have been ineligible at NCC according to this rule in Section 3?

 

If the change in schools is to nullify or circumvent the actions of

representatives or rules of the previous school or if the student

left the sending school under penalty which would have resulted

in the student’s ineligibility at the sending school;

 

It seems pretty cut and dry to me.

It seems pretty cut and dry to me.

 

Does it actually fit? The school didn't expel him or restrict him from participating in sports so the first part of the clause doesn't apply. Does the second part of the statement referencing leaving school "under penalty" apply to penalties issued by the court system or only penalties imposed by the sending school?

It seems pretty cut and dry to me.

 

Does it actually fit? The school didn't expel him or restrict him from participating in sports so the first part of the clause doesn't apply. Does the second part of the statement referencing leaving school "under penalty" apply to penalties issued by the court system or only penalties imposed by the sending school?

 

OR (emphasis added) if the student left the sending school under penalty which would have resulted

in the student’s ineligibility at the sending school

 

 

Based on the OR, I agree with Clyde. Sullivan clearly left WV under penalty which would have resulted in his eligibility.

OR (emphasis added) if the student left the sending school under penalty which would have resulted

in the student’s ineligibility at the sending school

 

 

Based on the OR, I agree with Clyde. Sullivan clearly left WV under penalty which would have resulted in his eligibility.

 

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate on this one. He was not "ineligible" to play sports at WV in the sense that we normally think of when we hear or use that term. The school (apparently) took no action whatsoever against him and considered him eligible to attend there and play sports there. The court restricted him from attending the school since it would cause him to be around the girl. It may be a fine line, but I just don't think it's quite as clearcut as it might seem upon first read.