Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

When Is A Pro A Pro?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • When Is A Pro A Pro?

    The Solomon Haile situation has now officially reached the level of absurd.

    As many of you may know, Haile is the outstanding high school distance runner in Maryland, who has had questions raised both about his age and amateur status. I won't get into the age issue, which has some very compelling evidence that he may be at least 20 years old, but the amateur issue, in my opinion, is a slam dunk.

    In an article published in the Washington Post, the athletic director for the Maryland County Public Schools stated he came to the astounding conclusion that since Haile had not cashed over $600 worth of prize money checks and gift certificates(even though they were "piled on the table"), his amateur status is unsullied.

    Is he kidding, or just an idiot? Does anyone not think the day after Haile's high school career ends they won't cash those checks and use those gift certificates? As far as I'm concerned, when he accepted them he became a professional. He could have declined the prizes, as many high school and college athletes do to preserve their status. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature knows what's going on here.

    I sure hope the NCAA is paying attention.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... sec-sports

    After an hour-long sit-down at Sherwood, Duke Beattie, director of athletics for MCPS, and Sherwood Athletic Director Jim Meehan concluded that, while several checks had been mailed to Haile's home, he never cashed any of them.

    "We've investigated his status -- the alleged status as a professional -- and we've reviewed the pertinent state regulations and definitions the state offers and Solomon passed with flying colors," Beattie said after inspecting about $600 worth of uncashed checks and unredeemed gift certificates that were piled on the table.
    There are no strings on me

  • #2
    Re: When Is A Pro A Pro?

    "The Haile family declined a request by The Post to review his original birth certificate. Beattie said MCPS has a copy of Haile's birth certificate on record and confirmed his age before initially clearing him to compete at Sherwood. "

    Pretty much speaks volumes right there.

    He was running as a 20 year old as far back as early as January 2007 in places like Thailand Austria and Italy. If he was playing in the Little League World Series this story would have been over a year ago.

    Originally posted by guru

    I sure hope the NCAA is paying attention.
    Two words: Galen Rupp. How the hell this kid is eligible for NCAA competition doesn't pass the giggle test.

    Comment


    • #3
      the real question is why does it even matter?

      Please do not tout the amateur ideals to me because the only people held to these ideals are the kids and college athletes, everyone else is a professioanl and cashing in.
      In terms of highschoolers, why should they pass on money?

      In terms of the kid not cashing the checks, it is true. Until you cash a check and take the money you have not been paid. No money has been exchanged like it or not, those checks could be burned the day after his graduation too.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Smoke
        In terms of highschoolers, why should they pass on money?
        We're not talking a philosophical argument here, but one of rules.

        In terms of the kid not cashing the checks, it is true. Until you cash a check and take the money you have not been paid. No money has been exchanged like it or not, those checks could be burned the day after his graduation too.
        Fine, then he'll have no problem destroying the checks and certificates as part of retaining his eligibilty.
        There are no strings on me

        Comment


        • #5
          Aren't there hundreds of ncaa college tennis players who were under similar situations, where they accepted money as youngsters, then regained their "amateur" status as collegians.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Smoke
            In terms of the kid not cashing the checks, it is true. Until you cash a check and take the money you have not been paid. No money has been exchanged like it or not, those checks could be burned the day after his graduation too.
            Nonsense. Once you accept a check, you've been paid, until and unless you give it back or it bounces. The person or organization who wrote the check has to keep that amount of money available to you in their account.

            Comment


            • #7
              I am so over the 'amateur' thing. if a HS or college kid can win money, who cares? How does winning money render them incapable of representing their school? Kids dance and sing for money and are still in the school musical. They win tens of thousands of dollars worth of scholarships and are still 'pure'. Pure hypocrisy, IMO.

              Comment


              • #8
                I thought checks "expired" or became undepositable after six months with many banks- so the pile on the table might not be worth anything.....

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by sprintblox
                  Originally posted by Smoke
                  In terms of the kid not cashing the checks, it is true. Until you cash a check and take the money you have not been paid. No money has been exchanged like it or not, those checks could be burned the day after his graduation too.
                  Nonsense. Once you accept a check, you've been paid, until and unless you give it back or it bounces. The person or organization who wrote the check has to keep that amount of money available to you in their account.
                  How do you view this with respect to the Athletes Trust Fund program, first established in 1981, that allowed athletes to have earnings placed in trust funds administered by their governing bodies for later use, until the IOC allowed individual governing bodies to determine their own standards for eligibility in 1986?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Marlow
                    I am so over the 'amateur' thing. if a HS or college kid can win money, who cares? How does winning money render them incapable of representing their school? Kids dance and sing for money and are still in the school musical. They win tens of thousands of dollars worth of scholarships and are still 'pure'. Pure hypocrisy, IMO.
                    Setting the extraordinarily dubious age situation aside for a moment, isn't a desire for the rules to be changed vastly different than deciding on whether or not an existing rule was broken? You seem to be arguing the former in a discussion about the latter.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by KevinM
                      Originally posted by Marlow
                      I am so over the 'amateur' thing. if a HS or college kid can win money, who cares? How does winning money render them incapable of representing their school? Kids dance and sing for money and are still in the school musical. They win tens of thousands of dollars worth of scholarships and are still 'pure'. Pure hypocrisy, IMO.
                      Setting the extraordinarily dubious age situation aside for a moment, isn't a desire for the rules to be changed vastly different than deciding on whether or not an existing rule was broken? You seem to be arguing the former in a discussion about the latter.
                      Exactly.

                      As I said earlier, this is not a philosophical argument, but one of the rules as they exist being followed.
                      There are no strings on me

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by KevinM
                        Originally posted by Marlow
                        I am so over the 'amateur' thing. if a HS or college kid can win money, who cares? How does winning money render them incapable of representing their school? Kids dance and sing for money and are still in the school musical. They win tens of thousands of dollars worth of scholarships and are still 'pure'. Pure hypocrisy, IMO.
                        Setting the extraordinarily dubious age situation aside for a moment, isn't a desire for the rules to be changed vastly different than deciding on whether or not an existing rule was broken? You seem to be arguing the former in a discussion about the latter.
                        Indeed - I find this as hypocritical as the gymnastics age thing. If a 12-year-old can be a world-beater, so be it. There are prodigies in art, so why not in athletics? If parents (no matter how 'show-bizzy') consent, why do we deny them?

                        My point is merely that we should be looking at the issue itself, not just whether rules were broken - if they were, they are DQed - period - but why not be pro-active and get rid of the rule?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Marlow
                          Originally posted by KevinM
                          Originally posted by Marlow
                          I am so over the 'amateur' thing. if a HS or college kid can win money, who cares? How does winning money render them incapable of representing their school? Kids dance and sing for money and are still in the school musical. They win tens of thousands of dollars worth of scholarships and are still 'pure'. Pure hypocrisy, IMO.
                          Setting the extraordinarily dubious age situation aside for a moment, isn't a desire for the rules to be changed vastly different than deciding on whether or not an existing rule was broken? You seem to be arguing the former in a discussion about the latter.
                          Indeed - I find this as hypocritical as the gymnastics age thing. If a 12-year-old can be a world-beater, so be it. There are prodigies in art, so why not in athletics? If parents (no matter how 'show-bizzy') consent, why do we deny them?

                          My point is merely that we should be looking at the issue itself, not just whether rules were broken - if they were, they are DQed - period - but why not be pro-active and get rid of the rule?
                          There are very good reasons for the age rule in gymnastics -- if that is your basis then it is pretty weak.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by 26mi235
                            There are very good reasons for the age rule in gymnastics -- if that is your basis then it is pretty weak.
                            Altho there are wacko sports parents, when you start telling parents what their kids can't do, that they obviously can, you're on the slippery slope. This is not driving a car, voting or drinking; it's just sport, which is for kids to begin with.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Marlow
                              I am so over the 'amateur' thing. if a HS or college kid can win money, who cares? How does winning money render them incapable of representing their school? Kids dance and sing for money and are still in the school musical. They win tens of thousands of dollars worth of scholarships and are still 'pure'. Pure hypocrisy, IMO.
                              You really want professionals to be competing in high school leagues? If they want to take money while in high school, that's fine, but they must compete in professional leagues, not high school teams.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X