Will Amanda Cromwell be in trouble? She had to know what was going on allowing the girl to be on her team. You don’t just just add non soccer player on your team because men’s coach ask you to
This goes on at all schools, via alums, donations etc...favors are asked and granted all the time. Phil Dunfee asked the dean of his former school to let lukes dumbass in. All he had to do was perform a magic trick..money, tricks, whatever...
I know. This whole sudden blowup is laughable. Ivy was always about ability to pay cash, name and jock at the top of the list. Like if we only had kids as smart as Bill Cowher's, for example. The cop syndicate is doing this for fun, to mess with a few celebs.
A few celebs and a host of nationally reognized coaches and administrators from schools such as UCLA , Stanford, USC, San Diego, Texas, , Wake Forest, and Georgetown. Notable among them are two coaches who won soccer National Championshis, Jorge Salcedo at UCLA and Ali Khoshoshahin at USC and his assistant Laura Janke. Also named was an Assistant AD at USC, The big winner was Stanford’s SAILING coach Jim Vandemoer, who used the admission slots granted by admissions and the athletic department to enrich himself to the tune of $770,000 , dwarfing the money the soccer coaches got. Who knew being a sailing coach could be so lucrative?
I think it's important to note here that Women's Soccer was not involved at all of these schools. I think USC, and Yale are the only Women's Soccer programs involved in this. And even then not necessarily the current staffs. Just a reminder (as most people USUALLY do on this thread) to parse your words.
What was involved at all of these schools is the admissions and athletic departments. We can go over the list of indicted and individuals who have already plead guilty, if you wish. The important thing is how the ncaa will decide on the violation, fraud, and institutional control issues.Since a lot of this involves powerful schools, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the NCAA decides that admissions policy isn’t any of their business, just as they decided curriculum isn’t their business in the UNC cheating scandal. Or as one twitter wag posted, they might be so mad they will invoke major penalties on say, Mizzou.
I do not think the NCAA will do much of anything either. These schools did not gain a 'competitive advantage' in this bribery scandal. If anything, they hurt themselves. Yale being the obvious example. He wasted a slot for a talented soccer player for someone who could not play. Dare I say ....no wonder Yale was subpar under him. I know USD was involved but the coach or program was not named from what I saw. Curious where you are seeing it was soccer Carolina92? Also, the articles I read said that the sailing coach did not receive the money. It went to the sailing program. He agreed to a prison term of 18 months for it. The Stanford sailing program became embroiled in the scheme, prosecutors said, when Singer created a student-athlete application to the university that falsely claimed a young man was a competitive sailor. By May 2018, the boy deferred his application to Stanford for a year, and Singer directed a $110,000 payment from one of his charity’s accounts to the Stanford sailing program in exchange for the coach’s agreement to designate the boy as a recruit the next year, prosecutors said. Later that summer, the boy decided to attend a different university, but Vandemoer allegedly agreed with Singer to use that same recruiting spot for another of Singer’s clients in exchange for a $500,000 payment to the program. Vandemoer, 41, pleaded guilty Tuesday in Boston to one count of conspiracy to commit racketeering. In his plea agreement, prosecutors and his attorney agreed to recommend a prison sentence of 18 months. Stanford officials announced that Vandemoer had been fired.
You're right. USD not included. Neither is the UCLA women's program FYI House of Cards. Need to follow my own advice on parsing words. Editing my original post. Here's a list... https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/12/sports/sports-college-admissions-scam.html
The men's soccer coach at UCLA accepted money in exchange for getting a female player athletic consideration with admissions. The daughter of two of the indicted parents was on the women's roster in 2017. I think that its safe to say women's soccer was involved.
Women's soccer may have been involved on a minor level. But, it doesn't sound like anyone excepted money from the women's staff. It sounds like the men's coach facilitated it and the women's team let this person play the role of the manager. She isn't in the 2017 team picture, but she is listed on the roster. Her linkedin says she was a student manager.
Well of course they do. For example, Stanford had $700,000 they could spend on anything but a sailing program.
Salcedo was just let go this week. The “player” referred to was listed on the 2017 roster as a midfielder which begs the question was AC in on this? She had to sign off on the athletic admission status. This is all coming out and will continue to build. The situation at USC is also dicey with the associate ad implicated but not the soccer program.
I believe SC's AAD was already fired, along with the WP coach. What this scandal says about Amanda Cromwell is that she was either a] complicit, or b] incompetent. Perhaps both. Why would you roster someone based on Salcedo's request? Why would she do such a "favor"? What's in it for her? Other than that she was implicitly involved in the admissions fraud, knowing full well what was going on. OTOH, Let's say she was honestly helping out Salcedo. By signing off on the roster with the bogus player, what does that say about you in the eyes of your team? That the 30th player on you team can be had as a favor, even with minimal-to-none soccer experience? Either complicity or incompetency, it sheds a negative light on Cromwell's integrity. Integrity is paramount in an institution of higher learning, as well as in leading a group of impressionable young people. I can't see why/how UCLA will hang on to her. The optics on this fraud really look bad on her. They have to wash off the stain that is the coaching staff who signed off on this. Coaches lose their jobs for less egregious incidents. As it is, WoSo is a non-revenue sport, it's not like UCLA makes gobs on money on this sport.. And this is UCLA, arguably one of the very top destinations for women's soccer players and coaches. There would be no shortage of highly qualified applicants who have burnished their LinkedIns as soon as this news broke. There is little to no downside to letting Cromwell go. Letting her stay makes UCLA an embarrassment As to the Stanford sailing coach's fraudulent applicants, Vandermeer may have gotten their foot inside Door #1, but they couldn't touch the doorknob of Montag Hall https://news.stanford.edu/2019/03/12/stanford-statement/
So as i understand it a head coach would have to sign off on any special admits and have an explanation on why that recruit should get a special admit slot. Secondly the head coach has to sign off on their official roster at the beginning of their competition season. Meaning: UCLA women’s coach had to directly admit that girl by assigning her a special w soccer admittance slot and either lie to the admin overseeing her sport or the admin looked the other way. AND she had to include the girl on the roster. The label of “practice player” or “‘manager” doesn’t exist for admissions or roster purposes. You can designate your players with whatever tag you want but if they are rostered they are rostered and count as a participant. So maybe the men’s coach asked the women’s coach for a favor and hinted that the girls parents were loaded and would donate to the program. If the w coach had an extra slot that year she thought why not? Add a kid as a walk on and make some money for the program. Which is no biggie and prob happens all the time EXCEPT the girl had no soccer background, she had to lie to justify the special admit AND roster her and then try to “hide” her by labeling her as a manager or whatever. Plus with all this media coverage it looks really bad. Out west here there’s been a few players over the years on UCLA’s roster that were head scratchers and sideline chatter about. Really thin resumes for a team like UCLA. Maybe those were walk on kids who didn’t work out but I bet someone is looking thru all that right now.
Huh? Two people indicted are Ali khoshroshahin, who coached USC to is ncaa championship, and his assistant, also indicted along with the AD. They funneled $350,000 to their private club, according to the indictment. The admissions department gave those admissions slots to the athletic department, who parceled then to the teams, according to the indictment. I would assume this was at the direction of the trustees. I’m sure Stanford wants you to believe they had no responsibility for oversight, but I think the prosecutors office isn’t done investigating that part. He didn’t get to plea for no reason.
Fair enough. But the Sailing program appears to be the only one that benefited financially. The rest of the fraudsters self indulged in the piggy bank, and their programs received no benefit.
Pretty funny how there are ones in here defending their own schools of any wrongdoing or making their school seem less corrupt in this scandal then interestingly attacking UCLAs women’s soccer program at the gut and asking for Cromwell’s firing without any detailed information on the case. The Pac12 vultures really like swarming around UCLA any chance they get I guess. Let me tell you something, I never heard of that person in my life and our players are all legit. We only recruit the best and the spoiled brats with their Beverly Hills rich parents are the ones that buy them into private schools like USC and Stanford. UCLA is a public school, nobody is paying anyone to come here. We beat all those teams mentioned.... hmmm wonder why? We will get answers soon enough. Anyway it’s game day and I can’t wait to watch our 4 star athletes take on the Seattle Reign.
BTW, I found this on the internet after doing a google search just now. I'm not sure how this person knows all this detailed information but all the personal information is redacted. Defendants DAD and MOM, a married couple (together, “the FAMILY”), live in CITY, STATE. DAD is president of a real estate development firm in CITY, STATE. As set forth below, the FAMILYS took part in both the college recruitment scheme and the college entrance exam cheating scheme. RINGLEADER has advised law enforcement agents that in or about 2015 and 2016, the FAMILYS agreed with him to use bribery to secure their older daughter’s admission to college as a recruited athlete. Initially, according to RINGLEADER, he sought to secure the FAMILYS’ daughter’s admission to USC—her first-choice school^1—as a purported soccer recruit. In or about mid-September 2015, RINGLEADER e-mailed her high school transcripts, ACT score and a falsified soccer profile to Janke, who forwarded the materials to the USC women’s soccer coach. On or about February 17, 2016, an assistant athletic director at USC e-mailed the women’s soccer coach that the application had been diverted to the regular admissions process due to a “clerical error.” On or about May 20, 2016, Ali Khosroshahin, the former head coach of women’s soccer at USC, forwarded the falsified soccer profile, ACT score and transcripts on RINGLEADER’s behalf to Jorge Salcedo, the head coach of UCLA men’s soccerKhosroshahin wrote: “soccer player/student manager. I have attached her profile, player explanation, transcripts for both high schools and ACT scores…will make sure she has registered with the NCAA. Please let me know if you need any additional information[.]” On or about June 28, 2016, the UCLA student-athlete admissions committee approved the FAMILYS’ daughter for provisional admission that fall. RINGLEADER notified the FAMILYS via e-mail the following day. MOM responded, copying DAD and their daughter^2: "I know it has been a rough ride but I thank you from the bottom of my heart and soul for your persistence, creativity and commitment towards helping [our daughter]." On or about July 7, 2016, RINGLEADER directed a payment of $100,000 from one of the FAKE CHARITY charitable accounts to a sports marketing company controlled by Salcedo. RINGLEADER subsequently also caused FAKE CHARITY to issue a check to Khosroshahin in the amount of $25,000. On or about July 8, 2016, Masera sent MOM an invoice from FAKE CHARITY in the amount of $250,000. The invoice stated: “Private Contribution – Letter of receipt will be provided upon payment.” On or about July 11, 2016, DAD e-mailed RINGLEADER, copying MOM: “Thanks for the follow up call regarding the attached Key Worldwide Foundation invoice. Per our discussion can you please send me an email confirming that if [our daughter] is not admitted to UCLA as a freshman for the Fall 2016 class that The Key Worldwide Foundation will refund our $250,000.00 gift. Again, both MOM and I are greatly appreciative of all your efforts on [our daughter]’s behalf!” That same day, RINGLEADER e-mailed the FAMILYS: “[T]his is to confirm that your donation of $250,000 to The Key Worldwide Foundation supporting educational initiatives we have created to help those who need it the most will be returned if [your daughter’s] admission to UCLA is reversed from the email acceptance she has already received.” On or about July 15, 2016, FAMILY transferred 2,150 shares of Facebook, Inc. stock, having a value of approximately $251,249, to FAKE CHARITY. Approximately one week later, Masera sent the FAMILYS a letter acknowledging the purported charitable contribution, and stating: “Your generosity will allow us to move forward with our plans to provide educational and self-enrichment programs to disadvantaged youth.” The letter falsely indicated that “no goods or services were exchanged” for the money. RINGLEADER has advised law enforcement agents that the FAMILYS thereafter agreed with him to engage in the college entrance exam cheating scheme for their younger daughter.^3 On or about January 23, 2017, MOM e-mailed RINGLEADER documentation of ACT, Inc.’s approval for her younger daughter to take the ACT over successive days. On or about May 8, 2017, MOM e-mailed RINGLEADER: “She is working towards June 10, 11 testing in LA . .Please send me details of testing location and anything I need to do beforehand.” On or about June 9, 2017, RINGLEADER’S ASSISTANT traveled from Tampa to Los Angeles. The FAMILYS’ daughter took the ACT at the West Hollywood Test Center on or about the following day. RINGLEADER’S ASSISTANT returned to Tampa on or about June 11, 2017. The FAMILYS’ daughter received a score of 31 out of a possible 36^4 on the exam. On or about June 12, 2017, RINGLEADER paid RINGLEADER’S ASSISTANT $15,600 via a check issued from one of the FAKE CHARITY charitable accounts. On or about June 21, 2017, DAD caused shares of stock having a value of approximately $101,272 to be transferred to FAKE CHARITY. Thereafter, according to RINGLEADER, the FAMILYS agreed with him to secure their younger daughter’s admission to USC as a purported rowing recruit, even though she was not competitive in rowing, but instead was an avid equestrian. In or about October 2017, RINGLEADER sent the FAMILYS’ daughter’s high school transcript and fraudulently obtained ACT score to Heinel, writing, “Another Crew Girl,” and directed Janke to create a crew profile for her. The profile, which RINGLEADER then forwarded to Heinel, falsely stated that the FAMILYS’ daughter was a “Varsity 8 Stroke” for the Redwood Scullers and listed a number of falsified crew honors. Heinel presented the FAMILYS’ younger daughter to the USC subcommittee for athletic admissions as a purported crew recruit on or about November 30, 2017. On or about December 15, 2017, Heinel e-mailed RINGLEADER a letter notifying the FAMILYS’ daughter that she had been conditionally admitted to USC as a student athlete. The letter stated: “Your records indicate that you have the potential to make a significant contribution to the intercollegiate athletic program as well as to the academic life of the university.” RINGLEADER forwarded the letter to the FAMILYS and their daughter, writing, “Please keep this hush hush till late March.” MOM responded, “Very exciting news…we will definitely lay low until March . . . Would you like to chat next week to discuss any steps I need to take on my end for USC? Thank you again for your help!”RINGLEADER replied, “Only steps have been discussed with DAD.” On or about April 9, 2018, shortly after USC mailed a formal acceptance letter to the FAMILYS’s daughter, a FAKE CHARITY employee e-mailed MOM a $250,000 invoice for the FAMILYS’ “generous donation to The FAKE CHARITY.” MOM responded, copying DAD, “We are out of the country and will send payment early during the week of April 16th.” On or about April 20, 2018, DAD caused shares of stock having a value of $249,420 to be transferred to FAKE CHARITY. RINGLEADER has advised investigators that he earmarked $50,000 of the FAMILYS’ payment for Heinel, who in July 2018 began receiving monthly payments of $20,000 from FAKE CHARITY. In a call on or about August 23, 2018, RINGLEADER and MOM spoke on the telephone about engaging in the college entrance exam cheating scheme on behalf of the FAMILYS’ third child. The call was intercepted pursuant to a Court-authorized wiretap. In the call, RINGLEADER asked MOM whether they were going to try to “control the test room or is he taking it on his own.” MOM responded that they wanted to control the testing environment. On or about September 26, 2018, DAD called RINGLEADER and requested a receipt, for tax purposes, for his purported $100,000 contribution to FAKE CHARITY^5 for his younger daughter’s testing scheme. The following is an excerpt from the call. DAD Hey, I was checking for one thing, just for my taxes. I need to get the letter, like you did last time— RINGLEADER Okay. DAD --for the-- for the Facebook stock that I did— RINGLEADER Okay. DAD --do you-- that I think was like 100,000, something like that, las-- is-- can you-- do you track that down to your guys, get the exact amount— RINGLEADER Yeah. DAD --internally— RINGLEADER Yeah. Lemme— DAD --if you wouldn’tm--? RINGLEADER --lemme-- lemme find out. Was this for-- was this for [your second daughter]? DAD This was, when we did the testing. Yeah. Yeah. RINGLEADER Uh— DAD I can give you exact date of it, that the stock-- I can actually send that to you, if that helps you. RINGLEADER Okay. Why don’t you do that? DAD Yeah. RINGLEADER That would be grea— DAD Yeah. And, actually got it for-- a copy of it from the broker. But I’ll do that to you. That’d be awesome, just that one-page letter— RINGLEADER Uh— DAD --saying it’s a 501--(3)— RINGLEADER Okay. On or about October 24, 2018, RINGLEADER called DAD at the direction of law enforcement agents and told him that FAKE CHARITY was being audited by the IRS. The following is an excerpt from the conversation, which was consensually recorded. RINGLEADER So, so I’m calling because I’m in Boston— DAD Uh-huh. RINGLEADER --and I-- so what’s happened is my foundation is, is getting audited now. DAD Uh-huh. RINGLEADER Which, as you know, is pretty typical. DAD Uh-huh. RINGLEADER Right? So they’re looking at all my payments. DAD Okay. RINGLEADER So they asked about your payments. One of them for when [RINGLEADER’S ASSISTANT] took the test for [your second daughter]. DAD Okay. RINGLEADER The payment that we made to Jorge, to help [your first daughter] get into UCLA through soccer. DAD Okay. RINGLEADER And then the payment that we made to Donna Heinel at USC to help [your second daughter] get in through crew. DAD Okay. RINGLEADER So, of course I’m not going to tell the IRS this is where the money went— DAD Right, right, right. RINGLEADER --and [inaudible]. So I just, I just want to make sure that-- what I’ve told them so far is that that 600K-plus has actually gone to pay for-- paid tour foundation for underserved kids. DAD Uh-huh. RINGLEADER So I guess, first-- one of the questions I have is, did you take a write-off for those? DAD I did take a write-off for those, yes. RINGLEADER Okay. All right, I just, I just want to make sure I’m— DAD Yeah. RINGLEADER --on the same page as you. DAD Yeah, I did, I did. RINGLEADER Okay. Okay. DAD I did. I mean-- go ahead, I’m sorry. RINGLEADER No, you go. DAD Yeah, well, I got-- remember, I was asking for the letter [inaudible] asked for, you know, to the extent that we don’t have it. You know, if we do get audited or something, we would need a letter or something like that. RINGLEADER Gotcha. Totally. DAD That’s after the fact. Okay. RINGLEADER Okay, no problem. So I just wanted to make sure our stories are aligned. DAD Yeah. On or about December 3, 2018, RINGLEADER called MOM at the direction of law enforcement agents and told her that FAKE CHARITY was being audited by the IRS. The following is an excerpt from the conversation, which was consensually recorded. RINGLEADER So they asked about the payments that DAD had made. And I-- I think I told him. But I’m going to tell you. Essentially, that I didn’t say anything about [your second daughter] taking the, the test down at [the West Hollywood Test Center] and having [RINGLEADER’S ASSISTANT] and-- [RINGLEADER’S ASSISTANT] take it and Igor being the site coordinator. I didn’t say anything about that. I just said that it was a donation to our foundation for underserved kids. Are you okay with that? MOM Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Although the quality of the phone call was clear, MOM then told RINGLEADER, “It’s really hard to hear you but why don’t we talk later tonight[.]” RINGLEADER went to the FAMILYS’ home later that evening to meet with DAD. The meeting was consensually recorded. During the meeting, RINGLEADER asked if MOM—who was traveling—wanted to participate by phone. DAD responded: “You know, I am so paranoid about this ********ing thing you were talking about. I don’t like talking about it on the phone, you know.” Later in the meeting, DAD noted: “I’m so paranoid about MOM, I go, ‘I really don’t want you talking on the phone to [RINGLEADER] about this.’ You know, I’m thinkin’, you know, are they—I mean, I can’t imagine they’d go to the trouble of tapping my phone—but would they tap someone like your phones?” DAD and RINGLEADER then discussed what would happen if the FAMILYS received a call from the IRS. The following is an excerpt from the conversation. DAD [W]orst case, we were to get a call from them, and they would say to you, you know, I guess, “Prove you gave this money,” they’d ask for some— RINGLEADER Which you did. DAD --yeah-- ask for some kind of thing, and I don’t-- I only got, I think, a, a, a receipt from you, or, I don’t know, like, one-- like, the last two of ’em I don’t think I did. RINGLEADER Okay. DAD If we-- if we-- you know, if you want to— RINGLEADER Well, we can get that to you. DAD --i-if we can do that – RINGLEADER Yeah, absolutely. DAD --that would be great, yeah. But, you know, just the letter saying “Thank you for your gift” or whatnot, of whatever— RINGLEADER Right. DAD --you know, you’re helping out with. But so, so let’s say they, they, they, they, they do that. For example, when we did the testing thing— RINGLEADER Mm-hmm. DAD --that was as a gift, right? Yeah. RINGLEADER Right. DAD And they’re not-- there’s no way they can correlate and say that that wasn’t for a gift? That would only be if they would talk to you about that and say “Where did that go?” Right? You know what I’m saying? RINGLEADER Right. Right— DAD Yeah. RINGLEADER --so they wouldn’t-- at least, I wouldn’t know— DAD Right. RINGLEADER --how they would know? DAD Yeah. RINGLEADER It would just be looked at as a gift. DAD Mm-hmm. RINGLEADER Um— DAD But what happens when they track,[RINGLEADER], worst case, that 75,000, and they say, “Show me where that went”? RINGLEADER Well-- So that-- so I guess what I-- I guess-- that’s a good question. DAD Yeah. RINGLEADER So that 75 comes in. DAD Uh-huh. RINGLEADER It’s a part of a lot of other money, right? DAD But part— RINGLEADER So— DAD --part of-- When you say— RINGLEADER Well, because a lotta other money’s in, in the pot. DAD Coming in the pot, right. RINGLEADER Right? And then I’m turning around and paying [RINGLEADER’S ASSISTANT] and Igor. And so I guess they could s-- they could see that— DAD Right. RINGLEADER --and maybe they’ll cor-- Yeah, that’s a good q-- that’s good— DAD Yeah, yeah. RINGLEADER --because they may correlate— DAD Right. RINGLEADER --that the testing was a part of it. DAD Ri-- I, I don’t know, yeah. At a number of points in the meeting, DAD and RINGLEADER discussed the potential repercussions if the IRS were to uncover the true purpose of the payments to FAKE CHARITY: RINGLEADER And I’m just saying, “Hey, I was just told to call everybody.” DAD Yeah, no, I appreciate that, and I’m glad you did. It’s just something that when it happened, my stomach, like, kind of fell out. RINGLEADER Oh, well, sure. DAD Yeah. RINGLEADER I think it should. DAD Oh, yeah. I’m just thinking, oh my God, because you’re thinking, does this roll into something where, you know, if they get into the meat and potatoes, is this gonna be this-- be the front page story with everyone from Kleiner Perkins do whatever, getting these kids into school, and— RINGLEADER Well, the, the person who’d be on the front page— DAD Well, I, I-- But if-- but they, they – RINGLEADER Yes. DAD --went the meat and potatoes of it, which a-- which a guy would love to have is, it’s so hard for these kids to get into college, and here’s-- look what-- look what’s going on behind the schemes, and then, you know, the, the embarrassment to everyone in the communities. Oh my God, it would just be-- Yeah. Ugh. Later, in the conversation, DAD told RINGLEADER that if they proceeded with the college entrance exam cheating scheme for their third child, “I think we’ll definitely pay cash this time, and not, not-- not run it through the other way.” 1: The fact her first choice was USC should have been a red flag that she wasn't cut out for UCLA 2: The daughter definitely knew about this. 3: Younger daughter cheated on the ACT 4: And she only got a 31 LMAO 5: Dad drops $100,000 for his daughter to cheat and wants to write it off for a tax deduction. Morally bankrupt as they come Family pays $250,000 in Facebook stocks for the first daughter to go to USC as a soccer recruit. There was a filing error and her app was sent to the regular decision pool and not the athlete pool where she was sure to be rejected. The USC coach sent her app to Jorge Salcedo at UCLA where he accepted her and was paid $100,000. Family paid $100,000 for second daughter to take the ACT in a controlled environment where she got a 31/36. Then an additional $250,000 in stocks was paid for her to be accepted to USC as a rowing recruit. There were talks of arranging for their son to take the ACT in a controlled environment for an undisclosed cash amount.
Federal court hearing for Rudy Meredith will be held here in Boston on March 28. Has not stated a plea yet. Will see how much time he will get. He is the first one in the case cooperating and likely be working on getting leniency for his sentencing based on that. He is a piece of shit and hoping he and the parents who thought they would get away with this scam based on money and power get what they deserve. Prosecutor is talking tough and negative public sentiment is obviously strong.
Dude she was on UCLA’s roster. She had never played soccer before. How is that “legit?” And UCLA hasn’t beaten Stanford since 2014. And as a fan you should know it isn’t game day. UCLA plays the reign tomorrow.
This is all good and fine, but this cut and paste is unrelated to the UCLA WS involvement referenced above. Google Bruce and Davina Isackson; both have been charged in this scandal. This really sucks for the excellent young women on the team that earned a spot. Also feel bad for the kids on all the other teams/schools involved. USC Crew and Crew in general is going to be a laughing stock; and hopefully they started cleaning house at Yale before this news even broke.
Red flag alert for college soccer coaches, "Lists becoming the champion of her hoseback riding division two years in a row as her greatest athletic thrill"