College Entrance Scam includes former Yale Women's Soccer Coach

One big reason why this bigger problem for UCLA than USC...public records requests...mark your calendars for June 30...

https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-admissions-scandal-ucla-emails-20190418-story.html

If link stopped by paywall....a few highlights...

As public employees, correspondence from the coaches’ university email accounts and phones can be requested under the California Public Records Act.

A week after the U.S. attorney’s office in Massachusetts charged 50 people in an alleged conspiracy to tamper with college entrance exams and bypass admissions offices with an athletic recruiting scam, The Times made a public records request for any emails and text messages exchanged between three UCLA coaches and five people implicated in the scheme, along with an employee of Cal State Fullerton.

UCLA record-keepers said that compiling those emails and texts is a “lengthy, time-consuming process,” and the records won’t be turned over until June 30.

The three UCLA coaches whose correspondence The Times requested are Jorge Salcedo, the former men’s soccer coach; Amanda Cromwell, the women’s soccer coach; and Joshua Walters, the former associate head coach for women’s soccer.

The Times also requested declarations of outside financial interests for Salcedo and Cromwell. Salcedo accepted the $200,000 bribe through a sports marketing company he controlled, prosecutors allege.
 
oh canada said:
One big reason why this bigger problem for UCLA than USC...public records requests...mark your calendars for June 30...
Click to expand...

More importantly... apparently, it's not just Singer, but looks like in one way or another this is fairly common practice for the wealthy - to make donations for preference in admission... not just at UCLA but at other schools as well. What makes it interesting is that from the wealthy parent perspective, it doesn't make a difference if the donation is to a charity, athletic program, prep course, or coach - in other words, if it wasn't illegal in the making a donation to the school in exchange for preference, then they could make an argument that this is no different and wasn't aware of what Singer was doing to help her get into school behind the scenes. It would certainly put into question the charges of racketeering and mail fraud - they weren't trying to defraud anyone, to them it was simply a financial transaction.

"But a 2014 internal report, obtained by The Times, showed UCLA was aware of under-qualified athletes being admitted in exchange for donations.

William Cormier, who headed UCLA’s compliance office at the time, said an investigation into a young woman who, despite subpar times, was admitted as a recruited runner once her parents pledged $100,000 to the athletic department “removes any reasonable doubt that the contribution from the parents was obtained quid pro quo for the daughter’s admission.”

In a statement, the university said it quickly investigated the matter and, after deciding four coaches had violated school policy, adopted new safeguards to vet walk-ons and restricted donations from families of athletic prospects. It pointed out that, unlike Salcedo’s alleged criminal activity, the coaches found to have broken policy were not personally enriched by the donations.

“UCLA took this matter seriously and strengthened its policies in the wake of it,” the statement said.
 
So Cromwell did wrong but no money received so she's ok. fair enough. hopefully all coaches can learn from this and realize they aren't gods and goddesses.
 
Soccer43 said:
exactly - there was nothing in the news article that said that.
Click to expand...

The article reads like genuine news, not an opinion piece -- how refreshing. While there is no reference to Cromwell, it does make it clear UCLA was aware as early as 2014 of coaches helping non-athletes gain admissions through the athletic process by committing to large donations to the school/program. The coaches were willingly and knowingly gaming the system ("violating policy") and, in some cases, engaging in deceptive acts (false rosters) to hide their activity.

UCLA's recommendation, when this was discovered, was to "educate" the coaches about policy, since no law was broken. No money was returned by UCLA, no parents or students held accountable, no coaches removed/disciplined. As a comparison, Stanford fired their sailing coach for violating their "values" for essentially similar acts, even before he pled guilty to racketeering (the payments were directly linked to the fraudulent business of Singer). There is no evidence he personally gained from any payments, news reports it all went to the sailing program.

We can all have an opinion on what UCLA's response to these violations says about UCLA as an institution. They are using our tax dollars, therefore we also should expect more from them. While the acquiescence of the women's soccer staff in the admissions process and roster fraud may not break any law, borrowing the words of their athletic director, it is "disturbing and unacceptable."
 
Dos Equis said:
The article reads like genuine news, not an opinion piece -- how refreshing. While there is no reference to Cromwell, it does make it clear UCLA was aware as early as 2014 of coaches helping non-athletes gain admissions through the athletic process by committing to large donations to the school/program. The coaches were willingly and knowingly gaming the system ("violating policy") and, in some cases, engaging in deceptive acts (false rosters) to hide their activity.

UCLA's recommendation, when this was discovered, was to "educate" the coaches about policy, since no law was broken. No money was returned by UCLA, no parents or students held accountable, no coaches removed/disciplined. As a comparison, Stanford fired their sailing coach for violating their "values" for essentially similar acts, even before he pled guilty to racketeering (the payments were directly linked to the fraudulent business of Singer). There is no evidence he personally gained from any payments, news reports it all went to the sailing program.

We can all have an opinion on what UCLA's response to these violations says about UCLA as an institution. They are using our tax dollars, therefore we also should expect more from them. While the acquiescence of the women's soccer staff in the admissions process and roster fraud may not break any law, borrowing the words of their athletic director, it is "disturbing and unacceptable."
Click to expand...

Stanford is a private entity, so their employment contracts (and employment litigation history) may be considerably different from those of UCLA. Stanford could also just pay off an employee (such as "how much will it cost us for you to just go away") whose behavior has embarrassed the institution without it becoming a public record.
 
espola said:
Stanford is a private entity, so their employment contracts (and employment litigation history) may be considerably different from those of UCLA. Stanford could also just pay off an employee (such as "how much will it cost us for you to just go away") whose behavior has embarrassed the institution without it becoming a public record.
Click to expand...

While I realize you like being devil's advocate, are you really suggesting any disciplinary action for engaging in fraudulent activity (someone produced and approved the fake roster and media guides, that is a fact) might have been appealed based on their employment contracts, therefore UCLA decided to do nothing? That does not improve my view of UCLA's response here. These are not tenured professors, coaches are typically at will employees.
 
Dos Equis said:
While I realize you like being devil's advocate, are you really suggesting any disciplinary action for engaging in fraudulent activity (someone produced and approved the fake roster and media guides, that is a fact) might have been appealed based on their employment contracts, therefore UCLA decided to do nothing? That does not improve my view of UCLA's response here. These are not tenured professors, coaches are typically at will employees.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying UCLA can't (or won't eventually) fire the women's socccer coach over this, but pointing out a difference between how the institutions operate.
 
Someone in the UCLA women's program at the time knew. They had to. Mahybe they don't work there anymore, maybe they still do, maybe several people knew. I would think that if it was as simple as this persosn knew, they are no longer with the program, UCLA would have made that announcement already. Someone on the Women's side has to take the fall. They can't blame Salcedo and move on. He did not have the power to have a player rostered, in the media guide, etc... Someone did a favor and has to take the fall. UCLA needs to name the person on the women's side.
 
Sons of Pitches said:
Someone in the UCLA women's program at the time knew. They had to. Mahybe they don't work there anymore, maybe they still do, maybe several people knew. I would think that if it was as simple as this persosn knew, they are no longer with the program, UCLA would have made that announcement already. Someone on the Women's side has to take the fall. They can't blame Salcedo and move on. He did not have the power to have a player rostered, in the media guide, etc... Someone did a favor and has to take the fall. UCLA needs to name the person on the women's side.
Click to expand...

"needs"?
 
Grow The Game said:
I noticed that innocence wasn’t one of your speculative options. Would you be upset if nothing happens?
Click to expand...

So her name and picture appeared on the roster spontaneously? No one asked her to pose for a picture, no one assigned her a uniform number, no one published her profile in the media guide? It was elves? Notre Dame has a Leprechaun, not UCLA.

Someone in the soccer program participated.
 
Dos Equis said:
So her name and picture appeared on the roster spontaneously? No one asked her to pose for a picture, no one assigned her a uniform number, no one published her profile in the media guide? It was elves? Notre Dame has a Leprechaun, not UCLA.

Someone in the soccer program participated.
Click to expand...

That’s pretty funny but not a fact. The sports information department is in charge of the media guide so no, not elves. For all of the actual evidence that has been presented it could be you!

Regardless of the entertainment that you get by speculating. And in spite of how satisfying it might be to you personally to have something happen to the coaching staff there, nobody has anything and the emails will prove it. That is why they are sitting tight and doing what innocent people do. They go about their business and let the peanut gallery feed the elephants.

Hey if you get your rocks off by wishing people ill I think there are much better targets. But carry on if you wish, just don’t be pissed off at the team because your speculation was for naught.

Have a great day!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top