CWC either knew about ineligible player, or should haveNov 29, 2012 Jim Debrandt, Riverton
After reading the letter to the editor from Richard May commenting on the volleyball team penalty and probation for having a professional player on the team, I must disagree with some of it.
To me, this was the perfect, right time to bring this out into the open -- before the team went into the postseason tournaments and potentially robbed a legitimate team for having a chance at success in the tournament.
When we get to the point where we are saying that exposure of dishonesty in our public college's volleyball program is "jealousy" or a "personal vendetta," I say we are really missing the point.
This was cheating. Call it what it is. It was a major violation of the rules. It was dishonest, and it gave the CWC team an unfair advantage.
And think about this also. It kept girls who weren't cheating from having their chance to play. It was going on for years, apparently. And then this same girl was kept on as an assistant coach? It makes me suspicious, I'll tell you that.
Bringing this out into the open and exposing it so that a stop could be put to it was the right thing to do. Otherwise, we can assume it would just have kept right on going. There are no two ways about it.
If someone calls the police to report a bank robber, is that a "personal vendetta" or "jealousy"? No. It is doing the right thing. I am not for one second saying that this cheating on the volleyball team was a crime like a bank robbery, but it was against the rules. It had to be stopped, which is why the governing body that rules volleyball slapped CWC pretty hard on this.
Do not blame the whistleblower. I think somebody's head should roll because of this. They either knew about this or else they should have.