« You don't win votes by calling voters at 2 in the morning | Main | Homeless man defecates in the middle of McDonald's »
Boy banned from youth football league after mom speaks out
The mother talked to a newspaper about three youth football league coaches who have criminal records that include drug charges, weapons offenses and prison time. Now her son can't play and her hubby's banned from coaching in the league. (St. Petersburg Times)
November 2, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
Another story that smells of shit.
The dumb bitch should have address the people that hired the coaches, not run her ass off to the paper and bitch. She didn't even tell her son or husband what she was up to.
Just because someone has a criminal background does not make them a bad person. A lot of people did stupid shit when they where younger and managed to turn their lives around.
I feel bad for her son but this dumb bitch brought all this onto herself and her family.
Posted by: The Asshole Guy | Nov 2, 2007 7:01:52 AM
TAG:
I agree she went to the wrong place. I know she didn't, but what if she went to the organization and they told her to shut up? Do parents have the right to know?
I also agree that anyone can change, and their past may even make them a better example of putting things right.
But I did check that other link - a total of 45 arrests between them? One 12 times in 13 years?
Posted by: stopeatingmysesamecake | Nov 2, 2007 7:08:59 AM
I agree that just because someone has a criminal background does not make them a bad person. But I do have a lot of questions - did the organization not do a proper background check themselves? Or did they do a background check but decided to withhold the information? I don't think the coaches should be forced to wear an arm band that says "criminal record", but was the info readily available for any parents that cared to find out?
Plus, for the sake of argument, let's concede that the woman was out of line (though I'm still on the fence about that) - that still doesn't justify punishing an innocent kid that just wants to play football, or her husband, who had nothing to do with her actions.
Also, was there other stuff going on between the mom and the rest of the board that would lead to the accusation of her "obvious strong hatred, disgust and negativity about this organization"?
Posted by: elchampino | Nov 2, 2007 7:15:22 AM
SEMSC if she had gone to the proper organization and they told her to shut up then I can understand her taking it to the press but she did not.
I don't know these men and I'm not going to accuse them of being bad people because they have been arrested in the past.
The mother is in the wrong in how she handled it. She turned a mole hill into a mountain.
Posted by: The Asshole Guy | Nov 2, 2007 7:15:49 AM
Why punish the child for what they perceive to be the mother's offenses? It doesn't make any sense to me. Also, I think I agree with her...drug offenses, weapons charges, etc. are these the adults you want to be exposing your children to???
Posted by: Someone | Nov 2, 2007 7:16:27 AM
All she did is look at public records. I agree that she took the information to the wrong place, but if the football league is so worried about people finding out about a criminal hired by a child based organization they should do some CIA shit and have the records blacked out b/c anyone can go to the Sheriff's Dept website and pull up anyone's criminal record.
Posted by: chassiddy | Nov 2, 2007 7:17:33 AM
What's really troubling about this is that the football league retaliated against the kid for something his Mom did. Regardless of whether you think Mom is a heroic whistleblower or a noisy blabbermouth, the league should have left the kid alone and let him play out the season. He's innocent of anything his parents may have done.
Posted by: Phranqlin | Nov 2, 2007 7:17:47 AM
Interesting to read the comments. Many seem to be sticking up for the league. While it might be okay to have felons (or whatever) as coaches, the behavior of the league seems to be nazi.
Posted by: Janky | Nov 2, 2007 7:19:10 AM
I agree that there seems to be alot of information missing regarding this story. But one thing is very clear - ex convicts with records of weapons charges and drug charges do not belong around young children without a background check and perhaps not even then. I do believe that people can change and become better people and even role models for kids, but something is fishy here.....
45 arrests between them seems like alot. What were they all for? How long ago did they happen? When were the most recent arrests? This is all information that should be used to determine whether these coaches should be allowed to coach these children.
Posted by: JillyBean2024 | Nov 2, 2007 7:21:12 AM
I'm not sticking up for anyone in this story. As I said, I only feel bad for the child. This kind of bullshit between parents and coaches always cause the kid to suffer and nobody else.
This story is the kind that has 3 sides.
1. Her side
2. Their side
3. The truth
Posted by: The Asshole Guy | Nov 2, 2007 7:22:40 AM
It's always best just to blame the messenger, that's what I always say...
Posted by: Mark | Nov 2, 2007 7:23:02 AM
She did not take the information to the wrong place. Corporations and organizations have turned into whiny little b*tches. Corporations and Organizations need to stand up for themselves and the news media should and will expose their shenanigans.
45 arrests is out of line. In my son's programs the YMCA promised us that none of the coaches have been arrested for anything after age 18 and they all passed background checks.
In my job where I never see children I have to pass a background check every four years. If I were to get arrested I would have to call our security team within 24 hours. That is what real jobs are like people, don't settle for less for your kids.
No one can ever do the wrong thing by going to the media with the truth. Slander and lies, that's a problem, but clearly this league has major management issues.
Posted by: DCer | Nov 2, 2007 7:25:27 AM
I agree with El Champs thoughts on this one.
Thanks for that, saves me from typing it all out myself
Posted by: Cherie | Nov 2, 2007 7:43:52 AM
I think that I would have brought it to the league and when they did nothing, taken it to the papers. Then, I would say, "Hey son, have you heard of this sport called soccer..."
Posted by: Sigh | Nov 2, 2007 7:55:42 AM
Now let's get this straight -- YOU guys missed
Some coach crimes, but you slap MY wrist?
I just want to play
In the playoffs, OK?
But Mom got you thoroughly pissed.
Posted by: KC | Nov 2, 2007 8:32:57 AM
I do wonder what prompted her to look into the coaches backgrounds.
Was it something the coaches said or did that cued her they might not be ok?
Was it normal behavior for her to investigate the background of all coaches her son might ever come into contact with?
Was she mad at the organization for something and decided to investigate?
While her motives don't mitigate the fact that the coaches had criminal backgrounds, it might speak to the nature of her and her family's relationship with the organization prior to the discovery and hence to their actions in removing the son from play and the husband from coaching.
Posted by: Kghoti | Nov 2, 2007 8:38:13 AM
Why is taking her concerns to the media the wrong choice? What is wrong with that? Newspapers report information, she gave them some. It's weird how people seem to support what amounts to cover ups and back room deals.
Posted by: Allen | Nov 2, 2007 8:43:28 AM
I skimmed the article, but I don't think it said whether she talked to league first or not.
The reaction by the league makes me think she was right in going to the media first. If she had gone to the league first, they could have banned her son and it would be her word against theirs. This way, the article and (seemingly) subsequent ban make me think the league is up to no good.
The pictures show black men, how many of those arrests stuck when the charges got in front of a judge? Doesn't seem to be many.
I need more information.
Posted by: Sean, Torrington CT | Nov 2, 2007 9:01:09 AM
if the criminal records had revealed sex offenders would the outcome have been different?
Posted by: vance rogers | Nov 2, 2007 9:11:23 AM
Asshole Guy fails again. But what do you expect from someone whose main rhetorical skill is name-calling.
Posted by: | Nov 2, 2007 10:09:24 AM
Don't take this wrong, but seeing an anonymous poster take swipes at regulars here is growing tiresome.
Posted by: Wolf | Nov 2, 2007 10:18:15 AM
Asshole Guy fails again. But what do you expect from someone whose main rhetorical skill is name-calling.
Is that better, Wolf?
Posted by: made-up-name | Nov 2, 2007 10:31:21 AM
As long as you're consistent.
Posted by: Wolf | Nov 2, 2007 10:33:21 AM
I won't weigh in on the mother's actions either, but this league is way out of line in my opinion. They say that her actions "could cause disruption as we are trying to mold these kids into positive members of society". Isn't that pretty hipocritical? If they wanted to mold the players into positive members of society they would teach them that covering up the truth is not the way to go, but being honest AND giving people second chances is the best thing you can do. (please don't rant to me that it's not always the best thing. i know. but in this case it sounds like it is). Now they're teaching them that honesty (or the honesty of your parents) gets you kicked out. Sounds like great teaching.
The admins of this league should all go to their rooms for a while and think about what they've done.
Posted by: pirate wench | Nov 2, 2007 10:33:40 AM
also, how do you spell hipocritical? hang on.
hypocritical. there we go. i was too lazy to use spell check at first, but my anal-ness got the best of me.
Posted by: pirate wench | Nov 2, 2007 10:35:30 AM
