“Dad suing over son’s lack of playing time on lacrosse teams”

by Walter Olson on April 9, 2014

An attorney dad in Dallas “says a group of coaches coerced wealthy parents to pay thousands of dollars for their sons to play lacrosse”; his own son’s varsity involvement, however, proved a disappointment. His suit invokes the federal RICO (racketeering) statute. [KDFW]

{ 3 comments }

1 Carol Herman 04.09.14 at 2:06 pm

On the other hand, hear, perhaps, you can hear Barbra Streisand singing.

Imbedded in the lawsuit is a “bail and switch” gimmick where good players were substituted for poor players (who, it seems, pays the freight.) And, when the substitutions were made the poor players names were kept on the roster. Flying in other kids to use these names as pseudonyms.

Will the judge just toss this out?

2 Allison Williams 04.10.14 at 3:41 am

It becomes an issue when the better players are asked to replace the weaker players who are already on the roster. And if parents are threatened that if they didn’t pay for the academy’s private camps and training, their sons wouldn’t play on their high school teams.

3 gitarcarver 04.10.14 at 12:33 pm

It becomes an issue when the better players are asked to replace the weaker players who are already on the roster.

“Elite” and “travel” teams change rosters all the time. How is asking a better player to be on the team bad thing?

And if parents are threatened that if they didn’t pay for the academy’s private camps and training, their sons wouldn’t play on their high school teams.

I think that depends on the “threat.” If a parent is told “if you don’t have you son come to the academy he will never play on his high school team,” that is one thing. If the “threat” is “at the academy your son will learn skills that will allow him to compete for spots on the high school roster and without those skills, he won’t make the team,” that is not really a “threat.” That is a statement of fact.

I am not sure of the issue with better players replacing weaker players at “recruiting tournaments.” The defendants deny it took place, but even if it did, what benefit is it for the players, the parents, the elite team, the coaches or the private enterprise?

Do people really think that a scout or coach for a college team isn’t going to notice the difference between a kid with “Smith” on the back of his jersey who is a great midfielder a and one who is not as skilled or talented?

“Hey, Smith was shooting worm cutters off a face dodge last tournament but when I saw him in school games, he couldn’t even face dodge.” Yeah, college teams and coaches love deceptions like that. It makes no sense.

It should also be noted that the plaintiff’s son went to a DIII school, (no scholarships), played for one year, and is not on the roster this year.

It should also be noted that according to the defendant’s motion to dismiss, the plaintiff has another lawsuit in the court system over lacrosse, playing time, etc.

One must wonder if this is a case where because the father was not able to live his athletic dreams through his son, the father wants the process of defending lawsuits to be a penalty for what he perceives as an “injustice.”

Comments on this entry are closed.