Seems pretty fickle and arbitrary. They've allowed Dowling to get away with recruiting for years. We're in the middle of a pandemic. Don't understand the angle the naysayers are working with.
Arland Bruce has arrived & is practicing w/ Brody Brecht at Ankeny. FINALLY, ON OCTOBER 1, Ruled ELIGIBLE to Play.
- Thread starter Franisdaman
- Start date
Seems pretty fickle and arbitrary. They've allowed Dowling to get away with recruiting for years. We're in the middle of a pandemic. Don't understand the angle the naysayers are working with.
Black and Gold - thanks. Not sure why people are on Arland. A kid that transferred to Dowling was quoted in the paper he and his Dad are living in an apartment and his Mom and siblings are coming up for the game and weekends. Um he is somehow eligible. Arland lives with his one parent in Ankeny in a house going to schools KF practicing and can only play JV and isn’t playing varsity. Yet. I hope Monster and Legend look up the facts with other kids playing.
Zoe - the injunction is to allow him to play now. We have a hearing next week in the admin process. That is not only too long but they will take it under consideration and issue a ruling who knows when. Then if Arland is aggrieved with the ruling our appeal will be to the Court. The season will be over by the time anybody rules. That is why we filed the injunction. As Aurora could aptly and coherently espouse, this is the only real remedy we have. But who knows how the Judge will rule. Fingers crossed.
Zoe - great question. A few things that I can respond with. On an injunction, one of the elements is success on the merits so the Association would probably not look great if they keep saying he is ineligible after a Judge said he could play. Second, all the Ankeny staff wanted this cause they think it is BS especially looking at the other transfers. Third, as we will ask for quick rulings and all teams this year make the playoffs hopefully no harm no foul even if he is deemed ineligible. I would hope if the Judge grants the injunction especially with the other transfers and what is happening with Covid the association would back off. If he is ruled ineligible and I would guess with the press we would know soon Arland has said he surely wouldn’t want to jeopardize the team from winning it all. We are at the embryonic stages just trying to get him eligible. Sorry for the verbose response just trying to answer the questions.
Hkfan I really don’t think anyone is rooting against the kid. All Hawk fans want to see him be successful. I think more people are upset about trying to drum up support on the message board.
Either way I hope things work out the way they should for everyone involved.
WSC - That is totally fair. And not so much drumming up support as simply explaining the case. Anyway we are all good. And sorry for being an asshole to you in some posts. BTW I wish we had a ruling as does Arland! Regardless I think he is gonna be really good on black and gold. Not for nothing but there are rumors he is crushing it on the field.
Thanks buddy. And once again sorry for being a prick. Just a little stressful but no excuse for my comments. Still no ruling. Hopefully soon. I will say to Hawk fans this kid is really good. If he was 6 foot my guess is Saban would be in Iowa as we speak so to say. He is like Tim Dwight. Former RB that is moving to slot. And quick as hell.
@Hkfan23 . . . Just checked EDMS and read the ruling. While it is certainly far from the result that you hoped for, Judge Hanson did not hold back his thoughts about what the IHSAA should do when it considers the Bruce family's appeal of the ruling through the administrative process. That should provide some "hope" for the Bruce family that he'll be playing at some point.
And for those interested in the "legal mechanics," Judge Hanson essentially concluded that the time frames provided in the administrative process constitutes an "adequate remedy" for the Bruce family to pursue an appeal of the decision and that it was not the court's position to intervene.
Reading between the lines . . . if the appeals process was 45-60 days instead of 20 days, I think that Judge Hanson may have a different "take" on the situation. Judge Hanson also strongly suggested that the IHSAA should try to schedule the appeal ASAP.
And for those interested in the "legal mechanics," Judge Hanson essentially concluded that the time frames provided in the administrative process constitutes an "adequate remedy" for the Bruce family to pursue an appeal of the decision and that it was not the court's position to intervene.
Reading between the lines . . . if the appeals process was 45-60 days instead of 20 days, I think that Judge Hanson may have a different "take" on the situation. Judge Hanson also strongly suggested that the IHSAA should try to schedule the appeal ASAP.
Aurora give me a shout. I actually think Judge Hanson was probably (arguably) correct since we have implemented the appeal process. We swung for the fences. But I think Judge Hanson made it pretty clear on the issue of whether the Association should make him eligible. In 25 years never been happier with an adverse ruling! And we already have the appeal hearing in from of the Association (Executive Committee) next Thursday and if we lose we appeal the Court. The good thing is if we win them there won’t be eligibility questions and forfeiting down the road.
As a FYI to those who remain interested and at risk of showing off a limitation to my technical skills (pretty sure that there has to be a way that I can post a .pdf . . . but hell if I know), here's the ruling by Judge Hanson filed just before 9:00 a.m. today:
This matter came before the court on September 1, 2020, for an expedited hearing on plaintiff's motion for temporary injunction. The parties were present, in person and/or through a designated representative, and were represented by counsel of record. Having entertained the arguments of counsel, having reviewed the court file, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, the court now rules on the motion and, for the reasons stated herein, DENIES same.
The material facts are as follows. Plaintiff and her son, A.B. IV (hereinafter "ABIV"), moved to Ankeny, Iowa, from Olathe, Kansas, in August, 2020, whereupon ABIV enrolled at Ankeny High School in Ankeny, Iowa. ABIV not only intended to attend school at Ankeny High School but also to participate in the sport of football as a member of that school's varsity football team. However, on August 28, 2020, ABIV's plans to play football were derailed when plaintiff received a letter from defendant informing her that ABIV had been ruled ineligible for participation in varsity football. Said letter apparently does not state the specific reason(s) for defendant's determination that ABIV is ineligible.
ABIV can appeal defendant's decision to defendant's Executive Board, hearing on which appeal must be scheduled within twenty days. The Executive Board then must render its decision on ABIV's appeal within five business days after the hearing.
A temporary injunction is an extraordinary remedy and whether to grant one is a discretionary decision requiring, amongst other things, a showing that the party seeking same has no other adequate legal remedy. "Accordingly, if a plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law, injunctive relief as an independent remedy is not available." Lewis Investments, Inc. v. City of Iowa City, 703 N.W.2d 180, 185 (Iowa 2005). In this instance, ABIV has such a remedy in the court's estimation -- he can immediately appeal the defendant's "adjudication" as to his eligibility to defendant's Executive Board and get a relatively expeditious ruling on same. Cf. Lewis Investments, supra at 184-87.
The court recognizes that ABIV desires to play football at Ankeny High School as soon as possible, that he has already missed that school's first scheduled game, and that, as a result of this court's decision, he will miss at least one more game - possibly more - before he learns whether he will get the opportunity to play. Hopefully, defendant's Executive Board will schedule a hearing on ABIV's appeal and render its decision with regard to same as soon as possible. As stated previously, the basis of defendant's determination as to ABIV's eligibility is unclear but, to the extent it is based on defendant's rule(s) relating to ABIV's and his family's current residence, it would appear that ABIV has a meritorious argument that he should be exempted from said rule(s) and should be considered immediately eligible for participation on Ankeny High School's varsity football team. For whatever it is worth, considering the level of concern expressed both locally and nationally in recent weeks and months regarding the importance of getting students physically back into school and participating in school-related activities, including athletics, one would think that a student and that student's family, who had invested the considerable time, effort, and resources involved in leaving their previous home, where in-person school attendance and/or participation in school-related activities, including athletics, is apparently unavailable, for the State of Iowa where such opportunities ARE available, would be accorded at least that much courtesy, respect, and due process.
Having said that, the court rules on plaintiff's motion and, for all the reasons stated herein, DENIES same.
This matter came before the court on September 1, 2020, for an expedited hearing on plaintiff's motion for temporary injunction. The parties were present, in person and/or through a designated representative, and were represented by counsel of record. Having entertained the arguments of counsel, having reviewed the court file, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, the court now rules on the motion and, for the reasons stated herein, DENIES same.
The material facts are as follows. Plaintiff and her son, A.B. IV (hereinafter "ABIV"), moved to Ankeny, Iowa, from Olathe, Kansas, in August, 2020, whereupon ABIV enrolled at Ankeny High School in Ankeny, Iowa. ABIV not only intended to attend school at Ankeny High School but also to participate in the sport of football as a member of that school's varsity football team. However, on August 28, 2020, ABIV's plans to play football were derailed when plaintiff received a letter from defendant informing her that ABIV had been ruled ineligible for participation in varsity football. Said letter apparently does not state the specific reason(s) for defendant's determination that ABIV is ineligible.
ABIV can appeal defendant's decision to defendant's Executive Board, hearing on which appeal must be scheduled within twenty days. The Executive Board then must render its decision on ABIV's appeal within five business days after the hearing.
A temporary injunction is an extraordinary remedy and whether to grant one is a discretionary decision requiring, amongst other things, a showing that the party seeking same has no other adequate legal remedy. "Accordingly, if a plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law, injunctive relief as an independent remedy is not available." Lewis Investments, Inc. v. City of Iowa City, 703 N.W.2d 180, 185 (Iowa 2005). In this instance, ABIV has such a remedy in the court's estimation -- he can immediately appeal the defendant's "adjudication" as to his eligibility to defendant's Executive Board and get a relatively expeditious ruling on same. Cf. Lewis Investments, supra at 184-87.
The court recognizes that ABIV desires to play football at Ankeny High School as soon as possible, that he has already missed that school's first scheduled game, and that, as a result of this court's decision, he will miss at least one more game - possibly more - before he learns whether he will get the opportunity to play. Hopefully, defendant's Executive Board will schedule a hearing on ABIV's appeal and render its decision with regard to same as soon as possible. As stated previously, the basis of defendant's determination as to ABIV's eligibility is unclear but, to the extent it is based on defendant's rule(s) relating to ABIV's and his family's current residence, it would appear that ABIV has a meritorious argument that he should be exempted from said rule(s) and should be considered immediately eligible for participation on Ankeny High School's varsity football team. For whatever it is worth, considering the level of concern expressed both locally and nationally in recent weeks and months regarding the importance of getting students physically back into school and participating in school-related activities, including athletics, one would think that a student and that student's family, who had invested the considerable time, effort, and resources involved in leaving their previous home, where in-person school attendance and/or participation in school-related activities, including athletics, is apparently unavailable, for the State of Iowa where such opportunities ARE available, would be accorded at least that much courtesy, respect, and due process.
Having said that, the court rules on plaintiff's motion and, for all the reasons stated herein, DENIES same.
I believe Olathe North IS playing football this fall, so stating those items are unavailable might be a tad incorrect.
Legend - I knew you would surface to argue. At the time Linda and Arland moved to Iowa they were told there would not be football in Kansas. BTW any comment from you on the Dowling player who was quoted in the paper saying he and his Dad moved in from Illinois, are living in an apartment, and the Mom and siblings will be driving “the interstate” to watch him play each week. And he is playing already and is also quoted as saying he transferred to Dowling and is playing to try and get a college football offer. Arland already has an offer and lives with his only parent. Legally in Ankeny. Curious on your thoughts.
Please link the article.
Also, I am not arguing....I am pointing out that one of the judge's reasons for allowing Bruce to play may not be correct.
Is this the kid you said played at SEP? Name?
Your lack of ability to present facts coherently is probably one of the reasons Bruce can't play this week. Maybe you should recuse yourself and let a competent attorney step in.
Yep, you sure got him eligible this week.
Did you tell the judge about the terrible people on CycloneFanatic and how you want to subpoena them? I am sure that would sound sane.
Legend that is fair. And we may not exchange Christmas cards but I do respect that you are very smart. On the Dowling kid? I think his last name is Virelli. It was in the paper. I can’t link crap unless one of my kids helps. And I think there may be 2 kids from Kansas now playing in Iowa. One at Valley and one at Waukee.
Wow. Well ok Legend. And I do think Judge Hanson thought I represented the facts clear enough if you actually read the opinion and stop trying to always argue. That said, no I did not get him eligible this week for the reason the Judge outlined. But like Aurora (who is also a lawyer) said if you read that ruling and think the Judge doesn’t believe he should play don’t know what to tell you. What words did the Judge use? “Derailed” by the Association. “Meritorious.” Etc. I can’t change the current rules on timing Legend in the admin process.
Seems bad not to let the kid play but if my attorney were getting into arguments about the case on an internet message board I would look for a new attorney. This doesn't seem all that professional and in fact may hurt your client. Are you sure you represent him and if so how does you posting about it here help your client? You might want to spend some looking at the Iowa Bar Association regarding ethics. Not sure you have crossed the line here but it sure doesn't feel right
how come no one is questioning the timing of the letter delivered? why didn't they rule him ineligible a week previous? if that had happened, they could be close to the appeal already. that is the part that smells fishy.
don't really know which side is right or wrong, but I think someone had some bad intentions in this whole mess.
don't really know which side is right or wrong, but I think someone had some bad intentions in this whole mess.
Thanks Dorff. Nothing unethical about commenting on public records and correcting inaccuracies and speculation inapposite to the facts and law all which were cited by Judge Hanson. And I am not so much arguing as stating the deal. I feel really bad for the kid who bent over backwards to comply with the rules. Whatever won’t comment further hopefully he gets to play this year.
I hope he gets to play. Not certain the other players that were ruled eligible is a true comparison as we dont know their exact details. It may not be one single thing but all things taken together that caused the iahsaa to rule against him. Is his mother living hear full time or is she going back and forth? Perhaps the other kids have a parent that is living here full-time. Also, the $100 lease may be a sticking point as it is unlikely you could find anywhere realistically to rent for.rhat amount. So when other players have one parent or siblings living elsewhere, that may not be the deciding factor. Just as there isn't a magic rent amount that is acceptable vs not acceptable. It simply could be that there are just one too many gray areas that caused the decision to go against him. But the iahsaa should definitely be made to spell out their reasoning
I do think the ihsaa is going to far when they start evaluating home living conditions. Is he living in the district? Is he attending school? Is a parent living with him in the district?
Anything beyond that seems like an incredible overreach and truthfully now none of their damned business.
Anything beyond that seems like an incredible overreach and truthfully now none of their damned business.
The "Is a parent living with him" portion of that is questionable at best right now.
No, I think the suggestion might be that he is living with a family in the school district while his mother goes back and forth between Kansas and Iowa and isn't technically residing (or at least full time) in Iowa.
Legend - your concern over this with a Hawk recruit in the face of Judge Hanson’s ruling with all facts presented by both sides to him is very strange. Do you have evidence I, the other side, and the Judge don’t? Or just because you hate me? I get that you do but this is dumb. I think the Judge spoke on his “objective” position related to the facts and the case not his hate for me.
Oilchecker - maybe just maybe a better question is what did the Association do to check living arrangements on the other kids who came in from out of State that are playing? That is really a better question on their applicability of the rules. And I don’t know much but what I do know is the Judge did say he can’t even see what the reason for ineligibility ruling is based on in the Association’s letter and what they said at the hearing. So maybe that should be more a cause for concern. Obviously and thankfully after he reviewed the documents submitted by both sides (not hearsay from a guy named Legend in a different time zone) he seems to think the Association may be wrong. So I will leave it that a Judge’s thoughts are more important than my biased opinion and a keyboard warrior who hates me.
I don't know what they checked. That's part of the problem and what Arland is up against. I'm guessing there is no way the iahsaa can thoroughly vette all of these transfers so most are just given a cursory look and approved. However, if a high profile transfer takes place or someone specifically inquires about or presents info about a potential questionable transfer, they likely fee compelled to check into further. That's not necessarily fair to Arland if his transfer is scrutinized more than others but at the same time doesn't mean he doesn't have to adhere to the rules. It will be interesting to see if the iahsaa simply caves or if not, what exact reasons they give. Then also what happens if multiple other "sources" report irregularities about other transfers: is the iahsaa going to put in the same effort and resources to investigate them and apply the same reasoning for approval/denial.
