(EDIT: sorry about the thread title—my computer kept auto correcting my attempted titles to MARIE CLAIRE article :) instead of MARIA CAIRE article—the article is from the LA TIMES..I thought I fixed it but it reverted back before I posted the thread and i don’t know how to edit a thread title)
http://https://www.latimes.com/calif...sions-20190721
Forgive me if this has already been discussed on the board here somewhere, I couldn’t find anything on it. I only heard about this after listening to the Gymcastic podcast, during which Jessica declined to comment due to conflicts of interest and while Spencer did go into some detail about the controversy, he didn’t seem to have any answers or insight regarding the controversy—only questions.
I assumed initially, it was likely just a case where something Miss Val had done something for good and altruistic reasons (however unusual in a characteristically Miss Val way)—that had been misconstrued and swept into the wave of stories that has been coming out for the past few months about college applicants being unfairly admitted as student athletes, whether in exchange for some financial “gift” or other quid-pro-quo, including social/familial connection to an individual in a position to fast-track someone’s acceptance on the basis of their potential as an athletes who could contribute as a member of their team’s roster.
However, after reading the article I was really struck by some of the details that, if they are indeed true, would seem to suggest that, at best, the situation in question was one where Miss Val was aware of an applicant, because of her relationship with the applicant’s uncle, who possessed character traits/strengths with which this prospective student could contribute/or even make herself an asset as a participant within the athletic program in some form/fashion. And even though, it seems pretty evident, Miss Val would have had to have known that contribution wasn’t ever going as an athlete on the gymnastics team, she named Maria Caire as a recruit for the 2016 roster to ensure her place at UCLA, with the intention of moving her to a managerial role as early as possible (where maybe Miss Val did believe this student, for whatever reasons, could make the kind of difference that would justify the way she’d secured her admission.
At worst, I guess, Miss Val used her position to do a favor for a friend—which I know doesn’t begin to compare to similar college admissions revelations of late.
I think I just didn’t think of Miss Val as someone who would ever participate in that type of thing—in any sort of way.
I’m maybe though, as Spencer noted in the podcast, more bothered by all of attempts to suggest that this (now) manager (who, due to a health restriction revealed in pre-season medical tests, never spent a day actually practicing gymnastics with the UCLA team, which has meant that, in the absence of any official or even informal (ie. recollection of other gymnasts of this person ever having set foot in the gym where UCLA claims she’d done her training) record or her having any experience with the sport, is also without the benefit of of her fellow UCLA gymnasts from the 2016 being able to testify to having witnessed her doing gymnastics), I’m think I’m more bothered by the quotes in the article where Miss Val and the UCLA spokesperson attempt to claim this was a legitimate recruit who they believed “could help the team on vault’?? ...even comparing her to Ariana Berlin????
As Spencer mentioned, Miss Val has taken athletes on the team before who she (and they) knew would never compete, but wanted to be a part of the program, of the team, and have been valuable as they have contributed in other ways—why wouldn’t she just frame her answers to the many questions this story has raised in that sort of way? Instead of this whole pile of whatever that seems completely unbelievable...?
The whole thing is just seems really strange and inconsistent with the characterization of this legendary coach that so many gymnasts testify to.
Unless maybe there is a whole other side to what is set out in this article that I’m unaware of?
Thats why I wanted to ask about it here.
Does anyone have any more information regarding this story? Is there something that the Maria Caire article in the LA Times didn’t get right?
Marie Claire Article Re: Miss Val...What is Going On?
http://https://www.latimes.com/calif...sions-20190721
Forgive me if this has already been discussed on the board here somewhere, I couldn’t find anything on it. I only heard about this after listening to the Gymcastic podcast, during which Jessica declined to comment due to conflicts of interest and while Spencer did go into some detail about the controversy, he didn’t seem to have any answers or insight regarding the controversy—only questions.
I assumed initially, it was likely just a case where something Miss Val had done something for good and altruistic reasons (however unusual in a characteristically Miss Val way)—that had been misconstrued and swept into the wave of stories that has been coming out for the past few months about college applicants being unfairly admitted as student athletes, whether in exchange for some financial “gift” or other quid-pro-quo, including social/familial connection to an individual in a position to fast-track someone’s acceptance on the basis of their potential as an athletes who could contribute as a member of their team’s roster.
However, after reading the article I was really struck by some of the details that, if they are indeed true, would seem to suggest that, at best, the situation in question was one where Miss Val was aware of an applicant, because of her relationship with the applicant’s uncle, who possessed character traits/strengths with which this prospective student could contribute/or even make herself an asset as a participant within the athletic program in some form/fashion. And even though, it seems pretty evident, Miss Val would have had to have known that contribution wasn’t ever going as an athlete on the gymnastics team, she named Maria Caire as a recruit for the 2016 roster to ensure her place at UCLA, with the intention of moving her to a managerial role as early as possible (where maybe Miss Val did believe this student, for whatever reasons, could make the kind of difference that would justify the way she’d secured her admission.
At worst, I guess, Miss Val used her position to do a favor for a friend—which I know doesn’t begin to compare to similar college admissions revelations of late.
I think I just didn’t think of Miss Val as someone who would ever participate in that type of thing—in any sort of way.
I’m maybe though, as Spencer noted in the podcast, more bothered by all of attempts to suggest that this (now) manager (who, due to a health restriction revealed in pre-season medical tests, never spent a day actually practicing gymnastics with the UCLA team, which has meant that, in the absence of any official or even informal (ie. recollection of other gymnasts of this person ever having set foot in the gym where UCLA claims she’d done her training) record or her having any experience with the sport, is also without the benefit of of her fellow UCLA gymnasts from the 2016 being able to testify to having witnessed her doing gymnastics), I’m think I’m more bothered by the quotes in the article where Miss Val and the UCLA spokesperson attempt to claim this was a legitimate recruit who they believed “could help the team on vault’?? ...even comparing her to Ariana Berlin????
As Spencer mentioned, Miss Val has taken athletes on the team before who she (and they) knew would never compete, but wanted to be a part of the program, of the team, and have been valuable as they have contributed in other ways—why wouldn’t she just frame her answers to the many questions this story has raised in that sort of way? Instead of this whole pile of whatever that seems completely unbelievable...?
The whole thing is just seems really strange and inconsistent with the characterization of this legendary coach that so many gymnasts testify to.
Unless maybe there is a whole other side to what is set out in this article that I’m unaware of?
Thats why I wanted to ask about it here.
Does anyone have any more information regarding this story? Is there something that the Maria Caire article in the LA Times didn’t get right?
