Is CCS allowing Coaches to Use Social Media for Competitive Advantage?

Are coaches using social media to spy on other programs, intimidate athletes, recruit ,  gain competitive advantage or  provide false information to CCS ?

This issue has been raised in the review of eligibility Case #51 that was decided by Ms. Blaser in the Central Coast Section.  We have also found that CCS officials may have failed to act properly and fairly in their review of this case and that may have had  a significant impact on a CCS Championships. On behalf of those who are reluctant to come forward to bring attention to this matter for the greater good, we asked CCS to provide the grievance policy available to athletes and their families when a complaint  is related to CCS officials, member schools or coaches. 

CCS hired legal counsel to respond to our request and stated that they are not legally obligated to provide information to  CCS Watchdog as our group does not meet the legal definition of “member of the public” .  Will schools now have to pay for CCS lawyers to answer their questions?  What about morally? What about those public relations funds CCS spends each year? 

Evidence supports that this issue may be wide spread and indicative of improper conduct within CCS. It is a” greater good ” issue and individual athletes may have been denied eligibility to keep issues such as these from coming  forward. If coaches are using social media to recruit or give a team a competitive advantage, that is wrong. It is not transparent.  If athletes are being stalked by coaches who are using social media to intimidate an athlete  from another school or construct  an advantage , that is wrong. If CCS relies on , subjective  information that is improperly obtained or not objectively supported, that is wrong. 

CCS should have in their policies and procedures a “Chinese Wall” for  when conflicts of interest may be present. We have been asking CIF/CCS  to provide evidence that such consideration exists to confirm that procedures are in fact   “neutral” as they claim. CCS and CIF have not provided any evidence that support such policies or procedures exist. It is not available on any public information CCS or CIF have pointed to.   If a Section Commissioner has been allowed to determine eligibility and sanctions  for schools where she has personal interests or relationships and it is found she did not act in a similar fashion where she does not have these relationships, it not only may be wrong, it may be criminal.  Are CCS legal fees being used to allow improper conduct? 

As always we invite CIF and CCS to point to formal and informal documents that demonstrate the all CCS stakeholders truly have access to a fair and “neutral” process as CIF states to our California State Legislators.  We also invite Ms. Blaser to comment, clarify or provide any information to clarify any issues raised in this forum.  All information provided by Ms. Blaser will be published , unaltered , on this site.  We  will continue to investigate for the greater good of CCS athletes, member schools, families and communities in California’s Central Coast Section.  Please bring your personal eligibility questions to us at:


About ccswatchdog
Grassroots organization providing information to ensure fairness, transparency and accountability of CIF's Central Coast Section.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: