Bob984 Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 Sure you're not confusing them with Crossmen? IIRC, Muchachos (75) and Bridgemen (77) were hit during DCI Week and Crossmen while at a regular season show (76). Maybe another reasons why KansasDC had to fork over the ID after every show lot of corps were worried they would be next. sorry, but you are not quite right, here.....and while I am at it, I thought that I would clear up some of the original poster's questions..... The Hawthorne Muchachos performed and competed at DCI prelims in Philly, and were then disqualified immediately after their performance. Very infamous, as everyone wants to know "the score". The sheets/tapes may have been destroyed, but all judges keep totes with EVERY competitor's numbers, so it wouldn't be hard to do, even today, if all are still around. I'm sure that most involved will simply declare ("I don't remember what I gave them", or "I don't keep old tote sheets lying around") I understand that the Muchachos were fully aware of their age status, and there were many there...... From what I was told, the Cavaliers claimed the foul..... The Crossmen were disqualified at the Sevierville, Tn. show in 1976. An individual involved with a low-ranking corps actually flew down there from Phila. with the claim. The Crossmen director admitted that he knew, and it was poor judgement. Not to defend the action, but the Crossmen were not the only corps....but they were caught......interesting that everyone ever caught was an eastern corps......the corps was "lined up" for age check multiple times in 77....... The Bridgemen......I sympathize with this one.....supposedly they misinterpreted the rule....the rule stated that a member had to be 21 the entire DCI season. Bridgemen stated that they had no intentions of marching anyone over 21.....they had a few players that they were supposed to be replacing after they turned 21 on tour.......it seems legit, as they did not march any blanks and had competent replacements step in. The individuals in question were to turn 22 during the season, but did not march any show overage to my knowledge. They were "called out" by Phantom. Bridgemen were told that they couldn't compete in finals, and were disqualified, but got a court injunction to do so. A vote was cast by board members regarding finals/disqualification....the result was not unanimous.....I know that they were "dumped" in finals...yes, a "directive".......as they were quite good, and right in the hunt in3rd in prelims......and "a distant 4th" i finals.... SCV....cut and dry fraud by the British members..........not SCV's fault.........even if they had marched finals, I think they (SCV) would have been exhonorated........ eventually, (not exactly sure when) DCI became very particular about birth certificates/age documentation on all marching members of every corps. It wasn't right in the early days (nor would it be now), but there were overage members.........corps were breaking the rule.....ironically, there were "checks" and "accusations" for many years........ GB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
84BDsop Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 eventually, (not exactly sure when) DCI became very particular about birth certificates/age documentation on all marching members of every corps. Probably after Bmen...I remember providing my birth cert in 84. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanAndreasen Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 I knew Mark from his earliest corps days back when he marched with the Caversham Ambassadors. He did indeed make some good friends in SCV. He and Dave Oster (snare) are, I believe, still buddies. The last time I saw Mark was the summer of 90. I was back in the UK to visit my parents and took in a corps show in London. There he was parading around in an SCV membership jacket. I must admit I was pretty P'd off at the time and avoided talking to him. I was mostly angry that every overseas marcher would hence forth be under suspicion. On my first trip to the US in 83 I toured/voluteered with a corps for three weeks just for the experience of being around corps. I was 22 and was offered a contra spot. I turned the director down saying "Are you kidding? All of the Dagenham Crusaders know who I am." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradrick Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 SCV....cut and dry fraud by the British members..........not SCV's fault.........even if they had marched finals, I think they (SCV) would have been exhonorated........ Thank you for that. I'm just glad that none of the legitimate 89 SCV corps has to live in the shadow of having our championship week performances tainted with those two guys being part of the show. (And I'm certain G.R. felt the same.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradrick Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 I knew Mark from his earliest corps days back when he marched with the Caversham Ambassadors. He did indeed make some good friends in SCV. He and Dave Oster (snare) are, I believe, still buddies. The last time I saw Mark was the summer of 90. I was back in the UK to visit my parents and took in a corps show in London. There he was parading around in an SCV membership jacket. I must admit I was pretty P'd off at the time and avoided talking to him. I was mostly angry that every overseas marcher would hence forth be under suspicion.(snip) That makes me sad. Even after 20 years. It's too bad someone didn't think to confiscate his member jacket before turning him out in in Ohio. The "Vanguard" thing to do would probably have been to give him back the money he'd paid for it - but I'm not sure if anyone would have felt that nice in the moment. (But, I guess you don't really buy your jacket from the corps directly. You buy it from whoever does the embroidery. Still... wish that had happened though.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 (edited) sorry, but you are not quite right, here.....and while I am at it, I thought that I would clear up some of the original poster's questions..... What did I mess up (guessing Bridgemen). Just reporting different years and Crossmen were penalized during the regular season but couldn't remember how it affected the rest of their season. My only info was from a Drum Corps News article and can't remember seeing anything else about them. Also remember B-men went to court which was not resolved until Finals was over so maybe I mislead with my comments. And yes was wierd about thre Northeast corps only a few hours drive from each other. 1978 we were wondering who was going to be hit next. Edited December 15, 2009 by JimF-3rdBari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drumno5 Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 The Bridgemen...I know that they were "dumped" in finals...yes, a "directive".....GB There's verifiable proof of this? Fred O. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHRISP Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 Les Eclipses were disqualified in 84. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob984 Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 There's verifiable proof of this?Fred O. Not verifiable...I'm not going to get into it here, and start a 50,000 response post.....but my source of info was VERY high (still is) and told me point blank that a "directive" was given.........obviously, not in writing, so there is no physical proof....yes, there will be those who say no way, new panel, etc., etc.......obviously, those who received the directive will say nothing, nor will the individual who gave it, so no, it is not "verifiable". Take a look at the numbers, though....... I could give names and more details, but since I have no physical proof (only what was said verbally), it means nothing..............this was about as hard as they could go without things being ridiculously evident.... ordinals......marching......perc.......brass.......effect......total prelims BD 3-2-3-1 91.05 Ph 1-6-1T-5 90.70 BR 4-5-1T-2 90.40 SCV 2-10-5-2 89.85 finals BD 3-1-1-1 92.05 PH 2-8-2-2 90.3 SCV 1-7-4-3 89.85 BR 8-4-6-4 87.85 Some interesting ones.....1st to 6th in brass.....4th to 8th in visual.....2nd to 4th in total GE and GE subordinals were: prelims: 3-2-2 finals: 5-3-3 Score change: prelims to finals: BD+1 PH -.4 SCV same BR -2.55 Bridgemen were .75 from the top in prelims They were 4.2 points down in finals GB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob984 Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 Not verifiable...I'm not going to get into it here, and start a 50,000 response post.....but my source of infowas VERY high (still is) and told me point blank that a "directive" was given.........obviously, not in writing, so there is no physical proof....yes, there will be those who say no way, new panel, etc., etc.......obviously, those who received the directive will say nothing, nor will the individual who gave it, so no, it is not "verifiable". Take a look at the numbers, though....... I could give names and more details, but since I have no physical proof (only what was said verbally), it means nothing..............this was about as hard as they could go without things being ridiculously evident.... ordinals......marching......perc.......brass.......effect......total prelims BD 3-2-3-1 91.05 Ph 1-6-1T-5 90.70 BR 4-5-1T-2 90.40 SCV 2-10-5-2 89.85 finals BD 3-1-1-1 92.05 PH 2-8-2-2 90.3 SCV 1-7-4-3 89.85 BR 8-4-6-4 87.85 Some interesting ones.....1st to 6th in brass.....4th to 8th in visual.....2nd to 4th in total GE and GE subordinals were: prelims: 3-2-2 finals: 5-3-3 Score change: prelims to finals: BD+1 PH -.4 SCV same BR -2.55 Bridgemen were .75 from the top in prelims They were 4.2 points down in finals GB correction..... .65 down in prelims (it would be nice if my math skills were better) GB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.