Sign in to follow this  
N.E. Brigand

Why would a corps ever find it "Justify"-able to use an overaged member?

Recommended Posts

I've just been reading this news about the horse that won the Kentucky Derby, Preakness, and Belmont in 2018:

Justify Failed a Drug Test Before Winning the Triple Crown

For those without time to read a long article, here's how one commentator (a different writer at the same paper) summarized it:

"To recap: (1) horse fails drug test for performance enhancing drug; (2) horse is supposed to miss Kentucky Derby; (3) drug test buried by officials who have a financial stake; (4) horse wins Derby; (5) horse's breeding rights are sold for $60 million."

My first thought is: how many lawsuits are going to come out of this? Not just the people who bought the tainted horse. How many millions were lost by all the other owners whose horses finished lower than they otherwise would have? What about all the people who lost money gambling? Do they have a stake? Do the people who won have to give their winnings back? (I don't gamble and have no idea how the laws around gambling work.)

My second thought is: thank goodness the stakes are much lower in drum corps. But there has been a lawsuit or two through the years, I believe, or at least the threat of a suit by corps who felt they were wrongly disqualified. (Right?) And such penalties have been imposed, if I recall correctly, on corps who used overage members. The two most famous cases were the Muchachos in 1975 and the Bridgemen in 1977. And the other well-known instance was Santa Clara Vanguard in 1989, which was one of their championship-winning seasons, but they escaped punishment by self-reporting to DCI as soon as they discovered that two of their members had provided forged documents and immediately expelling them. (Just before Prelims, wasn't it?) And nowadays corps are much more careful about documentation.

Still that leads me to this question: even if they thought they could get away with it, how much on-field advantage would a corps really get these days from using one or more overage members? If, for example, Bluecoats had sneaked a couple 23-year-olds into their show, would they really have been able to beat Blue Devils this year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, N.E. Brigand said:

Still that leads me to this question: even if they thought they could get away with it, how much on-field advantage would a corps really get these days from using one or more overage members?

I'd think it wouldn't make that much of an actual difference if it was one or a few. If it was a systemic orchestrated conspiracy with a bunch of members they'd never be able to hide it or keep it secret for long. 

Edited by kkrepps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, N.E. Brigand said:

I've just been reading this news about the horse that won the Kentucky Derby, Preakness, and Belmont in 2018:

Justify Failed a Drug Test Before Winning the Triple Crown

For those without time to read a long article, here's how one commentator (a different writer at the same paper) summarized it:

"To recap: (1) horse fails drug test for performance enhancing drug; (2) horse is supposed to miss Kentucky Derby; (3) drug test buried by officials who have a financial stake; (4) horse wins Derby; (5) horse's breeding rights are sold for $60 million."

My first thought is: how many lawsuits are going to come out of this? Not just the people who bought the tainted horse. How many millions were lost by all the other owners whose horses finished lower than they otherwise would have? What about all the people who lost money gambling? Do they have a stake? Do the people who won have to give their winnings back? (I don't gamble and have no idea how the laws around gambling work.)

My second thought is: thank goodness the stakes are much lower in drum corps. But there has been a lawsuit or two through the years, I believe, or at least the threat of a suit by corps who felt they were wrongly disqualified. (Right?) And such penalties have been imposed, if I recall correctly, on corps who used overage members. The two most famous cases were the Muchachos in 1975 and the Bridgemen in 1977. And the other well-known instance was Santa Clara Vanguard in 1989, which was one of their championship-winning seasons, but they escaped punishment by self-reporting to DCI as soon as they discovered that two of their members had provided forged documents and immediately expelling them. (Just before Prelims, wasn't it?) And nowadays corps are much more careful about documentation.

Still that leads me to this question: even if they thought they could get away with it, how much on-field advantage would a corps really get these days from using one or more overage members? If, for example, Bluecoats had sneaked a couple 23-year-olds into their show, would they really have been able to beat Blue Devils this year?

As I understand it, 1977 Bridgemen never had an overage member on the field.  They had several long-time members that year who turned 22 while on tour, and the Corps had alternates ready to put in the day they turned 22.  Apparently DCI was checking age at some early show & that was how it all started.  This is why the rules now say 'you have to be 21 on x date to be eligible to march that season' 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, N.E. Brigand said:

Still that leads me to this question: even if they thought they could get away with it, how much on-field advantage would a corps really get these days from using one or more overage members?

None whatsoever, in my opinion.

So many talented, dedicated 20-21 year-olds... why would a DCI corps ever need an overage member these days?

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, N.E. Brigand said:

I've just been reading this news about the horse that won the Kentucky Derby, Preakness, and Belmont in 2018:

Justify Failed a Drug Test Before Winning the Triple Crown

For those without time to read a long article, here's how one commentator (a different writer at the same paper) summarized it:

"To recap: (1) horse fails drug test for performance enhancing drug; (2) horse is supposed to miss Kentucky Derby; (3) drug test buried by officials who have a financial stake; (4) horse wins Derby; (5) horse's breeding rights are sold for $60 million."

My first thought is: how many lawsuits are going to come out of this? Not just the people who bought the tainted horse. How many millions were lost by all the other owners whose horses finished lower than they otherwise would have? What about all the people who lost money gambling? Do they have a stake? Do the people who won have to give their winnings back? (I don't gamble and have no idea how the laws around gambling work.)

My second thought is: thank goodness the stakes are much lower in drum corps. But there has been a lawsuit or two through the years, I believe, or at least the threat of a suit by corps who felt they were wrongly disqualified. (Right?) And such penalties have been imposed, if I recall correctly, on corps who used overage members. The two most famous cases were the Muchachos in 1975 and the Bridgemen in 1977. And the other well-known instance was Santa Clara Vanguard in 1989, which was one of their championship-winning seasons, but they escaped punishment by self-reporting to DCI as soon as they discovered that two of their members had provided forged documents and immediately expelling them. (Just before Prelims, wasn't it?) And nowadays corps are much more careful about documentation.

Still that leads me to this question: even if they thought they could get away with it, how much on-field advantage would a corps really get these days from using one or more overage members? If, for example, Bluecoats had sneaked a couple 23-year-olds into their show, would they really have been able to beat Blue Devils this year?

There were way many more than just a few corps in the 70s....75 for instance , after what happened to Hawthorne M. finals corps closed holes and some just looked like swiss cheese. I do remember when I aged out  and teaching there were several people I marched with or friends with in other corps ( my age ) still marching which made me go HMMMMMMMMMM..lol

Edited by GUARDLING
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Fran Haring said:

None whatsoever, in my opinion.

So many talented, dedicated 20-21 year-olds... why would a DCI corps ever need an overage member these days?

Today I would agree. Many reasons some did it BITD.

Maybe not good reasons but many of them..lol

Edited by GUARDLING
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, GUARDLING said:

Today I would agree. Many reasons some did it BITD.

Maybe not good reasons but many of them..lol

Absolutely... all sorts of reasons back in the day. Perhaps even some excuses.  LOL.

Heck, even my local-circuit junior corps had overage members. But in our case, I can certify that it didn't do us any good. :tongue:

Edited by Fran Haring
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

easier to hide back then. in todays social media world, no way it stays hidden

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“But mister, I identify as a 21 year old.”

”Well then can you at least move your walker out of the way?”

  • Like 2
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, N.E. Brigand said:

Still that leads me to this question: even if they thought they could get away with it, how much on-field advantage would a corps really get these days from using one or more overage members? If, for example, Bluecoats had sneaked a couple 23-year-olds into their show, would they really have been able to beat Blue Devils this year?

Today, when top corps audition hundreds of 18-21 year olds from all over the globe and pick the best among them, there is no need.  Back when no one fielded a full corps, memberships ranged from 12 to 21 in age, corps members had to be local, and few brought prior experience/established talent the day they signed up, there was a much greater temptation to keep a key performer a little longer.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.