Cal State Long Beach cheerleading team stripped of title amid cheating scandal [Updated]
[Corrected, 5:30 p.m.: A previous version of this post misspelled the word "cheerleading" in the headline.]
The Cal State Long Beach cheerleading team forfeited its national title and its coach was fired after an administrator discovered that a former student competed with the team, officials said Wednesday.
The nationally recognized team competed April 9 and 10 at the National Cheerleaders Assn.’s competition in Daytona Beach, Fla., and won the title for its division.
But the non-student who competed had graduated in December and was ineligible to participate, said Christina L. Esparza, communications coordinator for Associated Students Inc. at Cal State Long Beach.
The non-student’s participation was revealed after the team’s advisor noticed him while watching a video of the performance.
The school has terminated its contract with Coach Eric Anderson, who had been with the team for 10 years, Esparza said.
“It’s unfortunate,” she said. “The team is a fantastic team, and I believe we would have won the championship anyway.... I just hope we come back strong.”
ALSO:
Major League Baseball takes over financial control of the Dodgers
TV chef Jamie Oliver may get into L.A.'s public school cafeterias after all
GOP official apologizes for email picturing Obama as a chimpanzee but refuses to resign
-- Paloma Esquivel








Oh wow! I mean really. This is as bad as having Mom misspelled in your tattoo.
Posted by: james Singer | April 20, 2011 at 04:13 PM
Doh!! I did it again got exited before I read the hole heading. Then I realized what the heading meant when I read the article. I thought it read "Cal State Long Beach cheerleeding team stripped"
Posted by: Galaxian | April 20, 2011 at 04:19 PM
What next? Use of spirit-enhancing drugs?
Posted by: michael | April 20, 2011 at 04:40 PM
Hilarious! Cheerleading cheaters! And WHY does anyone care.... I guess they don't since I am posting the only comment! HA!
Posted by: tom1201 | April 20, 2011 at 05:14 PM
a non-student? hahhaha
Posted by: c | April 20, 2011 at 05:41 PM
classic!! just what the "sport" of cheerleading deserves. hilarious!
Posted by: brianguy | April 20, 2011 at 07:26 PM
Does anybody (aside from the cheerleaders and their families) give 2 cents about this "news"?
Posted by: Mark | April 20, 2011 at 07:40 PM
Somewhere in TV land, Sue Sylvester is snickering...
Posted by: oakley | April 20, 2011 at 07:46 PM
The Cheating Cheerleaders...sounds like one of those swinging 1970s flicks !!
Posted by: Ken F. | April 20, 2011 at 07:56 PM
Someone lost their job over this? I small politics.
Posted by: LAUSD Teacher | April 20, 2011 at 08:31 PM
Competitive cheerleading is SO interesting.....................to the teams, coaches, and families of the competitors............and no one else.
This article is the most interesting article I have ever read about competitive cheerleading...........yawn. Now can we get back to "real" sports?
Posted by: flylowguy | April 21, 2011 at 07:32 AM
It is nice to see that the cheerleading department at Cal State Long Beach has greater ethical integrity than the Ohio State football program.
Posted by: john1959 | April 21, 2011 at 08:15 AM
Another example of pride and covetousness.....a reflection of our society.
Posted by: Ironboots | April 21, 2011 at 09:10 AM
I, personally, think it is admirable they foreited when they found out. Some would have waited til they were outed by someone else
Posted by: 4thelaw | April 21, 2011 at 09:40 AM
Is the girl inelligable because she graduated in December? How does the requirements read? Must be a current student or something else. My daughter (not a sports participant) finish classes in December 2009 but walked for graduation in May 2010. She was classified as a student until May 2010.
Posted by: traciegirl | April 21, 2011 at 10:43 AM
Just wanted to say it is refreshing that honesty and integrity are being upheld here. All actions/decisions have consequences, an important lesson in college - and in life. Good luck to the team in future competitions.
Posted by: melody_rn | April 21, 2011 at 10:45 AM
I think he should have been allowed to compete, if he hadn't technically graduated (May ceremony).
Posted by: Lynne P | April 21, 2011 at 11:05 AM
It is nice to see that a team is honest enough as a unit to do the fair and right thing. Down right refreshing. Good luck next year!!
Posted by: Jim Kennedy | April 21, 2011 at 01:36 PM
What team will now become the champion?
Posted by: Roger Cook | April 21, 2011 at 02:35 PM
Stephen F. Austin was given the title after this.
NCA Rules read that students must be full time (12 credits) and that they must following guidelines set forth by the school they attend. Some schools require certain GPAs, some do not...etc. What I don't understand is that the school has to sign a form with the athletes names and credit hours. So the school goofed too; not just the coach.
And PS. If you all don't care, why comment?
Posted by: CheerCoach | April 22, 2011 at 11:10 AM
hahaaa I would LOVE to see anyone who is not a cheerleader compete in a cheer comp. Then will see how much you think its 'not' a sport. Amitures.
Posted by: newcomb | April 23, 2011 at 12:30 AM
finally a group of sportsman wo are honest.......now lets see the rest of the sports use this as an example of good sportsmanship. But alas we know the boys never will.
Posted by: pat dillion | April 23, 2011 at 02:33 AM
I love the honesty, you have to give them credit for that
Posted by: Malou | April 23, 2011 at 02:46 AM
If competitive cheer had been deemed a sport and thus sponsored by the NCAA the cheerleader would probably been eligible even though she was not attending classes. There is a NCAA bylaw that enables student-athletes the ability to compete for a certain amount of days (a grace period) if their sport's championship season is not completed before they finish all of their required courses; this is the bylaw that permits graduating senior baseball players the opportunity to play in the playoffs.
Posted by: CE | April 23, 2011 at 03:37 AM
The comments are because the article was showcased by popular websites such as MSN.com. Often folks will click and read the headlines posted at these sites, since the articles are typically interesting and newsworthy. In today's fast paced society, it is disappointing to be pointed to an article that one may consider a waste of their time to read. I think these folks are just stating that this was one of those articles.
Posted by: Iko Iko Ahnay | April 23, 2011 at 04:43 AM