The case of Maori Davenport shows why 'amateurism' is a bankrupt concept

Back in 1992, two yutes, Bill Gambini and Stan Rothenstein, pulled their metallic, mint green 1964 Buick Skylark up to the Sac-O-Suds convenience store in Beechum County, Alabama. Inside, Bill mistakenly shoplifted a can of tuna fish which leads to him being mistakenly charged with murder (and Rothenstein accessory to murder) in the later death of the store clerk, in part because of a poorly punctuated confession.

“I shot the clerk? I shot the clerk?”

It all worked out in the end, when their attorney Vincent LaGuardia Gambini and his-out-of-work hairdresser/general automotive expert fiancee Mona Lisa Vito cracked the case. For that to happen though, required clear judgement, a passion for justice and the willingness to admit they were wrong by some important locals — namely Sheriff Dean Farley and district attorney Jim Trotter III.

Unfortunately, none of what is currently happening to Maori Davenport down in Alabama is a laughing matter. The Troy, Alabama, high school senior’s prep basketball career is over because some local authorities, in a rush to find use for their rules, have done the sporting equivalent of turning some stolen canned-lunch meat into a capital offense.

Let’s just say we could use the cool judicial hand of Judge Chamberlain Haller to step in here and offer some perspective.

Here are the facts: Davenport spent last summer playing for USA Basketball’s Under-18 national team, including at a tournament in Mexico. In August, USA Basketball, as it does for all players, sent her a stipend check for $857. Davenport cashed it.

USA Basketball later acknowledged it shouldn’t have sent the money because Davenport was still in high school. The NCAA allows players to receive the money and while Davenport will play at Rutgers next year, at this point she is still under Alabama High School Athletic Association purview.

And the AHSAA is very, very big on rules and very, very not big on context.

For cashing that $857 check, the AHSAA deemed Davenport a “professional” athlete. Seriously. A professional. It did so by citing a rule that declared “a student cannot accept payments for loss of time or wages while participating in athletics as part of expenses.”

Even though Davenport returned the money upon the matter coming to AHSAA attention, she was ruled ineligible for one year. Since she is a senior, her high school career is over.

The AHSAA is under fire now after ESPN took the story national and college basketball broadcaster and attorney Jay Bilas began railing against the organization. The high school association has responded by digging in.

Caught in the middle isn’t just Maori Davenport and her basketball career, but common sense and a sense of proportion that is obviously lacking here.

Why the AHSAA is so adamant about such a rule says as much about them as it does the rule. Yes, the rule was violated, but what kind of rule is it if it determines that anyone mistakenly paid, and then returns, a relatively small amount of honestly earned money is a full-on professional athlete?

Namely where’s the victim? Where’s the benefit to Davenport?

There is none.

Davenport isn’t competitively better because she was paid some travel money. She gained from the coaching and training of USA Basketball, but that’s something she earned by making the national team.

Even the AHSAA acknowledges as much. It stated its reasoning for enforcing the so-called “Amateur Rule” so strenuously is because rules must be enforced strenuously because that is why rules are written. It’s quite a circle of logic.

“[People] are asking that an exception be made to the Amateur Rule because it was not the student’s fault; the fact the money was repaid, and that the student is an exceptional athlete and will miss her senior year,” the AHSAA acknowledged.

Yes, this is all being raised by reasonable minds because it’s a completely reasonable question. Sit Davenport for a couple games? OK, maybe. End the kid’s career?

“However, if exceptions are made, there would no longer be a need for an Amateur Rule.”

Well, then maybe the Amateur Rule doesn’t need to exist. Is USA Basketball giving out some money for national team players really a big, or widespread, deal?

The entire concept of rigid amateurism is ridiculous anyway. It is rooted in Victorian Britain, invented by the wealthy who had the leisure time to practice and play sports. The working class toiled in factories and fields six days a week, 12-18 hours a day. As such, the rich guys were the best players in every sport.

Other wealthy elites began stocking their teams with their athletic employees, however, essentially paying them to play, not work. So amateurism — the idea of playing for the love of the game, not the money — was invented not out of nobility but to keep the working class down and out. Lovely.

Amateurism isn’t a thing. It’s a bogus, bankrupt concept that even the corrupt International Olympic Committee bailed on back in the 1980s. Yet in America, the supposed land of opportunity, it thrives due to pearl clutching bureaucrats who value things such as the Amateur Rule more than giving a kid a chance to play basketball.

The goal of a high school organization should be to increase participation, not to keep kids out for something this flimsy.

The AHSAA knows this. It can’t find any real problems here, so to justify its decision, it invented a hypothetical future bogeyman.

“Creating an exception to this Rule would have provided an avenue to exploit student-athletes by providing an opportunity for students to receive money and prizes for athletic participation and if discovered, state they didn’t know the rule, thus allowing them to return the items and retain eligibility,” the AHSAA stated.

Ah, so nothing bad has happened here with Davenport … but what if it did?

“I shot the clerk? I shot the clerk?”

The AHSAA is sticking to their story in the face of local and national scorn. They’ve got a high school girl as their trophy, proof that their rulebook is everything and circumstance and perspective is nothing. It’s shameful.

“What do you think now, dear?” Vinny sympathetically asked witness Constance Riley as it became clear her vision of things directly in front of her isn’t what she once believed.

“Thinking of gettin’ thicker glasses,” she said, acknowledging reality.

It’s never too late for that.

More from Yahoo Sports:
• Wetzel: Fans jeer, teammates console Bears kicker after crushing loss
• The legend of Eagles’ Foles grows bigger
• Flacco’s time in Baltimore appears to be over
• Thamel: How Clemson can derail Alabama’s title hopes