I was wondering if I had missed something, but apparently maybe I didn't.
So what we have is this:
1. A story where improprieties are suggested at multiple points, but then the 5 W's and 1 H of
journalism are essentially ignored.
2. A letter to the editor from the mother of one of the players at the heart of the controversy
that raises at least as many questions as it purports to answer.
3. A letter to the editor from the Superintendent of Mason Consolidated Schools that adds
nothing to the situation except aggravation and further suspicion as it attempts to claim a
share of the title while, to an extent, distancing itself from the players who won that title.
I agree that the circumstantial evidence seems to point in the direction you suggest, and if there was foul play it's absolutely pathetic.