Golson Admits ‘Skimming’ AHSAA Rulebook, Harmon Pressed on Rule Changes at MGM Eligibility Hearing

MONTGOMERY, Ala. — Former Mary G. Montgomery High School football coach Zach Golson acknowledged at Monday’s MGM eligibility hearing in federal court that he only “skimmed” the Alabama High School Athletic Association’s rulebook each year, but he flatly denied recruiting players. Hours later, AHSAA Executive Director Heath Harmon faced pointed questions of his own and produced no documentation showing that the recruiting rules he used to punish Golson and the Semmes school had been properly adopted.

The two men testified within earshot of each other during a 4½-hour MGM eligibility hearing before U.S. District Judge Bill Lewis at the Frank M. Johnson Jr. Federal Courthouse in Montgomery. It was the first time the MGM recruiting case has been aired in a courtroom, and the first time Golson and Harmon had been brought together under the same roof since the association handed down its sanctions in May.

Lewis did not say when he will rule. The hearing, originally scheduled for Sept. 24, had been postponed twice before it finally went forward Monday, Oct. 5.

What the MGM eligibility hearing is about

The hearing was held in a federal lawsuit brought not by Golson, but by Tameka Dale and Ashley Davis, the mothers of two Mary G. Montgomery students. Their sons — honor students identified in court papers only as T.D. and B.G. — are among 21 students the AHSAA declared permanently ineligible to play sports at MGM for attending what the association described as an improper recruiting event. Nineteen of those 21 students have since left the school.

The mothers are asking Lewis for a temporary restraining order and a permanent injunction that would restore their sons’ eligibility, along with compensatory damages for what they describe as irreparable harm to the boys’ futures. They claim the AHSAA violated their own constitutional rights to free speech and equal protection, as well as those of their sons.

The suit names three defendants:

• AHSAA Executive Director Heath Harmon;
• Mobile County Public School System Superintendent Chresal Threadgill;
• Mary G. Montgomery Principal David Diaz.

The AHSAA found in May that the students were connected to violations of its recruiting rules because they attended MGM freshman football signing ceremonies in 2024 and 2025. Earlier coverage of the case, including the repeated delays before Monday’s hearing, is available here.

Students had not formally enrolled

Attorneys for the AHSAA established during questioning that the two boys were not formally enrolled at MGM when they attended the signing ceremonies, although both had completed paperwork to transfer from Clark-Shaw Magnet School. Dale, Davis and Golson each testified that no inducements were offered to the boys and that the students were not invited to any of the ceremonies.

Although Dale and Davis are the plaintiffs, their testimony was handled early in the proceedings, clearing the way for lawyers to spend most of the afternoon questioning Golson and Harmon at length.

Harmon listened closely as Golson took the stand first. Golson then sat in the back of the courtroom with his wife, Sarah, while Harmon testified.

Judge: ‘It sounds like the school sold you up the creek’

Lewis appeared especially interested in Golson’s account of how he was unable to defend himself during the AHSAA investigation. The judge asked why MGM did not appeal Golson’s one-year suspension, regardless of whether the rules the association cited had been properly approved.

The school had self-reported the violations tied to a freshman signing ceremony, and Diaz placed Golson on administrative leave two weeks before Harmon issued the sanctions.

“It sounds like the school sold you up the creek,” Lewis said.

Golson answered that no local or state officials would let him tell his side of the story.

“I tried to reach out (to MGM officials),” Golson said, “and they would not appeal on my behalf. The AHSAA told me I had no voice, no due process, that I could only appeal through a member school. I met with the investigator without (legal) representation. This is the only time I had a chance for a face-to-face.”

Golson’s separate state lawsuit

Golson is not a party to the federal case, but he has filed his own lawsuit in Montgomery County Circuit Court claiming he was defamed and denied due process. That suit names the AHSAA, Harmon, Threadgill, Diaz and AHSAA investigator Chuck Anderson. More on that filing is available in our earlier report.

Before Golson testified Monday, Lewis warned him that anything he said in the federal hearing could be used against him in his state case. Golson chose to go forward anyway.

Tense cross-examination

On the stand, Golson faced aggressive cross-examination from AHSAA attorney Joe Espy. At one point, plaintiffs’ attorney Michael Kidd poured Golson a Styrofoam cup of water and carried it to him on the witness stand.

When Golson attempted to read back a portion of the AHSAA handbook at Espy’s request, the attorney asked him, “Do you have a college education?”

“I have a master’s,” Golson replied. Lewis admonished Espy for the remark.

Espy argued that Golson staged phantom practices for eighth graders, intentionally broke recruiting rules and then hid behind a claimed lack of knowledge of those rules. He pointed to testimony from Dale and Davis that they attended the freshman signing ceremonies with their sons, who signed a creed agreeing to uphold standards Golson had set, briefly put on MGM jerseys and had their photos taken.

Espy also noted that a letter Harmon sent to the school said the sanctions stemmed from Golson’s visits to Semmes Middle School and the signing ceremonies, along with the honesty of the students who were interviewed.

Golson testified that the ceremonies began in 2022, that MGM administrators had always approved them, and that he had made clear to Diaz that he had not recruited any players.

“But the principal didn’t believe you,” Espy shot back.

Were the AHSAA recruiting rules properly changed?

A central thread of the plaintiffs’ case is whether the recruiting bylaw at the heart of the sanctions was ever lawfully amended. Kidd told the court that an original recruiting bylaw in the AHSAA’s 2015-16 handbook was improperly changed in later years to say that no student or parent could come to a school on their own to ask about athletics. The original language, he said, allowed such visits “for any specific purpose.” Kidd said other versions of the rule were later altered incorrectly as well.

Kidd pointed to a written AHSAA rule stating that bylaws can be changed only by the association’s Legislative Council — not by the Central Board or the executive director.

“I have asked them repeatedly to give me documentation (that rules were changed properly) and they can’t because it didn’t happen,” Kidd said.

AHSAA lawyer Ben Espy responded that documents purporting to show the Legislative Council did not approve the recruiting bylaw changes could not be verified as legitimate. When Lewis asked whether the changes could be authenticated, Harmon said a press release was not sufficient to announce, or not announce, changes to the rules.

Kidd also argued that Harmon had no evidence the players signed any contract to play football at MGM.

Harmon on jerseys and the ‘controlling document’

Harmon testified that Golson should not have given students who were neither zoned for nor enrolled at MGM a jersey to wear for photographs.

“It sounds like somebody is encouraging them to sign to play football,” Harmon said.

Lawyers on both sides sparred over Harmon’s contention that the Legislative Council and Central Board often work together to approve changes to the handbook, which Harmon called a “controlling document.”

“For anything to make it to the handbook it must be discussed by the Central Board and the Legislative Council,” Harmon said. He noted several times that he was not the executive director when any of the disputed changes were made.

Under questioning from Kidd, who highlighted inconsistencies in how the AHSAA notifies member schools of rule changes, Harmon acknowledged he had not verified whether every change to the recruiting bylaws had been approved by the Legislative Council.

“Are you saying the only way a principal or athletic director could know if a rule has changed is to read every word of the handbook, even though (the changes) weren’t highlighted?” Kidd asked.

‘Isn’t a coach supposed to know the rules?’

Golson told the court it was difficult to keep up with rule changes. Lewis pressed him directly.

“Isn’t a coach supposed to know the rules?” the judge asked.

“Yessir,” Golson said.

Asked by Lewis how he reviews rule changes, Golson said, “I try to skim the rulebook every year.”

Golson testified that he did not know the players in question were not zoned for MGM and did not grasp how serious the situation was until afterward. He also said MGM administrators had not made him aware of changes to the recruiting rule. At one point, after being handed an AHSAA handbook, he remarked, “I would love to get one of these.”

Espy countered: “The principal and the athletic director didn’t give it to you? Are you blaming them for the violations?”

“I don’t blame anybody for this,” Golson said.

“Do you understand it is the responsibility of all coaches to be knowledgeable of the rules, yes or no?” Espy asked.

“I try my best to follow the rules at all times,” Golson answered.

Background: the MGM sanctions

In May, Harmon placed Mary G. Montgomery on a one-year restrictive probation that included a playoff ban, and suspended Golson from coaching for one year. The penalties stemmed from the association’s finding that MGM violated recruiting rules, including through improper contact, in connection with the freshman signing ceremonies.

The case has since spread across two courtrooms: the mothers’ federal suit seeking to restore their sons’ eligibility, and Golson’s state-court suit seeking due process and damages. Monday’s hearing marked the first time any of the underlying evidence and testimony was tested under oath.

What happens next in the federal case

Lewis must now decide whether to grant the mothers’ request for a temporary restraining order and injunctive relief. A temporary restraining order is a short-term court order meant to preserve the status quo or prevent immediate harm while a case proceeds; a permanent injunction, by contrast, is typically issued only after the court reaches a final decision on the merits. In weighing such requests, federal judges generally consider whether the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claims and whether they would suffer irreparable harm without court intervention.

The judge gave no timeline for his decision. Any ruling would determine, at least for now, whether T.D. and B.G. can play sports at MGM while the lawsuit continues. The mothers’ claim for compensatory damages would be addressed separately as the case moves forward.

Key points from Monday’s hearing

• The hearing lasted about 4½ hours before U.S. District Judge Bill Lewis in Montgomery.
• Golson testified that he skims the AHSAA rulebook each year but denied recruiting players.
• Harmon offered no documentation showing the recruiting bylaw changes were approved by the AHSAA Legislative Council and said he had not verified that they were.
• Lewis questioned why MGM did not appeal Golson’s suspension and admonished an AHSAA attorney over a question about Golson’s education.
• Of the 21 students declared permanently ineligible, 19 have left MGM.
• No date has been set for a ruling.