Bob:

Actually, I think the USAT is trying to do a good job of establishing more races and of getting more young people interested in the sport. That all helps the age grouper. I definitely believe that it could do more for the everyday triathlete like you and I, but that's where having active proponents of age groupers on the board would aid us.

As for your reference to Bill Clinton/Janet Reno, if you supported him then you are correct, you probably don't want to hear my opinion of Bill (except to the extent that the whole affair/cigar thing was a non-issue and waste of time). Truth be told, I wasn't a big fan of either Clinton or Reno. But that's an aside. If my prior postings in support of Jim throw some suspecion on my analysis, I can live with that. Of course, you should probably consider other opinions and postings under a similar light. Who did they support? What was the outcome of their candidtaes' races?

Regardless of whether I supported Jim or not, I have yet to hear ONE credible argument against my analysis. Many attacks of me, my support of Jim, my actions within SF Tri Club and my support of reasonable race entry transfer/refund policies. But not one as to the analysis. Funny. Makes one wonder why. Hmmmmm.

Alan

" I have yet to hear ONE credible argument against my analysis."

there are two reasons i don't write against your analysis. first, two other lawyers, one the architect of the bylaws, both former presidents of the federation, predicted that if this goes to california court it will cost a lot of money, take a lot of time, be very embarrassing to the federation, and will likely result in running the elections over again. you disagree with them. fine. neither of them feel compelled to answer your analysis. don't take that to mean your analysis is irrefutable. just that it's irrelevant (largely because your undisclosed conflict of interest shot you in the foot before you could get out of the gate).

grinder stops well short of a full analysis of the legality of this election, because there were enough procedural problems right from the get-go that he thought it a needless and redundant waste of time and money to go further.

your analysis seems largely to hinge on the theory, "the election practices may have been abysmal, distasteful, stinky, and carry with them at least the appearance if not the reality of outright fraud, but since the majority of the board voted to use them, they're okay under california law."

using that theory, if i can get a majority when i'm on the board, i'm going to make people send all the ballots to me, and i'm going to do all the counting. "what?" you say, "i can't do that?" why not. nothing against it in the bylaws.

there are a priori, axiomatic laws of civil society, and things like free and fair elections are part of the social fabric that bind us. when a judge sees that private voter information is being offered around like joints at woodstock, that ballots for candidates routinely end up in the hands of their competitors before going in to be counted, when candidates are allowed to photocopy ballots and present them to voters before the federation's own vehicle for candidate statements has been disseminated, he'll order a new election. i don't need to be a lawyer to know that.

i'm sure you don't see this as a valid rebuttal of your argument, but there are plenty of professionals like me who've spent enough time in enough courtrooms and have had enough judges see through blatantly unfair practices and rule equitably that we don't need you to tell us that our interpretation of the law is wrong.

fortunately for everyone, this will never see a courtroom, and therefore you won't need to be proved incorrect. i would be highly surprised if this isn't settled in the first quarter with a re-vote, one way or the other. it would be nice if girand, gattis, et al, would do the best thing for the federation and call for a re-vote now, this month, held under fair and commonly-accepted election rules, and then we can go forward. but i predict the final nail in the girand coffin will be that he won't. i hope he and gattis prove me wrong.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Dan:

Thank goodness you are here and kind enough to share some of your wisdom withus. You alone know what is the best thing for the federation. If I had only known - if everyone had only known that all we need to do is adopt your way of thought that things would be best for the USAT. That is, alas, our downfall. What a great world it must be in which you live Dan - your opinion is gospel and all who differ are acting against the best interests of teh USAT. What color is the sky in your worls? But of course, its whatever color you dictate.

Gattis, Girand and the other winning directors should not step down merely because you want your candidates to have another bite at the apple. You claim that such would end this dispute and that would be best for the USAT. Hey - a novel idea: how about those who tried to win under this procediure but lost accept their fate? how about if they accept the decision of the USAT membership that they were not to serve this term? How about if they do what is best for the USAT and step down?

Dan - I don't take the fact that you, Grinder (who is out of town so don't expect a respnse from him yet) or others have failed to present one legal or factual analysis that refutes mine as meaning that my position is beyond refute. It just means that, to date, it hasn't been refuted. Yet, you would prefer that the USAT board ignore this analysis because it does not support your position.

Also, do you honestly belief that the ridulous "summary" of my argument even comes close to reflecting my analysis? Or were you hoping to deflect from the validity by making it appear nonsenseable? My analysis goes beyond what you "summarize". Like it or not, the USAT should stand by their validly adopted procedures and uphold the voice of the USAT membership by declaring the election valid. A court will not disturb that. Despite your recounted extensive court room experience, courts are loath to interfere with the internal workings and elections of private clubs. They view it more as a contractual matter between the board and their members. Want the authority? Let me know, I'll give you a string of case cites. But then again, you would just find someway to try to dismiss them as rantings of biased U.S. judges.

There will be no nail in any coffin. There is nothing to bury - as much as you would like to bury the results of an election that did not go as you had hoped.

Alan