Dan,

Let me try to answer the questions I know something about.

* was there race entry buying/selling on the SF Triclub Yahoo Egroup page? Our club, as well as many clubs, have an open e-mail fourm so members, and non-members can post questions or workouts. Anyone can join the list anywhere in the world as it is not limited to members. Every year there are a few newbies, and/or non-members who will send out an e-mail either offering to sell their race entry or buy someones race entry. Immediately someone on the board or an officer will reply letting that person, and everyone on the list, know that a race transfer may not be allowed. Remember USAT does not disallow a race transfer only the RD allows or disallows a race transfer. If the RD disallows it, and it is a USAT race, than each participant is subject to USATs ban. Most times the person offering the race entry is not known to us an asks that anyone interested e-mail back to an genaric e-mail. That is really all the board can do.


* was there a USAT hearing held about any of this? anything happen as a result? No hearing that I know about.


* were any hearings involving any membes of the SF Tri Club? No hearings that I know about


* were any SF Tri Club officers knowledgeable of any transfers taking place? Never knew of any transfers taking place until after the transfers took place. Noone on the board would ever allow a race transfer to take place if we had any idea it was taking place. But if one was going to take place there really isn't much we could do about it if it was done between two people outside of the club. I have no doubt that if we knew a club member had knowingly bought or sold a race entry that person would no longer be allowed in the club. We would hand them back their club dues and tell them to leave the club.


* did any of the SF Tri Club's officers argue in favor of any athletes, or in opposition to any suspensions? There were newbie athletes, and not all were club members, who we believed were unaware of the race transfer policy of a RD and bought a race entry. We were not aware of this before their race or we would have filled them in on the penalty. Somehow they were caught at the race and thrown out. They then had a hearing with USAT about a possible ban. There is only one ban and that is a 1 year ban. In one instance the seller, not a member, complteley dismissed the USAT hearing and could really care less if they got a one year ban. They got their one year ban and as a seller knew what they were doing by selling the race entry was wrong. The buyer did not know it was wrong to buy a race entry. They never signed anything to get their number and may not have even been a USAT member. (I dont recall) This person participated in the race so they were the one caught. This person cooperated with the USAT investigation and did anything they could to help. They did not lie when caught during the race and were really unaware that what they had done was wrong. Honestly. After all their cooperation and appologies they received the only ban allowed....one year. Same as the SOB that knowingly sold the race entry and dismissed the USAT's investigation. We, as a club, felt it was wrong that there was only one penalty to cover these two. We never thought that they should not have been punished, just that sevarity of the punishment. So we worked within the system to try to change the USAT's 1 year ban to allow for more discression when it came to handing out the ban. We even thought that the ban should be more than a year for the person who knowingly sells a race transfer. This is when the race transfer petition came out.


* does jim girand show any solidarity for the SF Tri Club in its efforts to get a good race transfer policy installed in USAT's sanction package? if so, does this represent a point of particular affinity (that wouldn't exist between girand and other clubs) between girand and this club?

I don't really know as I have never actually met Jim in person. I think Jim took up the race transfer policy as part of his campaign. He wants to put club members together with local RD to see what can be accomplished. I really don't think anything will come of it since there is a lot of free money for the RD to leave it as it is. But it would be nice to hear their side. I think Jim shows solidarity to the SFTC because we are local to him and he knows we are outspoken. But let me tell you that the vocal portion of the club is just a few of us not the entire club. On a whole I am sure our club had a better than 10% turnout in the election but that is because of our few vocal and active members and the fact that Jim came to a club funtion with ballots and his campaign. So it really pains me when you speak negativly about the SFTC. 98% of the club is no different than 99% of other clubs.

But if the other 2% were not vocal on issues noone would bother to answer these threads : )

Oh yea, again we had absolutly nothing to do with the lawsuit against USAT.

Willy in Pacifica, SFTC treasurer & former SFTC Board member

---

.
Willy in Pacifica

<<* was there race entry buying/selling on the SF Triclub Yahoo Egroup page? Our club, as well as many clubs, have an open e-mail fourm so members, and non-members can post questions or workouts. Anyone can join the list anywhere in the world as it is not limited to members. Every year there are a few newbies, and/or non-members who will send out an e-mail either offering to sell their race entry or buy someones race entry. Immediately someone on the board or an officer will reply letting that person, and everyone on the list, know that a race transfer may not be allowed. <<

Then why was your former President sending emails trying to unload his entry to a race that did not allow transfers or refunds???? As Microsoft and Bill Gates knows, email messages, both on a machine and hard copy, can stick around a very long time.

---

clm
Nashville, TN
https://twitter.com/ironclm | http://ironclm.typepad.com

"So it really pains me when you speak negatively about the SFTC. 98% of the club is no different than 99% of other clubs."

maybe the SFTC's image would benefit from having its officers be a little less activist. i don't know. you're obviously a lot closer to it than i am. my original point (a long time ago) referred to alan's legal opinion, its anonymity, my determination to make it un-anonymous, and to posit as to the motives behind his opinion.

so i brought up the club to see whether this was germaine as to motive.

but i started this particular thread to try to be fair to the club, and give its officers (like you) and its members a chance to respond, which you did admirably.

i certainly having nothing against the club, i doubt any of our (numerically insignificant) readers do either :-)

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

mr E writes, " maybe the SFTC's image would benefit from having its officers be a little less activist."

on an only slightly related note - i wonder about the oft lamented dearth of races for our bay area friends and this topic. the old saw " the only constant in your failed relationships is you" comes to mind. to wit: we have a club hell bent on a sweeping mandate which will cost promoters time and money in an area which is in dire need of more promoters. one has to wonder, what fool would WANT to start a race out there, with a clientele of dudes just waiting to dodge the rules, claim they didn't know about them and in any case even if they did are more than willing to take over the governing body and change them, but wait not really they only wish to serve the greater good for all triathletes blah blah. ? anyway, from this backwoods hick might i suggest that if you want more races perhaps you could try simply paying your fees ( your OWN fees, that is), following the rules, picking up after yourself, thanking the RD with a smile, and going home. you know, leave the OJ-like issues out of it entirely? just an idea.

Dan,

I mean this with the utmost respect for you, but you are way too angry about this whole issue. Maybe I just don't understand all of the issues here, but why are you singling out the SF TriClub when there were at least two other clubs on the "TEAM Girand" list? And is it really fair to the members of that club (who are just a group of triathletes wanting to enjoy the sport just like you and me) to post a broad list of accusations without providing any substantiation? I don't know if that is meant to be a fishing expedition or an attempt to sully the reputation of a club because you happen to disagree with the actions of one of its officers (who seems to have been acting independently). But, I have got to tell you that, from the sidelines, using this "shotgun" approach and then replying "my bad" when you have gotten it wrong is just not right. Not long ago you made it clear that you would not allow an "internet lynching" (my term) of industry members on your forum because of the inherent lack of fairness and great potential for harm to the industry. How is what you are doing here any different? This is obviously a very important issue to you and I applaud your determination, but you may want to step back and reassess your strategy. I think you may be better off sticking to the specific issues that you can substantiate. Just my $.02.

In the interest of disclosure: I am not nor ever was a member of SF Tri, or any other club for that matter. Heck, I didn't even vote in the election.

Haim

---

-------------------------------------------------------
"Sometimes you need to think INSIDE the box!" -- ME
"Why squirrel hate me?"

"you are way too angry about this whole issue. Maybe I just don't understand all of the issues here."

did you read MY posts, or just the angry replies to my posts?

"why are you singling out the SF TriClub when there were at least two other clubs on the "TEAM Girand" list?"

let me give this another try for your benefit, and for the others who can't find this among the other posts. this is about:

1. a BOD directors harvesting votes in (what i consider) an unsavory manor and then voting themselves the de facto freedom to:

A. decide which of those votes deserve getting sent in for counting, and which don't, and...

B. determining and remembering just how YOU voted, archiving that information, and sharing that information with whomever they want.

(certainly this may NOT have been the motive, but it IS the result).

2. two attorneys hired by the federation found all sorts of wrong with this method of handling an election, for the reasons i state above in A and B, and for reasons (they believe) are associated with USAT's bylaws and perhaps calif corp law.

3. one of the board members (jim girand) decided to offer up a dissenting legal opinion. this opinion was unsigned, from an attorney named alan geraldi, only further identified by girand as a "friend of the federation."

4. i chose this forum to raise point, that this "friend of the federation" is a person singled out in girand (internal election team) correspondence for particular kudos as a member of girand's election team. maybe this person isn't due the kudos girand gives him -- i'm not on the inside, i only know what i read -- but the kudos are there regardless.

5. my guess as to motive behind the attorney's willingness to be so utilitized, or to lend a hand of his own accord, in this fashion is girand's relationship with this particular club (where this attorney is an officer). this club above all others (perhaps because of a vocal and activist leadership) has been associated with a desire for a mandated race refund/transfer policy, and girand has helped get them partway to the goal.

6. maybe this attorney's bias is beside the point. maybe the legal opinion is well-reasoned and legally valid. i don't know. that's not my point in bringing all this up. my point is, when an attorney submits a legal opinion, he ought to disclose just who he is, and his connection to the parties. that's my ENTIRE point. everything else is an atttempt (in my estimate) to try to carom you and the other readers to some other point.

for example, alan geraldi wants you to forget about the fact that he didn't disclose his bias. he just wants you to read his opinion, and to have you focus on that. be my guest. i'm not saying the opinion is without merit (altho i suspect it is, but i'm not an attorney). my theme is just this: sign your work, state your resume.

if you want to allow yourself to be ricocheted to other issues, have at it. these above points are MY salient issues.

i don't deny there is a LOT of raw skin, but i don't think mine is raw. bringing up these issues has picked at a scab or two. yes, the REACTION among some people might be angry to what i wrote, but i think you might be attaching their anger to me. i don't have a thing against the club. i wish for them the best. reread the first post in this thread, please, and reproduce for me the anger that i supposedly have, and i'm happy to address it.

i'm sorry if this club is getting caught in the crossfire. that was not my intent. as to why THIS club is singled out by me, it's because the "friend of the federation" attorney is attached to THIS club. would girand have been sympathetic to a particular issue dear to the heart of members of the san diego tri club, and were the friend of the federation an officer of THAT club, it would be that club i'd mention (to the exclusion of others). and i'd only mention it with regard to motive.

bottom line: a legal opinion was offered, and the small details associated with its author were big details to me. i chose to make it public. a LOT of people are happy that i did. others are NOT happy that i did. as i've written before on slowtwitch, i like signed authorship. i'm just weird that way.

here is what would have saved ALL of us a LOT of time this weekend:

"PREFACE TO THIS OPINION: my name is alan geraldi. i am a triathlete, an attorney, and an officer and legal counsel for the SFTC. i offer this legal opinion as an attorney admitted to the california bar, and as one versed in california corporate law. it's only fair to mention that i've been associated with other issues of some import and notoriety to the federation, and that i have a personal affinity for a certain set of candidates, as i'm sure the other esteemed counsels do. at the same time, i hope that my unique position as the only attorney, among those offering opinions, living and working in the state in which USAT is domiciled, allows this opinion to carry some weight. i therefore offer this opinion as a friend of the federation."

(or whatever language is appropriate for this sort of correspondence).

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Dan,

I believe most, if not all of the issues you have with Alan are WITH ALAN. Please leave the SF Tri Club out of it. The SFTC board was not involved in this. Alan is an Atty and legal opinions are what he does.

"A. decide which of those votes deserve getting sent in for counting, and which don't, and..."

Do you have proof that this has happened? If so I am sure USAT would love to hear about it. If not, I think you are out of line by this accusation.

"BOD directors harvesting votes in (what i consider) an unsavory manor"

From what I understand this was permissable under the election rules. As much as I disagree with it it was permissable. Was Jim the only candidate collecting ballots?

"determining and remembering just how YOU voted, archiving that information, and sharing that information with whomever they want." (certainly this may NOT have been the motive, but it IS the result).

Like you I have a real problem with this. However, after talking to those in the know I came to believe that it was not their intention to use it for any reason other than to "Validate" the vote. This should have been left to the CPA firm.

"two attorneys hired by the federation" "dissenting legal opinion. this opinion was unsigned"

It seems to me, and I am no lawyer, that there are two opposing oppinions that need to get reviewed and sorted out. Alan did not sign his. Again not sure if that is against any rule but it seems that he was working on behalf of Jim so again leave the club out of it. It seems like you are a bit bent out of shape that Alan did not sign it. OK, we get it you are upset. If that is all you are upset about then we should move on to his oppinion.

"my guess as to motive behind the attorney's willingness to be so utilitized, or to lend a hand of his own accord, in this fashion is girand's relationship with this particular club (where this attorney is an officer). this club above all others (perhaps because of a vocal and activist leadership) has been associated with a desire for a mandated race refund/transfer policy, and girand has helped get them partway to the goal."

Jim has no more of a relationship with the SFTC then he has with any other club. He has an association with an Atty who happens to be a member/BOD of SFTC. The SFTC believes there is some work that should/could be done in regards to Race Transfers. Jim is willing to put that as an issue in his election and hopefully follow through with it. Not sure why getting beind a candidate who shares your feeling toward and issue is so wrong. I thought that was the whole idea behind backing a candidate. Otherwise why would anyone back anyone in particular.

"alan geraldi wants you to forget about the fact that he didn't disclose his bias. he just wants you to read his opinion, and to have you focus on that. be my guest. i'm not saying the opinion is without merit (altho i suspect it is, but i'm not an attorney). my theme is just this: sign your work, state your resume."

Isnt focusing on his opinion far and above more important than wheather he signed his oppnion. Again, I am no Atty, but is an atty supposed to be unbiased. Again I think you stepped over the line when you state you are no atty then turn around and "suspect the oppinion has no merit"

"PREFACE TO THIS OPINION"

I am a tax CPA and as such deal extensivly with tax law. Does not matter who I am, who my other clients are or really what my oppinion is. Eventually it will all come down to what the law is concerning the issue. Even if it seems wrong it comes down to some judges understanding of the relavent laws. So wheather Alan signed his oppinion or not really does not make a difference when they sort this out.

As much as I have enjoyed these threads I think it need to shift to the oppinions and stop attacking those involved.

And I will ask again that you leave the SFTC out of this. THE SFTC HAD ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY OF THESE ISSUES. THEY HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG BUT NOW HAVE A TARNISH REPUTATION DUE TO YOUR ACCUSATIONS THAT ENDED UP AS "MY BAD". I TRUELY BELIEVE THAT YOU OWE THE SF TRI CLUB AN APPOLOGY.

Willy in Pacifica

---

.
Willy in Pacifica

" Please leave the SF Tri Club out of it."

i am not attacking your club. every time you post and bring up your club, and i answer back, there's more press about your club. so if you stop mentioning your club, i'll stop mentioning your club.

"Do you have proof that this has happened? If so I am sure USAT would love to hear about it. If not, I think you are out of line by this accusation."

willy, you're a smart guy and i like you, and i don't mean to be uncharitable, but will you read the post? let me quote from my post:

"(certainly this may NOT have been the motive, but it IS the result)."

this is EXACTLY what david backer said in his legal opinion he rendered prior to the election. by virtue of the rules, there is NOTHING to stop the candidates AND their workers from discarding votes. OF COURSE i have no proof. that's the point! nobody will know if this happens! that's why it's not supposed to be done!

i never accused anybody of anything. i said they voted themselves in a set of rules in which everybody, that is EVERYBODY, in the election, PLUS their workers, can do whatever they want with your vote and mine. nothing to stop them. please, i know this is clear to you.

" However, after talking to those in the know I came to believe that it was not their intention"

OF COURSE it was not their intention. but girand alone has DOZENS of people out there collecting unsealed ballots. here are my questions for you:

1. what instructions were given to all these workers in how to handle these ballots they were collecting?
2. were they encouraged to look at the ballots, or more appropriately, were they strongly encouraged NOT to look at the ballots? since so much of this was done by email, there must be an email out to these workers on how to take solemn care of ballots. where is that email?
3. are you willing to stake your reputation on the line, that none of the unsealed ballots that these dozens of partisan workers handled were discarded?

think about this, willy. dozens of election workers. i've seen NOTHING in the way of instructions except, "go get 'em team!" you've spoken to "those in the know" but that means, probably, one guy. until you interview everybody taking ballots, how in the hell do you know anything? and even then, you won't really KNOW anything will you?

" It seems like you are a bit bent out of shape that Alan did not sign it."

i'm not bent out of shape at all. i just disclosed it. but that sure seems to have bent a lot of people out of shape, you included, and it kind of makes me wonder why. i understand your desire to circle the wagons around your friend, but jeez.

"Jim has no more of a relationship with the SFTC then he has with any other club."

i'm not sure, but i believe he calls himself counsel for the SFTC, and i suspect for no charge. does this mean he'll be my lawyer no charge? if so, i take back everything and he's hired.

" I TRUELY BELIEVE THAT YOU OWE THE SF TRI CLUB AN APPOLOGY."

here is the first post in this thread, from me:

"i'd like to give the SF Tri Club a voice here to make clear to everyone what they've done and not done, so that this club is fairly characterized on this forum. it appears that i might've wrongly associated the SF Tri Club with individuals that were in a lawsuit with USAT. i misremembered this, my wrong, my bad, my apology."

this makes no fewer than four times i've written this. how many times would you like me to write this on the blackboard, willy?

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Willy...

All things aside... I have one question regarding your post...

You said, "... The SFTC believes there is some work that should/could be done in regards to Race Transfers. Jim is willing to put that as an issue in his election and hopefully follow through with it. Not sure why getting beind a candidate who shares your feeling toward and issue is so wrong. I thought that was the whole idea behind backing a candidate. Otherwise why would anyone back anyone in particular...."

It seems that is in direct conflict to an earlier statement you made...

"The "resonable race transfer policy" would be determined by the RD. Any reasonable race transfer policy would be better than no the "No tranfer ploicy" there is now. "

Question is... How can you have a reasonable transfer policy that would be determined by the RD and at the same time have a (what seems to be a) predetermined agenda established by SFTC (via Jim)? Or, perhaps that is the intent of SFTC (or it's representative's) - to allow RD's to created a transfer policy which IS the SFTC's agenda.

I agree, transfer policies that will work is difficult to determine. But, what is your opinion regarding this issue and how do you think SFTC fit's into the equation?

Joe Moya

BTW, I did preface this with "ALL THINGS ASIDE"... Meaning, I'm not reference the voting method debate/problem.

"you are way too angry about this whole issue. Maybe I just don't understand all of the issues here."

did you read MY posts, or just the angry replies to my posts?

Maybe he just read the angry posts.

"why are you singling out the SF TriClub when there were at least two other clubs on the "TEAM Girand" list?"

BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T HAD SOMEONE ASSOCIATED WITH THEM RENDER AN OPINION THAT DOES NOT SUPPORT DAN'S PRESENT POSITION.

let me give this another try for your benefit, and for the others who can't find this among the other posts. this is about:

1. a BOD directors harvesting votes in (what i consider) an unsavory manor and then voting themselves the de facto freedom to:

AS DID THE CANDIDATES YOU SUPPORTED - THEY OPERATED UNDER THE SAME SYSTEM.

A. decide which of those votes deserve getting sent in for counting, and which don't, and...

B. determining and remembering just how YOU voted, archiving that information, and sharing that information with whomever they want.

(certainly this may NOT have been the motive, but it IS the result).

2. two attorneys hired by the federation found all sorts of wrong with this method of handling an election, for the reasons i state above in A and B, and for reasons (they believe) are associated with USAT's bylaws and perhaps calif corp law.

YET - THE BOARD WAS FREE TO CONSIDER THIS ADVICE AND FOLLOW IT OR REJECT IT IT AS OUTWEIGHED BY OTHER FACTORS, AND IN SO DOING WOULD NOT INVALIDATE THE ELECTION.

3. one of the board members (jim girand) decided to offer up a dissenting legal opinion. this opinion was unsigned, from an attorney named alan geraldi, only further identified by girand as a "friend of the federation."

I WON'T GO INTO YET AGAIN THE EXPLANATION OR REASONS BEHIND THIS.

4. i chose this forum to raise point, that this "friend of the federation" is a person singled out in girand (internal election team) correspondence for particular kudos as a member of girand's election team. maybe this person isn't due the kudos girand gives him -- i'm not on the inside, i only know what i read -- but the kudos are there regardless.

IT APPEARS THAT YOU WANT TO GIVE YOURSELF SOME KUDOS. NOT ONLY WAS I IDENTIFIED AS THE AUTHOUR LOOOOOONG BEFORE YOU WHISPERED A WORD ON YOUR FORUM, I HAD BEEN ENGAGED INA LENGTHY DEBATE WITH A BOARD MEMBER REGARDING MY RIGHT AS A USAT MEMBER TO SUBMIT MY OPINION LONG BEFORE YOU POSTED ANYTHING. IT WAS JACK WEISS WHO ASKED WHO WROTE THE OPINION AND HE WAS IMMEDIATELY TOLD WHO IT WAS. YOU ARE, ONCE AGIN, TRYING TO DEFLECT ATTENTION FROM THE IMPORTANT ISSUE - THAT THE USAT BOARD WAS SUPPLIED AN OPINION WHICH, IN MY OPINION, WAS FLAWED. I SUBMITTED THAT OPINION AS I WAS ASKED TO LOOK AT IT AND OFFER MY IMPRESSIONS (BY MORE THAN JUST JIM GIRAND). I DID SO AND GAVE MY OPINION.

5. my guess as to motive behind the attorney's willingness to be so utilitized, or to lend a hand of his own accord, in this fashion is girand's relationship with this particular club (where this attorney is an officer). this club above all others (perhaps because of a vocal and activist leadership) has been associated with a desire for a mandated race refund/transfer policy, and girand has helped get them partway to the goal.

AND WHAT OF YOUR MOTIVE? WHAT OF TEH FACT THAT YOU SUPPORTED CANDIDATES WHO DID NOT WIN? WHAT OF THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE CALLED FOR AN ENTIRE RE-ELECTION, SO THAT YOUR CANDIDATES WOULD GET A SECOND BIT OF THE APPLE? WHAT OF THE FACT THAT YOU GO ON AND ON ABOUT JIM GIRAND'S TECHNIQUES, WHILE FAILING TO MENTION THAT THE CANDIDATE WHO RAN AGAINST HIM OPERATED UNDER THE EXACT SAME PROCEDURE....THE SAME CANDIDATE YOU SUPPORTED THREE TIMES ON THIS FORUM? OR IS IT ONLY MY MOTIVES THAT ARE TO BE GUESSED. MY MOTIVE IS THIS: SOME PEOPLE WITHWHOM i HAD WORKED ON OTHER ISSUES ASKED ME TO TAKE A LEGAL LOOK AT THE OPINION. I DID. I WROTE IT UP. THAT WAS RE-ORMATED TO BECOME THE OPINION SUBMITTED. OF COURSE, BECAUSE THAT OPINION DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR AGENDA - THEN I MUST HAVE ULTERIOR MOTIVES.

6. maybe this attorney's bias is beside the point. maybe the legal opinion is well-reasoned and legally valid. i don't know. that's not my point in bringing all this up. my point is, when an attorney submits a legal opinion, he ought to disclose just who he is, and his connection to the parties. that's my ENTIRE point. everything else is an atttempt (in my estimate) to try to carom you and the other readers to some other point.

SURE - ATTORNEYS DISCLOSE THEIR BIAS AND PREJUDICE IN ALL THEIR LEGAL WORK. I'M SURE YOU HAVE WITNESSED THAT EXTENSIVELY IN ALL YOUR TRIAL EXPERIENCE.

for example, alan geraldi wants you to forget about the fact that he didn't disclose his bias. he just wants you to read his opinion, and to have you focus on that. be my guest. i'm not saying the opinion is without merit (altho i suspect it is, but i'm not an attorney). my theme is just this: sign your work, state your resume.

YOU SUSPECT IT IS WITHOUT MERIT - BASED UPON WHAT? WHAT SINGLE LEGAL ARGUMENT HAVE YOU ADDRESSED? WHAT ONE POINT OF CASE OR OTEHR AUTHORITY CAN YOU POINT TO? I SUSPECT THAT YOU BELIEVE OTHERWISE WHICH IS ONE REASON YOU ARE HITTING THIS SO HARD AND TRYING TO DEFLECT ATTENTION FROM THE ANALYSIS AND OFF TO A DOZEN OTHER UNRELATED ISSUES AND ACCUSATIONS.

if you want to allow yourself to be ricocheted to other issues, have at it. these above points are MY salient issues.

YES, IF YOU WANT TO BE RICOCHETED AWAY FROM MY LEGAL OPINION, WHICH WAS POSTED IN RESPONSE TO YOUR REQUEST, TO THE VARIOUS NON-RELATED ISSUES RAISED BY YOU ABOUT (1) SF TRI CLUB; (2) RACE TRANSFERS; (3) usat LAWSUITS; (4) TEAM GIRAND; (5) A FAILURE TO PUT MY NAME TO A DOCUMENT; (6) MY PROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH JIM GIRAND; (7) THE HISTORY OF RUMORS WHICH YOU HAVE HEARD ABOUT OUR CLUB MEMBERS, OUR CLUB POSITIONS, OUR CLUB REPRESENTATIONS, (8) AND TEH AD NAUSEUM LIST OF INSULTS AND INNUENDOS FOR WHICH YOU YOU POST, TRY TO BACK UP, FAIL TO BACK UP, APOLOGIZE AND THEN SAY "FORGET THAT - STAY ON THE ISSUE."

i don't deny there is a LOT of raw skin, but i don't think mine is raw.

I AGREE - IT IS PROBABLY FAIRLY CALLOUSED.

bringing up these issues has picked at a scab or two. yes, the REACTION among some people might be angry to what i wrote, but i think you might be attaching their anger to me. i don't have a thing against the club. i wish for them the best. reread the first post in this thread, please, and reproduce for me the anger that i supposedly have, and i'm happy to address it.

HMMM....I AM BEING FRIENDLY AND OPEN TO CLUB SO I'LL JUST PRINT AN INFINITE LIST OF VARIOUS RUMORS ABOUT THE CLUB THAT I HAVE HEARD. YEAH - THAT'S NOT ATTACKING THE CLUB.

i'm sorry if this club is getting caught in the crossfire. that was not my intent. as to why THIS club is singled out by me, it's because the "friend of the federation" attorney is attached to THIS club. would girand have been sympathetic to a particular issue dear to the heart of members of the san diego tri club, and were the friend of the federation an officer of THAT club, it would be that club i'd mention (to the exclusion of others). and i'd only mention it with regard to motive.

I HAVE OFFERED THAT OPINION BECAUSE I WAS ASKED. INTERESTING YOU HAVE YET TO ASK ONE QUESTION, MAKE ONE ALLEGATION, OR ASK FOR ONE BIT OF BIAS DISCLOSURE FROM THE AUTHORS OF THE OTHER TWO OPINIONS.....OH WAIT, THOSE SUPPORT YOUR POSITION. YEAH, NO NEED TO REALLY GO THERE. WHAT WOULD THAT BE? JOURNALISTIC INTEGRITY?

bottom line: a legal opinion was offered, and the small details associated with its author were big details to me. i chose to make it public. a LOT of people are happy that i did. others are NOT happy that i did. as i've written before on slowtwitch, i like signed authorship. i'm just weird that way.


YOU MUST GET A LOT OF PERSONAL E-MAILS. THE POSTS HERE SEEM TO RUN ABOUT 50/50 REGARDING YOUR TECHNIQUES.

>> i don't deny there is a LOT of raw skin
>> but i don't think mine is raw."

> I AGREE - IT IS PROBABLY FAIRLY CALLOUSED.

you're so right about that.

btw, before all this goes away (i think we've pretty much exhausted it, tho i'm willing to answer anything you'd like me to about the merits of your opinion, because you're right, we haven't gone much into it) i want to make a few things clear.

yes, we have differences, but you voted, you were activist in the election, you were activist in the race transfer issue (with which i agree in principle 100%, tho we may or may not be in agreement on implemenation).

you are an officer in your club, you're passionate about sport, and you want the best for those in your training/racing circle, according to those i know you who know you.

i just want to make sure you that i know that about you. and yes, all these kind words don't make me any more correct in your eyes, and that's true. they don't make you any more correct in mine. but correctness rates below certain other virtues that i value, virtues that you certainly appear to have.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman