Yep, we are on the same page, and have seen first hand some of the same issues. We have both worked on changing things relating to boards we have interfaced with.

I had a board who started a process to take me to court for something they did not like I had done, and wanted to make an example of me so others would never challenge them.
Too bad they lost but they sure had done the damage on me.

My opinion on any of these "volunteer" boards, whether USAT or an HOA like I have, is they should have a max of one term limits, period, you can never run again. These are not supposed to be a lifetime job or the ability
to force ones personal opinions onto members. They are SUPPOSED to be representatives of members wishes. But bottom line as I stated, we members get what we have voted for!! Those bylaws did not change,
I assume, without a vote of the membership. These board members did not get on the board without a vote of the membership. And no matter what some say on ST, if I had to beat money, nothing will change
with this board. Too many just really do not care when it comes to their time and or money. (Most will not even help be officials at races.)

I was thinking on the way back from Disneyland when I was a "driver on I5", being a passenger trying to text on my smart phone, look at what some say about Brett Sutton when his name comes up.
Assuming I know the facts correctly, what happened with him to me is really not that big of a deal. I was under 18 once. But some will never let it go even though he paid the price and did what the legal system
made him do. But to hit and injure an elder women. There is just nothing that can ever justify this action, period! But there are a few posting here that keep trying to say it is no big deal, it is his private life, etc.
I am just amazed since again, these board positions are just volunteer for this hobby sport.

But to each their own. (And to see one board member also did not set a very good example with his behavior during a race has been interesting to see, meaning, am not sure some folks understand when you are
in certain positions, you are expected to lead by example, not be an example. I know when I wear my TeamUSA uniform in a race, I feel I have to be above issues if possible since I am representing USAT and
was racing for our country. Guess I am old fashion, and old. :o)

Thanks for letting folks debate on this thread. Still waiting to see what this "will get uglier" means for this situation.

.

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

"I had a board who started a process to take me to court for something they did not like I had done, and wanted to make an example of me so others would never challenge them."

the USOC would prefer we had professional boards rather than a board seated by a voting membership. i used to be very much against that. now i'm not so sure.

board members can sue up the ying yang, on behalf of the federation, or they can sue the federation, or they can sue each other, because they have pretty good confidence in the end the federation will pick up all the legal bills. in 05 or 06 i had the job of negotiating down bills from 3 or 4 law firms all representing board members suing back and forth. but, once the billings were crammed down as low as i could get them, USAT picked up the entire remaining tab.

today, we have legal bills well into the 6 figures, from what i've heard, again driven by board member lawsuits. same thing. every time you pay a 1-day license or annual membership, some of that goes to paying legal fees through board members suing each other or the federation. why do board members of various organizations like your HOA do this? because they can. it's not their money. it's never their money.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Travis, I don't think my involvement or knowledge of facts is relevant as I've not made any claims or stated facts. What I have done and what is relevant is that you've been called to task several times by myself and several others is to back up allegations you've made. you can't do it and you ignore those calls. What your motives are, I do not know, but you have continued making accusations and claiming to know facts and it's clear you do not. If you can back up the accusations you've made in your many posts here, do so, otherwise stick to the truth. If you think we should talk about this, call me. Clearly you can find my phone number as you've already googled me.

Nothing nonfactual about what I've stated. Given your status as a Dallas defense attorney and your job to twist facts to protect your client's interests as much as possible its very interesting what your contributions to this thread have been.

---

Twitter
Instagram

Wrong. What I've contributed to this thread is simply that you (and Txprosecutor whom I doubt truly is)have made allegations about specific injuries and actions that aren't factual. I've added no facts and I've twisted nothing because I've added nothing other than to say that what you say is not accurate. If I'm wrong, then you must have evidence or proof. You seem like the kind of guy who would want to "win" and therefore would be able to and want to prove me wrong. I don't care about your position or the action the board takes but I think if you're going to castigate a man or woman for actions it better be actions that are true and accurate and not just exaggerated mob justice. Stick to the facts, if you know them.

Your dislike of attorneys and attempt to paint all as one mold or cast is immature. That's like saying that just because you live in Colorado you're a hippy pothead or because you seem to be trying to race at an elevated level that you're a doper. You must know that there are good and bad lawyers, just like there are upstanding citizens of Colorado and not just hippy potheads. Same that the majority of racers are clean but a few bad apples cast a negative light.

You've made your point clear. I've come here to simply say that unless you know facts you shouldn't be making them up.

What, so hippy potheads can't be upstanding citizens? It is Colorado after all.

---

_____
TEAM HD
Each day is what you make of it so make it the best day possible.

That's a good point, I'm sorry. I should have used squares, triathletes and ultra-runners. Please forgive me.

"I should have used squares"

can't squares be upstanding citizens? why do you hate squares?

just fudgin with ya.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

That is an excellent post. A long list of carefully combined words that sound great but actually say nothing. I'm sure you are fairly successful in front of juries. Your analogy using a doper is somewhat ironic given your admission in the testosterone use thread that was deleted by the mods. Probably fortuitous. You see, I have no facts to support the above. But I saw it as did others. Doesn't make it any less real. I have an extreme dislike for individuals who abuse others, especially ones I know. You defend abusers for a living. Obviously we are going to fall on opposite sides of this one. You are going to contine to make carefully worded posts about this and for good reason. That's fine, I have no need to get into a pissing contest despite the fact you you apparently need to come on here and defend Jack everytime i or someone else says something about his actions. Feel free to contine making your statements.

---

Twitter
Instagram

Ha, I get it, it's a hard comparison to come back from. How about this:
That's like saying that just because you live in Colorado you're a hippy pothead or because you seem to be trying to race at an elevated level that you're a doper. You must know that there are good and bad lawyers, just like there are people in Colorado who don't agree with legalization of marijuana and the same logic shows that the majority of racers are clean and while a few bad apples cast a negative light it does not represent the whole.


I should have started with this although it too is likely flawed in some way.

This is what you said


That is a logical fallacy, the very definition in fact.

1 as you pointed out the general public doesn't really know what triathlon is
2 the general public certainly doesn't know what usat is, there are actually members of this board who barely know what usat is.
3 based on your logic the general public assumes all football players are dog fighters, all baseball players gamble against their own team, all politicians send their aids pictures of their junk (wait that may be true..)

Or it shows they are overworked even with him and going a person down would make it worse?

It really proves nothing either way based on the information available .

...." all baseball players gamble against their own team,"...

If you are talking about Pete Rose I don't think he has ever been accused of betting AGAINST his own team. He said he
bet on them everyday to win.

---

Find out what it is in life that you don't do well, then don't
do that thing.

Any does not necessarily mean All. So, that's not what I said.

If I had said:

Jack is a bad person.
Jack is a male.
All Males are a bad person.

That is logical fallacy. As defined by my 4th grade teacher.

However, I am speculating that there could now be a fall out with the general public that knows that there is a spousal abusive case somehow involved with triathlons. And I do triathlons. I am expecting to be asked why there are abusive people in triathlons and how many are there? is this a common problem in triathlons? Are we to suspect that it is a problem? Should a female do a triathlon if known abusers are present?

I made a reference to cycling as it has gone through the same type of course with the general public that is not full vested in the sport but hears about it, especially when something bad has happened. The same questions have been asked in cycling in reference to doping.

How's that logic?

Why would they be a person down? Wouldn't he be replaced? Immediately? Is there no one else that can do the job? That might not have so many distractions?

I feel like a Jerry Seinfeld episode all of a sudden. "Who are all these people?"

Necessarily? no, but it is a definition and if you are telling me you meant otherwise then I am calling you a liar.


You seriously have concern that you are going to be asked by random people in the general public why you do a sport that condones spousal abuse? You do realize that the majority of the people who do triathlon aren't even aware of the incidence right? You honestly think that all women should be concerned with physical violence at any USAT sanctioned race from now until he is possibly removed from the board? That is a legit concern of yours and something you truly believe might happen?

If the issue is that there will be fallout because the general public now knows there was spousal abuse then the damage is done and his position makes no difference.

Meetings to remove him and elections to replace him are not distractions?

The point still stands that there is no evidence that he is in anyway the reason why the website was not updated.

You are saying our volunteer board members are wasting OUR money on filing law suits against each other? What could this be about in our hobby sport? How could cost like these not be visible to the membership?

If our HOA BOD's ever used our money to sue each other, I can promise we would have a recall against them so fast that they would be removed very quickly.

So again, what exactly are they wasting our money one suing each other about?

This is why I hate groups where non professional think they have gotten themselves into positions of power. I had to put up with it for 30 years in corporate America. Now I just work with folks who do not wear their egos on their sleeves and we all support each other getting things done.

This is again why I think there should be a 1 term maximum limit to all the board members. This way it is a service job, not a political power ego long term job, that you cannot get them out of because they have
controlled the bylaws.

.

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

Um, fuck off. How's that for your "liar" comment.

Yes, fuck off.

Why do you defend him? You know what, I don't care. Fuck off.

I have daughters that I generally want to protect, and I'd like to give the idea that we, as men, as humans, as generally good people stand up to bad people.

You won the internet, I have nothing more for you.

Except, fuck off.

Travis, thanks for the kind words regarding my skills. On point, my only axe to grind here is when someone accuses a person of a crime greater than what the original or real offense is. In my criminal defense practice I have been fortunate to represent people who were most of the time not guilty of the crime they were charged with. That doesn't mean they were innocent of all crimes but not the (in most cases) over-reaching charges the state filed. My job as their attorney was not to get them off (I'm not a porn actor) but instead to ensure that justice was done, and that if they are guilty and a conviction or criminal matter resolution is to occur, that it occur to the proper criminal charge. Some attorneys don't follow this creed, but it is one that I hold close.

That said, yes, in my criminal defense practice I had clients tell me they did in fact commit x offense. In those situations my job was to lessen the punishment as much as possible If you were in the alleged criminal's shoes you would want the same. I have also helped people that had their civil rights violated by the police in extreme manners and I currently focus my practice representing people who are dying of a horrible disease caused by corporate wrongdoing. It's not fair to try and say that I defend abusers for a living because I represent dying people, people who can't protect themselves, people who have been trampled on by state law enforcement, people who are alleged to have violated the law and others who need help. I consider myself a fairly compassionate person and want to help others. It is possible that you and I could get along over a beer or a bike ride. Maybe we have more in common when it comes to opinions than it seems, maybe not. Either way, I am not coming on here defending Jack every time you or someone says something about his actions. What I have done consistently is to say, stick to the facts. I am in Denver every so often for work. I will PM you next time I am there and if you care to we can meet and talk about this or preferably running, riding or how much prettier your state is than mine most of the season.

I am now tuning out of this thread as I think a meme of a whip & horse would be apropos but I don't have one handy.

Never actually did anywhere in this thread. I've made counter points to illogical and in some cases blatantly false statements in an attempt to better understand the topic in general and have stated not once an actual opinion of the man in question.

But way to handle this maturely.

Yes, because calling someone a liar is indeed equally mature. So....fuck off.

Here you go.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

I think we've both stated our opinions ad nauseam on this and can agree to let things lie as we are distracting from the topic at hand. We can likely agree on a lot of things but my distaste for Jack's actions are the overwhelming driver of my thoughts on this case.

---

Twitter
Instagram

"You are saying our volunteer board members are wasting OUR money on filing law suits against each other?"

yes. and against the federation. all the lawsuits i've seen could have been avoided by other means.

"What could this be about in our hobby sport?"

for some people, being on the board is their hobby. i'm sure you've seen this in your HOA board.

"How could cost like these not be visible to the membership?"

my guess is that there's a line item for legal, but i haven't checked, i don't know. i suggest you consider what the appropriate, normal legal fees should be for a $12 or $16 million company that does not really have much in the form of patent/trademark work, or legal tax work (i will go several years in a row at slowtwitch never paying a dollar in legal fees), and then look at the federation's legal expenses each of the last few years, and ask whether the expenses match the profile of the company. (i haven't done this, i don't know if recent legal fees for board suits have hit the financials yet.)

i can tell you EXACTLY who the litigants were back in 04 thru 06, and why they were suing. i'm less versed in the current legal fees and lawsuits and who might be right or wrong or culpable or not. so i can't render any judgment. the suits a decade ago, in the end, all the suits were trumped by what lew kidder and i did, which was to present to the membership, via a petition, described in a process we followed in the bylaws, voted on by the entire membership (well, those who voted), and the contents of the petition were all the bylaw changes that we recommended. almost everyone connected with the board or working in the office at that time fought tooth and nail to keep that from happening, for various reasons. but the USOC had taken over the federation, in a kind of receivership, at that time. and even the USOC didn't like our petition. but they were legally bound, so the petition with all the bylaw changes went out for a vote and were voted in. every resolution concerning sections VII and VVIII since then, board written resolutions, has been to erode slowly the safeguards we put in the bylaws. you all have granted the board this slow erosion every time the board has asked you to do it. you kind of have to point the fingers at yourselves for some of what you see that you might not like.

that said USAT boards since that time have worked hard. they have been diligent. they have done a lot of very good work. but the general tendency of those in governance is to not want to be bound by or circumscribed by rules that keep them from doing what they want. they don't like transparency. they don't like short terms. or term limits. so these things get eroded. and that's what has happened over the years to the bylaws lew and i introduced. and how you have board disfunction again.

so, again, there's a lot of thought and a lot of work that lew and i put into a set of bylaws that forces the organization to keep its eye on the ball instead of members trying to get their ways through gaming the loopholes. but, to the point, lew and i did this without suing anybody. nobody needs to sue anybody. were i in charge of the organization i would absolutely focus on this penchant for board members suing, and i would institute some kind of real penalty, financially felt, when a lawsuit is brought by a board member, the cost of which has to be born by the membership.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman