"Someone has to safeguard the rules, see they are upheld (look at the
problems the USATF give the IAAF over drug cases)."
1. Safeguarding the rules is a legitimate activity of an organizing body, so
long as those rules are about preventing aggression, and not oppressing the
constituency.
"But the USATF are just as draconian in insisting that the first three at
the trials go to major meetings."
2. What alternative would you suggest? Oh yes, I'd much rather rely on the
subjective decision of a committee than my own ability to get the job done
in a fair setting. Why don't you query all the "non-qualifying" athletes in
countries where the team is selected by subjective committee as to how they
feel about it. I'm sure they love working their butts off for years and
years in the hopes that some bureaucrat will decide that they are "in form"
this season. A kudos, by the way, to the IAAF for finally allowing
defending champions into the following championships without needing to
qualify.
"...someone tries to sue because of restraint of trade?"
3. In any competitive situation, if the rules of the game are known ahead of
time, you have the *choice* to participate and play by those rules. If you
don't like them, work to change them and *chose* to participate or not. Or
create an alternative. No one wins suits for restraint of trade in these
situations because *opportunity* is equal to all-comers and ability
determines the outcome. Restraint of trade is about restricting
opportunity. And there is tons of that in the US in the form of licensure
laws. But that's another topic.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Uri Goldbourt, PhD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Randall Northam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "David Andersen"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "posting" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 2:32 AM
Subject: RE: t-and-f: RE: Tyranny, revisited
> Well written (and an excellent comparable example related to the US
trials).
> UG
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Randall Northam
> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 7:12 PM
> To: David Andersen
> Cc: posting
> Subject: Re: t-and-f: RE: Tyranny, revisited
>
>
> on 24/7/01 3:20 PM, David Andersen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Individuals, acting in their own best interest (for love of
> > the sport, for money, for whatever turns them on) are self-motivated to
> > coach, create meets, practice medicine, perform research, and compete.
> Since
> > when was the presence of a world or national bureaucracy necessary to
> > motivate individuals - coaches, athletes - to be their best? It is a
> > fallacy to assume that if not for the IAAF we would not have a sport.
Do
> > you not love this sport? Are you not self-motivated to participate in
it?
> Someone has to safeguard the rules, see they are upheld (look at the
> problems the USTAF give the IAAF over drug cases). Every sport needs a
> central body. How do people know where or when to compete if there is not
> some organisation? Meetings, coaches, athletes cannot operate in
isolation.
> If the IAAF was not in place it would be necessary to invent it and I
> suggest it would be much the same.
> Of course I don't love the sport because of the IAAF, I don't always love
> the IAAF! But track and field would be in a mess without them or the
> national federations.
> I understand the arguments about the Kenyan Federation and their treatment
> of Ngeny. They should have explained to him that he was required for a
> training camp before he signed up for London. But the USTAF are just as
> draconian in insisting that the first three at the trials go to major
> meetings. It is possible to argue that if, say, Maurice Greene beat
> everybody before the trials but was sick and had to miss them that he
> deserved a place. Of course everyone knows the rules in the US's case but
> what's the betting soon that this happens with someone and because track
and
> is now professional that someone tries to sue because of restraint of
trade?
> Randall Northam
>
