I wrote "If you don't like them, work to change them and *chose* to
participate or not."
I mean 'choose.' Agggh. I hate it when I do that.
I should also add with respect to restraint of trade that 'opportunity'
being equal for all-comers does not imply that the rules of private
organizations should be declared unfit just because someone cannot meet that
organizations standards for entrance. To do so violates a fundamental
principle of freedom, the right to associate freely. This issue has
recently taken tangible form in the US with PGA vs. Martin. So much for
freedom of association, but I digress...
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Andersen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Randall Northam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 11:16 PM
Subject: Re: Tyranny, revisited
> "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
> >
>
