ah rules.
it is so fun when you actually read them and learn something new.
and yet upsetting when it's been handled wrong all along.
Again, I disagree that mere membership in another NGB makes a swimmer "foreign" and there are a number of US citizens who are members of both USMS and another NGB (and who have plenty of Top 10 and record times). The deciding factor is which NGB you are actually representing in a particular competition.
But even if one argues the current rule is ambiguous, it has always been interpreted that way. Similar to law, when an ambiguous statute has always been interpreted in a certain way, someone who wants to argue that it should REALLY be interpreted in a significantly different way faces an uphill battle. It's possible to do, but you have the burden of showing that the current interpretation is not reasonable and that the rule was originally intended to do something closer to what you want it to do. Which I believe in this case it wasn't.
By the way, when you first PM'ed me about this issue before nationals, I of course ran it by the current chair of Records and Tabulation (Jeanne Seidler) as well as Top 10 guru Mary Beth Windrath. They both agreed with my interpretation. I suggested that you run it by Kathy Casey too. Did you?
ah rules.
it is so fun when you actually read them and learn something new.
and yet upsetting when it's been handled wrong all along.
Again, I disagree that mere membership in another NGB makes a swimmer "foreign" and there are a number of US citizens who are members of both USMS and another NGB (and who have plenty of Top 10 and record times). The deciding factor is which NGB you are actually representing in a particular competition.
But even if one argues the current rule is ambiguous, it has always been interpreted that way. Similar to law, when an ambiguous statute has always been interpreted in a certain way, someone who wants to argue that it should REALLY be interpreted in a significantly different way faces an uphill battle. It's possible to do, but you have the burden of showing that the current interpretation is not reasonable and that the rule was originally intended to do something closer to what you want it to do. Which I believe in this case it wasn't.
By the way, when you first PM'ed me about this issue before nationals, I of course ran it by the current chair of Records and Tabulation (Jeanne Seidler) as well as Top 10 guru Mary Beth Windrath. They both agreed with my interpretation. I suggested that you run it by Kathy Casey too. Did you?
