From the Chicago Tribune (5/9/96)....

------------------
SWIMMER ASKS TRIALS PROBE
By Bonnie DeSimone, Tribune Staff Writer

The supposedly flawed turn that cost Olympic swimmer Kristine
Quance the chance to compete in her best event has taken a U-turn
into murky waters.

Quance, through her attorneys, requested Wednesday that U.S.
Swimming, the sport's national governing body, investigate her
disqualification from the 400-meter individual medley at the Olympic
Trials in March.

Lance Sears, the Colorado Springs-based attorney hired by the
Quance family, said he spoke with U.S. Swimming Executive
Director Ray Essick and U.S. Swimming attorney Rich Young before
making the request.

"We want them to work this out equitably and promptly and fairly,"
Sears said. "This gives them the chance to fix something that's broken.
. . I want them to provide all the remedies they think are available."

Quance's absence from the event deprives the U.S. of one of its best
medal hopes on a women's team that is expected to have great
difficulty reaching the podium. But putting her on the blocks in the
400 IM would require either finding a way to bend international rules
that provide for only two swimmers per event per country or
knocking off one of the other two qualifiers. Sears and family
spokeswoman Sonja Brown have even raised the specter of a
potentially messy rerun of the race.

The major topics raised by Quance and her attorneys:

- Did Bob Brown, the head referee at the meet, violate U.S.
Swimming's rules by not properly reviewing the turn judge's decision
on the meet's first morning?

- Which rules were in effect at the meet--those of U.S. Swimming, or
FINA, the international federation?

- Is it customary for swimming officials at major meets to give
swimmers "warnings" about minor infractions rather than disqualifying
them?

Essick would not comment on the merits of Quance's claims.
"But don't let anyone tell you that the door is closed," he said.

Essick said he would consult with Young and U.S. Swimming
President Carol Zaleski as to whether the body's rules permit such an
inquiry.

Quance, a 21-year-old junior at the University of Southern California,
swam the fastest time (4 minutes 42.28 seconds) in the morning
preliminary of the 400 IM at Trials. At the evening finals, minus
Quance, Allison Wagner won in 4:41.61 and Whitney Metzler
finished second with a 4:46.88.

Although Quance qualified for the Olympic team in two other events,
the 100-meter breaststroke and the 200 IM, Brown said she has not
reconciled to the decision that barred her from the 400 IM finals. She
was ranked seventh in the world in the event last year.

Controversy is the last thing the federation needs 10 weeks before the
Olympics. And the Quance quandary comes on the heels of a
months-long battle over the eligibility of Jessica Foschi, who was
allowed to compete at Trials despite a positive steroids test last year
but did not make the team.

Jim Gray, a Marquette University law professor and assistant director
of the school's National Sports Law Institute, said there is some
precedent for a case such as Quance's winding up in court, under
specific circumstances.

"Courts generally will not overrule a sports governing body unless the
organization's own rules are not followed properly," he said.

The "warning" issue, Gray said, could be the basis of a claim that U.S.
Swimming applies its rules "arbitrarily and capriciously."

                             ###

In article <31920AED.4...@spss.com>, Black Diamond Dave <don...@spss.com> wrote:

I have NEVER experienced this and don't believe it's done.

He should read the rules: the Meet Referee is the final arbitor of
judgement decisions.  After the meet there isn't an appeal process.

Boy, this is just great.  What every official needs to know is there's
sleezy laywer out there under the rocks waiting to due over a meet stroke
and turn call.  It's disgusting, outrageous, and unacceptable for sport to
find itself in this position.  The LA Times is right: next we'll see NFL
teams suing over calls that could deprive of them of the superbowl.

There are rules.  The rules were followed.  The media reporting of what
happened hasn't been particularly accurate: at no time was an offer made
to retract the call based on video replay.  The stroke judge was allowed
to view the tape but not to change his call.  Any suggestion to the
contrary is fabrication.

The sad result of all of this will be that age-group meets could become
ferociously officiated.

This is a mockery.  USS chose to have the team selected by performance IN
THE POOL.  Quance screwed up and can't bear to live with the results of
her own actions...so now it's someone else's fault.

It's BS, pure and simple.

Adam Bridge

Their is nothing in the rule book that says a swimmer gets a warning the
first time or on a slight break of the rules.  You either do it right or
you do it wrong and if you do it even slightly wrong and get caught you
are DQ'ed.  They don't forgive a relay false start if you leave just
before the other person touches.
I have been to several big meets were a dq has been over ruled on a
swimmer because they are the stars of the meet, but if it's a infraction
of the rules it should be a dq whether it's Kristin Quance or Whitney
Metzler.
As far as what rules are in place at the Olympic Trials, it's a USS run
meet so USS rules are in effect.

Brian

In article <abridge-1005961738320...@dcn128.dcn.davis.ca.us>, abri...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us (Adam Bridge) writes:

|>
|> Boy, this is just great.  What every official needs to know is there's
|> sleezy laywer out there under the rocks waiting to due over a meet stroke
|> and turn call.  It's disgusting, outrageous, and unacceptable for sport to
|> find itself in this position.  The LA Times is right: next we'll see NFL
|> teams suing over calls that could deprive of them of the superbowl.
|>

This is the issue that bo one seems to be discussing. Someone must put a stop
to all of this litigation or sports governing bodies are going to end up completely powerless
to make any rules, officiate competitions or discipline members for fear of
being sued. I really hope USS slams the door on this quickly. (Something tells
me they won't though.)

Adam,

   I agree with you 100%.  This entire Quance story has gone too far. In
the long run, this girl will not be remembered for her achievements but
for this incident alone.  Even if she was allowed on the team and got
GOLD medals in her events, the public will always think of her for the
way she behaved at the Trials.  
    I have spoken with people that were on deck that day and everything
was done by the book - just as it would be for any other swimmer. If Ms.
Quance wishes to pursue this in court, I hope she realizes that the
ENTIRE tape of her swim will be publicized.  I can think of one frame or
another that would make a good picture for PARTING SHOTS in the SWIMMING
magazine.

Paul

Hey Adam, quit beating around the bush and tell us what you
REALLY think :-).  

Seriously, although it's hard, because I think one of the
fastest swimmers in the world in the 400 IM won't be swimming it
in Atlanta, I have to agree with what you are saying.

The rules are the rules.  Unless there is some provision in the
rules to cover these types of things (and from what I've heard,
there isn't anything in the rules except finishing 1st or 2nd at
the Olympic Trials), Quance shouldn't swim the 400 IM at the Olympics.

I certainly hope we don't get a bunch of lawyers involved in
officiating the results of swim meets.  Being from the U.S., I
really wish Quance would have qualified for the Olympics in the
400 IM but she didn't.  That should be the end of it.

The only way I would change my position on this is if someone
(someone credible) said that it was a bad call and that she
really shouldn't have been disqualified under the rules they
were swimming under.  I don't believe someone should miss the
Olympics due to a bad call from an official; but, most
everything I have heard indicates she should have been DQ'd.

What is your opinion on whether she should have been DQ'd or not?

Thanks,

Doug Gilliam

First....I wasn't standing on deck watching her turn.  I saw the film NBC
showed and it was absolutely clear: Quance was in violation of the USS
rule.

Therefore she should have been disqualified.

The turn judge saw the infraction, called it, it was written up, reviewed
by the Meet Referee, and that was it.

Now I happen to know the official who made the call very well.  There
wasn't ANY doubt in his mind that there was an infraction.  And, contrary
to any and all news reports, he was not given the opportunity to review
the tapes and reverse his call.  That didn't happen.  He WAS, however,
given the opportunity to watch a huge number of replays in the
truck....and did.  He found them very difficult to use because almost all
the angles were inconclusive.  He doesn't remember the angle that NBC
eventually aired on the Saturday coverage.  Which is a prime example of
why video coverage shouldn't be allowed as a part of the process for
overturning a DQ.

Did the turn judge know the rule?  Yes.
Was he able to describe what he saw?  Yes.
Was it in his juristiction? Yes. (another DQ by another judge on the same day
                                  was tossed because of this.)
Was he in the correct position to make the call?  Yes.
Was there any doubt about what he saw?  No.

The DQ stood just like it would at any USS meet.

Adam Bridge

In article <abridge-1305961837200...@dcn135.dcn.davis.ca.us>, abri...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us (Adam Bridge) says:

O.K. mabey so but what rules were in use at the time of the meet?
Also the rules say that she should be D.Q.'ed if it gave her a signifcant
advantage over the other swimmers, which it didn't.  She won by over 20
seconds.....I think that the ruling should be over turned because she is
our best hope for a gold medal in this summer games.

Dan
sacre...@nai.net

In article <4n9flg$...@a3bsrv.nai.net> scare...@nai.net (Sacred Heart High School) writes:

Not if she gets DQ'd for a bad turn at the meet.

And I really wish all this whining would stop.

In article <abridge-1005961738320...@dcn128.dcn.davis.ca.us>, abri...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us (Adam Bridge) writes:

|>
|> Boy, this is just great.  What every official needs to know is there's
|> sleezy laywer out there under the rocks waiting to due over a meet stroke
|> and turn call.  It's disgusting, outrageous, and unacceptable for sport to

Come on, Adam, it's not the lawyers, it's the clients! Do you blame plumbers
for clogged drains?

Andrew Duncan
Advanced Development
Philips Media
adun...@aimla.com

In <pevans.206.3198C...@mindlink.bc.ca> pev...@mindlink.bc.ca (philip

Me too. Whitney Metzler swam the race right. She didn't get DQed. She
earned her spot to Atlanta. She will get alot better by the Olympics I
predict. Besides that, Alison Wagner is an awesome 400 IMmer. You make
it sound like Kristine is the only one. She is not, in fact they both
have been like 4:39, and I think Alison has a real shot at the gold.
She doesn't let anything faze her. Kristine can. Besides that, Kristine
is in for two events anyhow. Poor Pablo back in '88 missed all of his.
He was the world record holder for goodness sake! Kristine is good, but
she's no Pablo. Alison Wagner has a very strong chance of winning the
gold medal, and who's to say Metzler can't catch up to medal?? Look how
fast Amanda Beard broke onto the scene! Give the swimmers who EARNED
their Olympic berths a chance!
----Josh----

Hmmm.....depends on whether the lawyer was part of the problem.

ATTENTION: to all the lawyers, and THEIR lawyers who represented them in
the context of this generic insult which caused substantial mental
distress:

well, on advice of counsel I won't say anything.

Sheesh, lawyers are about as touchy as swim officials  :-)

<insert your favorite lawyer joke here...I like the one about lawyers and
pharmecutical testing myself>

Adam Bridge

The call was a good call.  Quance left the wall toward the back on the
back to breast turn.  The videotape confirmed the call.  The coach was
quoted (I'm paraphrasing here) that the tape demonstrated the validity
of the call, but he didn't think it would have been made in the Olympics.
Pretty weak argument!

The news report by Black Diamond confirms that there is no merit to
Quance's request for reinstatement, but she is relying on legal BS.  
Whether or not the meet conformed to FINA rules (the rules governing the
Olympics) is irrelevant.  While it would be wise to match the rules,
Quance needed to make a legal swim under the rules for the Trials to
qualify.  I find it hard to believe that she and her coach didn't know
what the rules were for the Trials.

As for getting a warning for "minor" infractions, there is no warning
in USS officiating.  A swim is either legal or a DQ, there is no in
between.  

Some have argued that she should have been given the chance to swim in
the finals on the merit of her time, since the benefit of her illegal
turn was no more than a fraction of a second.  If USS is going to allow
this type of thing, they better be prepared for swimmers doing easy
freestyle for breaststroke, etc in order to qualify.  

In summary, this was a very unfortunate event for Quance and the US
team, but it happened and everyone needs to move on.

Birdman

Most of the articles I've seen posted on r.s.s. seem to support the
Quance D.Q.   I'd like to point out that without exception  
the swimmers I talk to would like to see Quance swimming the 400 I.M.
in Atlanta, and don't think it was a good decision to D.Q. the woman who
is clearly one of our top two swimmers in that event.  I don't know why
more people don't express that opinion here, maybe they are afraid of
the vociferous, angry contingent on r.s.s. who rail on at the mere mention
that there could have been a better way for U.S.S. to handle the situation.

Those who support the Quance D.Q. seem to enjoy a simple minded world
where we just blindly follow rules, and feel good about the results no
matter how perverse they might be.  The goal of our US trials is to select
our best Olypmic team.  Yet our 400 I.M. medal contender Quance will watch
the event from the side of the pool due to an infraction on a back to breast
turn, in a heat, which might have gained her a maximum of a few tenths of
a second.  That's stupid.  Plain and simple.  (Get ready for the torrent
of chest thumping, tough love, brainless onslaughts championing the idea
that the rules are the rules and we should dutifully march off a cliff to
follow them!!!!)

Eliminating Quance from the 400 i.m. due to her minor infraction would be
something like throwing Emit Smith off the Cowboys because he made an
illegal motion infraction.  (And for the record, I would define a "minor
infraction" as that which could improve a time by less than a second.)

U.S.S. could have given Quance a massive 10 second penalty for her infractino
and she still would have comfortably qualified for the finals.  There she
would qualify for the Olympics.  Problems?  And yes, I'd be happy to tell
Mitzy that she's off the team.  Go back, train hard and come back again
4 years from now.  

Personally I hope Quance wins her law suit.  I don't think the issue belongs
in court, but I do think she should represent us in the 400 I.M. at the
Olympics, and I would support any action which successfully accomplishes
that end.  

Ed

In article <4n7a47$...@reznor.larc.nasa.gov>, cockr...@hyp24.larc.nasa.gov says...

I am familiar with the USS Rules regarding the Technical Rules of
Swimming, I must of missed the section that says "the swimmer should be
dq'ed if it gives her a significant advantage over the other swimmers."
Could you give me the section number so I can use it at the next meet I
work.

Michael Moore

My understanding (as explained to us by Adam Bridge) is that USS Rules
were in effect while the swimmers were in the water, while FINA rules were
in effect when the swimmers were on the deck.  Thus, Ron Karnaugh "jumped"
at the start of the 200 IM, which would have been a DQ under USS rules,
but not under FINA rules (where the first false start is charged to the
field). At the Olympics, FINA rules will prevail, both on the deck and in
the water. At the trials, USS rules, were, however, in effect in the
water. Thus, Quance's turn (which gave her no performance advantage) was
illegal under the unique and confusing set of rules for this meet, while
it would not have been an illegal turn at the Olympics.

Both the sportsmanship and legal merit of Quance's appeal rests on the
degree to which the rules regarding the meet were made clear to the
participants and coaches.  If participants and coaches were clearly
informed of the peculiar set of rules in effect for the meet, then the
protest is of questionable merit.  From my small sampling of coaches and
athletes, it was not at all clear to everyone that FINA deck rules and USS
water rules were to apply.

Regarding the issue of "warning" vs. "DQ," a swim coach, who requests
anonyminity, has prepared the following line of argument:

[The] summarized argument is as follows:

Every rule that exists in law is by definition, open for interpretation,
swimming rules being no exception.  True, a foul was committed
in this case, as was decided by the official.  Though the enforcement
of such must not necessarily result in disqualification!  Its enforcement
and penalties are hence, relative and subject to the judgement of
authority - in this case, the meet referee.

Examples of said subjective and relative enforcement are found in
specific "D.Q. rules and enforcement of such..." articles of 102.10.(*):

(.3) ...may be considered for...
(.6) ...subject to discretion of referee...
(.8) ...unless referee finds that such action is interfering...
(.9) ...the referee "MAY" at his/her discretion, d.q. the swimmer...
(.10) ...if not considered "EXCESSIVE" by the referee...

In contrast, other specific articles do declare a mandated d.q. penalty.
Examples are found in above "D.Q. rules..." and other articles (e.g.
relay d.q. articles: 101.6.3(D,F) and other USS technical rules
providing "Fair and equitable conditions...so that no swimmer shall
obtain unfair advantage over another...).

Furthermore, where as some rules and parts of rules are distinctly
protective of above goal (preventing an unfair advantage, or enhanced
performance), therefor warranting a disqualification as penalty; others
are merely designed to "...promote uniformity..." in the sport, therefor
not necessarily merriting a d.q.

The article in question (101.5.3B(2), regarding Kristine Quance, is
precisely in this catagory of purpose - not performance related, but
conformity related.

Since penalties are proven by above examples to include relative
degrees of severity and since Kristine's infraction was of minor fault
of a "Non-performance related article," then a foul was administered
in preventing the success of a swimmer, by unjustifiably
disqualifying said athlete.

In conclusion, because swimmers success was prevented by foul of
another (official), then Disqualification article 102.10.9 should be
enacted and Kristine should be allowed to reswim the event.  A timed
final swim (solo) should enable her to qualify for Olympic team if
among top two qualifying times.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Larry Weisenthal

I know of no other sport that goes to such lengths to disqualify its
athletes.  All federations should adopt uiniform rules with as little
regulation as possible.  FINA rules and USS rules should be identical
regarding the technical aspects of the swim, e.g. starts, turns,
strokes to avoid confusion.  In my view, Quance's dq was a gross
disservice to the sport and to her.  Perhaps this donneybrook will
underscore the problem and bring about changes.  But I think not.  As
long as meet officials are dqing 6 year olds for false starts, the
entire sport will suffer from over-regulation.

So ALL the american swimmers are lacking in ethics?  I hope you either:
A) are in error in your summation
or
B) don't talk to many swimmers

Maybe it's a more rational viewpoint.  

Sure there's stupidity - on the swimmer's part.  It's a shame to see others
rush to join in.

Ok, so rules are for everyone EXCEPT americans.

This guy gets worse and worse.  I'm not surprised he's drawing an analogy with
the "sport" of american football - we all know how gentlemanly the actions of
players, coaches, and owners in that realm are; and how drug-free their sport
is.

Guess one of the swimmers you didn't talk to above was the one most likely to
be impacted by your scheme.

How about taking a knobkerrie to Mitzy's knees, yah, that oughta do it.  And
if you get caught, tie it up in court until after the games are over.  

Oh, and do make sure you REMOVE that special tape from the VCR before
returning it to the rental store. . .

This is absurd.

1)   Quance is not a 6 yr old being deked at a developmental league meet.
I have found most officials to be considerate and soemwhat understanding
of 6 yr old swimmers swimming in their first few meets.  Don't place the
blame for this on the officials.

2)   No, we're not expected to follow the rules over a cliff so to speak.
That is a decision made by each individual person.  However, we do expect
our police to enforce the rule in our community fairly and consistently.
This is the officials job also.

3)   Several people have admitted that this illegal turn might make the
difference of a few hudnred or even tenths of seconds and therefore should
not apply as Quance won her heat by 20+ seconds.  Unfortunately, this rule
was not written and put in the rulebook specifically for Quance's heat of
the 400 IM at the 1996 U.S. Olympic Trials.  If you think it is not
possible for a 400 IM to come down to tenths or hundredths of a second you
don't go to many swim meets.

4)   Let's talk about American Football.  Dan Wilkinson flinches on the
line before the snap.  The resulting play is a touchdown but by the
arguments I have read, it shouldn't be called back because the infraction
wasn't a very big one and didn't result in an actual advantage.  Football
operates under a set of very well defined rules and if you are observed by
the officials violating these rules then your team is assessed a penalty
of some sort.  Quance was observed violating a rule and was penalized.  It
was unfortunate that this happened in the football equivalent of a final
second game winning touchdown play in the superbowl and not in the first
quarter of a preseason game, but hey, those are the breaks.  (Note:  If
you wan't to make a more legitimate argument, try looking at Professional
basketball).

5)   There has been lots of talk about the rule book stating something
about preventing any swimmer from gaining an unfair advantage.  The text
in question reads as follows "All competitive swimming events held under
USS sanction shall be conducted in accordance with the following rules
which are designed to provide fair and equitable conditions of competition
and promote uniformity in the sport so that no swimmer shall obtain unfair
advantage over another." (Unite States Swimming Rules and Regulations pg.
13)  Note that this paragraph has no numbers in front of it.  This is
USS's attempt to explain the philosophy behind enforcing the set of rules
that follows it and not a rule in and of itself.  This is denoted by the
use of the phrase are designed to.

6)   On the other hand, the first part of the preceding sentence states a
rule that all meets sanctioned by USS will be run under the rules.  I'm
pretty sure the US Olympic Trials were probablly a USS sanctioned event
and therefore USS rules would be in effect by default and it would be the
responsibility of the coaches and athletes to realize this.  If there is
any question about rules notification, it is whether anyone was informed
of the few changes that were made to the rules for this meet, or were
misinformed that there were more changes that actually existed.  Also note
that the rule in question is not one which was modified and therefore is
not an issue.

I'm sure I could go back and find some more statements to rail against,
but I think under the circumstances, these are the 6 most common arguments
that I have seen, and I don't attach much importance to them for the
reasons stated above.

lator
   mike

--
Michael Lee Barnes - also know as - the original Iridescent Mouse
                      E-mail barnes...@osu.edu

<insert your favorite lawyer joke here...I like the one about lawyers and
pharmecutical testing myself>

Q: What's brown and black and looks great on a lawyer?

Answer:  A doberman

Q: What do you call a hundred lawyers at the bottom of a diving well?

A: A good start

etc.
Larry Weisenthal

Another person from north of the border with a low opinion of his southern
neighbors jumps in to say:

I would, at least, hope that the international community would give US
Swimming credit for one thing and one thing only. In no other country in
the world would one of the country's best female gold medal hopes have
been disqualified after swimming 8 seconds faster than her replacement for
a non-performance related, obscure infraction, not even known by said
swimmer (and most other swimmers and coaches) to be an infraction after a
15 year swimming career that included no DQs during the past 9 years, at
any level, and which was an infraction only under an arcane local rule
which will NOT be in effect at the Olympics, themselves, in a meet being
run under TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF RULES (local rules for the water; Olympic
rules for the deck).

Whatever US Swimming may be, it cannot be said that it is an organization
which is out to win the Olympics at all costs, including ignoring its own
Bysantine and irrational rules, established without any apparent logic
whatsoever for its Olympic selection meet.

I, at least, hope those Aussies who were convinced that Samantha Riley was
DQd during the Pan-Pacs in order to secure the victory of a "Yank," will
now believe the truth that it was just another US official "calling it as
he saw it," consequences be danged.

Larry Weisenthal

As I re-read what I wrote here yesterday, I just want to make it
explicitly clear that what I mean below is that a violation which
makes a time difference of one second or less is "minor" in Quance's
situation specifically.  (where she has swum in a heat, her goal is
to qualify for the final of the 400 i.m., and she has posted a time that
is about 13 seconds better than the eighth place time).  Obviously if
we are talking about a 100 breast stroke race and there are eight swimmers
separated by less than one second, that's all the difference in the
world.  

It's not always possible to write an air-tight post during 15 minutes
at lunch time :-).

Ed

n article <4nafvr$...@doc.zippo.com>, gendr...@ctron.com says...

1.  The illegal turn was, in fact, performance enhancing.  That is why
it is illegal.  It is faster to make the back to breast transition
leaving the wall toward the back.  If you allow this you have a big
headache deciding when the swimmer must swim breaststroke during the
breaststroke leg of the IM (ie could the swimmer kick underwater on the
back for 15 meters before starting breaststroke).  

2.  If Quance and her coach were unaware of the IM turn rules for 15
years there is a serious problem.  

3.  Would somebody please post the FINA rule governing the back to breast
transition.  I am repeatedly seeing statements that the Quance turn was
legal by FINA rules.  USS makes a big effort to conform their rules to
FINA rules.  The big exception is the no false start rule (for obvious
reasons ).  As far as I know, the Quance turn was just as illegal by
FINA rules.

Birdman

In article <barnes.87-1505961123540...@slip1-10.acs.ohio-state.edu>,

Obviously, you haven't been reading all the posts. Your statement above is
exactly what is in question. The trials were held in modified USS/FINA rules.
The deck was under FINA, and the water was under USS. The question is how well
was this ruling scheme announced to the coaches and swimmers. As is obvious, it
is confusing. You yourself thought the meet was completely under USS rules, but
in fact, the rules are a mix of FINA and USS. In such a case, the rules should
be given to the coaches prior to the meet to assure all fairness in
understanding them. IMHO, the rules should be the exact same as those to be
used at the actual meet. I think that yes, she was in fault, and yes the DQ
 was appropriate, but the rules were also at fault, by not matching those
that the meet would be used for. If the trial is supposed to be a meet to
select the US Olympic team, the rules should match those of the Olympics.

T-mack

--
Theral E. Mackey
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:     ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt3777b
Internet: gt37...@prism.gatech.edu

The reason that they were using local rules in the water is that the COACHES made a big
deal out of it.  It's ironic that the COACHES were concerned that their swimmers would be
confused by FINA rules and wanted them to compete under USS rules.  It's kind of wild
that USS wanted to run the meet under international rules and if the coaches had let them
then Quance wouldn't have been DQ'ed.  Let's add to the ill informed debate by saying
that the USS official's DQ'ed Quance to get even with the coaches.  How about that.

I would like Quance to swim for the U.S.  The way to do it is for USS to make some sort
of an executive decree that even though Quance violated a techical rule her performance
was so far ahead of everyone that she'll represent the U.S. anyway.  Gymnastics and
figure skating do it all the time.  I don't think the deck officials should be villified
for doing their jobs.  The first failure was Quance's and her coach for not understanding
the rules.  After the DQ, in her other IM races, she did a straight flip turn from her
back to breast so there was no doubt.  She did the same thing at NCAA's.  It's not the
officials job to make sure world class swimmers understand the rules of the race.  The
rule is not arcane.  All the kids in my children's age group swim team understand the
rule and I've seen more than a couple DQ'ed who didn't do it right.  Quance knew the rule
but she was trying to get her best time and screwed up.

We should have the best team at the olympics and it's up to USS to take a hard nosed
position and just do it.  Not try an wriggle trough some loop hole.  They just need to
take a stand.

Garry Jackson