USA Triathlon posted a statement on its website last week explaining why it voted for the Les McD slate in the last elections, which spurred me to thinking.

First, thank you, Steve Locke, for issuing a comment. At least somebody did.

I have a hard time buying into the argument, though, that President Mike Highfield flew to Perth, sniffed around, took the temperature, and only then decided to cast a vote based on the lie-of-the-land. It was widely rumored that he had already made up his mind long before going, and was hell-bent to vote for McD. I and others would have been quite shocked if he'd voted differently.

But I'm in the odd position of criticising our federation for what it SAYS it did, instead of what I THINK it did. Our federation electors OUGHT to have made up their minds long before touching down in Perth. USAT's STATED way of choosing a candidate smacks of elementary school days when, if you weren't sure of the answer, you looked around the room at the show of hands to see whether or not you ought to raise yours too, so as to ensure being counted in the majority. This is one of those rare cases where -- assuming USAT's upcoming vote was actually decided well in advance -- telling the truth would have been the best political play. The spectre of our federation looking around to see how others were going to vote before it made its decision reinforces my suspicion that our leaders lack confidence in our federation's ability to take a moral stand and survive the consequences.

USAT says, "While Koenig-Zenz is a European, we were troubled by the fact that so many of the key countries of her own continent were not supporting her." In the last election, our own Steve Locke ran against McDonald, and no countries to the north or south of us voted for him. Should we conclude from this he was an unfit candidate? In fact, the person Highfield and Locke want sitting in the president's chair -- so badly that they're willing to wade through four years of McD in order to get him -- is American Mark Sisson, ITUs Secretary General. Locke, et al, found him so unfit four years ago that they refused to nominate him for election -- Mexico nominated him (Mark is my good friend but, alas, the truth is out, his Spanish suffers mightily).

Were we wrong then not to have nominated him? Or are we wrong now? If we were so wrong in our own collective national judgement during the last election, why do we assume that other countries must be right this time around? Are we so unsure of our own judgement that we must first see how France, or Mexico, or Japan is going to vote before we decide who we also ought to raise our hand for? If we don't seem able to form sound judgements on our own, why do we have so much faith on other countries' abilities to properly apply sound judgement to this process?

Finally, about USAT's statement: I voted for certain representatives to Congress, one House member and two Senators. I do not expect Joe Lockhart to stand out on the White House lawn and tell me how my representatives in Congress decided to represent me. I expect them to tell me. Yes, our boardmembers volunteer their time. For the record, thanks. Also for the record, please don't run for election next time if you're not going to place vigorous representation of your constituents ahead of boardroom comedy, er, comity.