The many facets of USA Triathlon's legal troubles are a case study in how minute and singular disagreements accelerate entropy. The small questions about legality, propriety and ethics have so obscured our view of the Big Picture, there is now a robust devolution of everything our sport has endeavored to build in America. I thought I'd try to bring into focus the Big Picture in the next few paragraphs.

It is now a year since two dozen or so people—all of whom meant well on some level—started the process of running, or thinking of running, for USAT's eleven-member board of directors. Around nine months ago thoughts of the campaign accelerated in earnest, and the rules of engagement were contemplated by the board. A disagreement arose, and a question was asked by the board of USAT's long-time legal co-chair David Backer. He tackled the question of whether the proposed election rules were fair, legal and prudent. He wrote, in part:

"Preserving the integrity of the election requires that USAT protect the method of dissemination of ballots... No candidate should ever have possession of another member's signed ballot. The practice invites the opportunity for fraud and calls into question the integrity of the entire election process."

The majority of the board decided to ignore this advice. The election was held, and several candidates who were unsuccessful challenged the result via a protest under USAT rules. Again, USAT sought legal advice from one of the attorneys who frequently renders service to the federation, former board president Jonathan Grinder. Grinder wrote, in part:

"If this matter were to proceed to litigation neither the Board members who were elected nor the defeated candidates would be allowed to serve... The personal expense to the candidates, as well as to USA Triathlon, would be enormous. All of these factors would cripple USA Triathlon in an important Olympic year."

The majority of the board including, again, all three of the elites, decided to ignore this opinion. It seemed to me at the time that a theme was evident: It did not matter how many opinions were sought, or from whom, or what their contents. A majority of the board was bound and determined to fight for what it thought was right, irrespective of any trouble drummed up for the federation, and this majority would always include the three elites.

The plaintiffs sued, as Grinder predicted, and both sides have agreed to binding arbitration by a Blue Ribbon Panel appointed by the USOC. The plaintiffs (several unsuccessful candidates, plus two sitting board members), the defendants (Jim Girand, Diane Travis and Valerie Ellsworth-Gattis, all officers on the board of directors) and USAT each have attorneys.

Grinder's jeremiad appears to have been truly prophetic. The legal fees USAT has so far accumulated (by its attorney) are in the range of $40,000 and will continue to grow. Fees run up by the plaintiffs are in the same monetary range. The defendants have hired an attorney from a high-powered New York firm and, while I do not know what the fees will be for the defense, I have spoken to a variety of attorneys who are familiar with this firm, and the fees could be quite high.

The defendants will have at their disposal a defensible case for having these fees reimbursed by USAT. I might not agree with their case, and I anticipate lending a hand toward allowing the defendants the privilege of paying part or all of their own attorney's fees but, still, their case is potentially winnable.

Yes, the federation has directors' insurance. The carrier apparently won't cover these expenses, however, because the plaintiffs include board members and, according to USAT's acting executive director, the policy contains an exclusion when the dispute is board on board. In this sense I must cast some blame on the plaintiffs because they discovered this fact early on—or should have if they didn't—and might've dropped its two board members from the suit. One wonders whether they intentionally fashioned a suit in which USAT's insurance would not be applicable, gambling that it would help their case to place financial hardship on the defendants. In using such a tactic plaintiffs roll the dice and bet the federation's money along with their own. (Temporing this criticism is the chain of missed opportunities available to the defendants to reach an accommodation with the plaintiffs).

When one totals the legal fee exposure likely to be accumulated after this is all over, it could easily meet or exceed $200,000. This is part of the Big Picture. Out of every $30 annual membership purchased, $26 or $27 will go toward running the federation and the balance toward legal fees because certain board members—including Girand, Travis, Gattis, Fred Sommer, Tim Becker, and the three elites—decided to ignore the advice they sought of two attorneys familiar with federation business, and because the plaintiffs brought forth a case fashioned to trigger an exclusion by USAT's directors' policy.

All this makes me feel a bit ornery and, yes, I suppose you ought to be angry that you're all being asked—compelled, actually—to donate $3 or $4 each (or much more, who knows?) to the legal funds of these parties. My anger, however, is tempered by one truth: There will at some point one day be an election for a board of directors to run USAT, and then those who've done so much harm to the federation will find out—if they have the bad sense to run again—what the sport thinks of them.

The Big Picture was explained by Lew Kidder to one of the elites in a conversation held just before the board-wide vote on the election protest. Kidder was the third attorney with board experience (the third of three) to explain what is almost certain to happen. He explained to this elite that it is less important what a person thinks is technically legal; nor whether the accumulation of bad election acts in previous elections tempers current bad acts; nor whether the failure to remedy bad election rules in the past means bad rules are defensible today. Kidder argued that what matters is the Big Picture.

Finally, with the potential for legal fees in the low to mid six figures; a board that is unable to act by order of a Colorado court; the resignation in protest of attorneys from USAT's legal committee; the resignation in protest of USAT's long time executive director; the Big Picture begins to come into focus.

What emerges is that people are transitory. Board members come and go. Elites eventually become age-groupers (or couch sitters). Executive directors move on. What matters are USAT's institutions, its processes, and its physical assets. Triathlon has become, in this dispute, no longer the important sport. Governance becomes the sport, and when this happens temporary people harm permanent institutions.

In the Big Picture triathlon is the loser by any measure. Stinky election rules adopted by a majority of the board skilled in how to leverage these rules might be technically legal. But they're still stinky. The result produced by using these rules was predicted several times. Sound processes lost out to convenient technical arguments, and the Big Picture continues to take a weathering.