On Thu, 13 Oct 1994, Dave Hendrickson wrote:
 
>
> There may be some that argue that in theory, place finish should not matter.
> IMO, however, theory falls apart when you're talking about #1.  If you take
> away #1, it had better be for some clear-cut abuse rather than the ambiguity
> that we've been arguing about the past week.
 
So basically what you are implying here is that because they finished #1, then
perhaps we should apply the rules differently? Come on... this is like saying
that because a presidential candidate finished 1st in the popular vote, we
need to overlook certain possible improprieties that he brought to bear that
might have helped to propel him into 1st place, but that if someone finished
2nd, that we nail 'em.
 
Rules are rules, no matter whether you finish first or last. They need to
applied fairly and consistently or not at all.
 
-art
clarkson '86, '92