This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.

Important notes on articles:

• Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
• Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
• If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.

Post being replied to

"The general context of his representation of USA Swimming" by ShermanOaksND

obviously is not protected by attorney-client privilege, in case anyone was wondering. That invocation of privilege, and Swarbrick's alleged failures to recall, are embarrassing. Swarbrick's deletion of his past representation of USAG from his ND bio is suspicious, to put it mildly.

The compromise Swarbrick proposed in 1999 -- that USAG forego its ability to suspend individuals charged with a crime, but retain the ability to deny the privilege of membership upon a felony conviction -- strikes me as woefully inadequate. Of course, the USOC's rejection of that compromise and insistence on a hearing "in all situations" is horrifyingly worse. Under basic principles of due process, the filing of felony charges -- particularly for child abuse-related incidents -- should be sufficient to justify a suspension, at least after a brief pre-deprivation hearing (not the full hearing the USOC appeared to require). It should go without saying that a felony conviction is plainly sufficient for summary termination of membership, with no need for any further hearing. (For example, the California State Bar automatically disbars attorneys upon criminal conviction involving moral turpitude.)

Thanks for this very helpful summary.