HERE ARE THE PERTAINING NCAA RULES:
On page 10 of the 2009 DIVISION I MEN’S & WOMEN’S INDOOR TRACK AND FIELD CHAMPIONSHIPS HANDBOOK it states:
"This handbook takes precedence over any other printed qualifying procedures, including the 2009 & 2010 NCAA Men’s and Women’s Cross Country/Track and Field Rules Book (Part III NCAA Qualifying). For the 2009 indoor championships, marks will not be acceptable if they are set in meets or events:
1. Where collegiate competition does not adhere to the NCAA Rules Book.
2. Where fewer than two four-year institutions with a minimum of 14 athletes per gender
per institution compete, or fewer than five four-year institutions participate;
3. Where fewer than 10 collegiate or open events per gender are contested
4…."
These rules go on to list 15 more items which don’t pertain to this matter.
HERE IS THE BOSTON INDOOR GAMES (BIG) SCHEDULE:
http://www.bostonindoorgames.com/events-results/
The men had 10 events – but only 9 if the “Men’s college mile” and the “Men’s Mile” as counted as one event. The women only had 8 events -- none were at the same distance where the NCAA might try to combine them.
So if I read the above NCAA rule carefully and literally as a lawyer would, then Rupp’s performance should not be a qualifier even if the college and men’s mile events were not counted as one event. This BIG meet simply did not meet the NCAA requirement of having 10 events for the men AND 10 for the women. Depending on how you count the men’s events, there could be 10 events for the men, but there clearly was only 8 events for the women. A careful reading of the NCAA rules book (don’t expect the NCAA officials to do this) clearly shows this meet did not meet did not meet NCAA requirements because fewer that 10 events per gender were contested.
Because the NCAA officials backed off and let Rupp’s time be a qualifier they have to do the same for Kipyego. Otherwise they are discriminating against Kipyego and asking for a gender discrimination lawsuit.
The meet is either a qualifying meet or not. That it. There is nothing in the NCAA rule book allows the meet to be a qualifier for the men but not for the women (or vice versa). Perhaps the NCAA intended a meet could qualify for the men if they had 10 events and not qualify for the women if they didn’t have 10 meets – BUT CLEARLY THIS NOT HOW THE RULE WAS WRITTEN (see above). THe BIG meet is not a qualifier meet because it did not meet the requirements of item #3 in the rulebook.
This just confirms what an earlier poster said about the need to rewrite much of the NCAA rule book. What the NCAA rule book might intend to say and what it actually says are often two different things.
Sally, if the NCAA refuses to honor your performance while accepting Rupp’s performance, I know a great NYC lawyer that would be eager to bring a discrimination lawsuit on your behalf against the NCAA. I’ll email your coach with his name once I learn the outcome of this appeal as it relates to you.