Trying to keep emotion out of it, and just look at this logically, here is where I see a number of problems in this case:
1) The Honest Effort Rule. Regardless of whether or not the reasoning behind this rule or not is intelligent, the question is, can it be implemented correctly and without question (without any ambiguity). In a prior comment, one of the posters stated, "Everyone needs to take a step back from the emotion. The honest effort rule is simple, if you don't finish a race you aren't deemed to have given an honest effort. Why? Because who can judge otherwise? I know he ran 8k so obviously thats well beyond "saving" yourself for the 5,000 later, but you can't have a flexible rule thats open to interpretation." Thank you for proving my point. Who can judge otherwise. In reading the honest effort rule, it does not appear that there are explicit conditions stated in the rule that not finishing the race is deemed a lack of an honest effort. I understand that the meet officials interpreted things this way, but too often in this sport, from meet to meet, I've heard different interpretations of rules, even seen officials disagree during a coaches meeting about various rules and interpretations of said rules. If a rule is subject to such open interpretation, or that the implementation is so cut and dry, then why have the rule in the first place? I could be missing something, but I don't see the reading of Rule 4-2.2a, 4-2.2b, or 4-2.1.
2) If the meet officials set up the interpretation as Honest Effort required completion of the race OR clearance with the medical staff before competing in another event, then the meet officials should have had a meeting that night to review finishers from the 10000 and compare that list to those from the meet medical staff. Where the meet medical staff documenting and providing officials with this information, or was that available. How were meet officials going to verify if an athlete who DNF sought clearance from the medical staff. Were their coaches meetings at the end of the day or the start of the day to confirm this. Why did the meet officials allow this to continue for two days, run the race and then upon notification from the Harvard coach make a decision. This really sounds like a) poor meet management that cannot keep track of potential disqualifications, and also b) a failure of due diligence upon the Virginia Tech coaching staff not to have their athlete evaluated, even the next day after recognizing they dropped out. However, again, even a medical evaluation clearing an athlete to participate doesn't help determine Honest Effort, does it. Even if an athlete is not cleared by a medical staff to compete in any further events (thus making the Honest Effort determination moot), you still cannot make any definitive statement on their effort.
3) Which brings us to the Harvard coaches. Meet officials sometimes miss things. If a Harvard athlete were interfered with during a race, or one of his competitors used some form of enhancement to beat the Harvard runner (whether physical, chemical, mechanical, etc), and meet officials missed it, I completely agree with the Harvard coach(es) filing a protest. In these cases, it is cut and dry that their athlete's ability to perform was directly impacted by the action of another. However, this is not the case. The Harvard runner was running in another heat, correct? While the participation of the VT runner did affect the outcome of his heat, we cannot definitively say how it affected the outcome. Did it make the finalists faster? Did it potentially slow down the second person out, meaning if the VT runner had not participated, he would have been the first person out, making the Harvard runner two spots out? It would be hard to make a definitive statement on that. However what we can say are the following regarding the Harvard runner and coach: either 1) Your runner is not a good enough athlete/racer to have qualified for the finals (or they would have), or 2) The Harvard coach didn't prepare his athlete (either physiologically, mentally, or tactically, or all three) well enough to make finals, or 3) Both the runner and coach just didn't get the job done. Honestly, hard to argue against one of these options, but in the end, the Harvard runner and/or coach didn't get the job done. Protesting over the Virginia Tech athlete's participation is clearly sour grapes on the part of the Harvard coach. There is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. If your athlete doesn't make finals, and no one interferes with him during the race, either you, they, or both of you failed. You didn't earn it. They didn't earn it. That's life. What a great life lesson. Instead, what we saw was when you fail to get the job done, blame someone else and attack their success. Great lesson!!! Filing a protest to DQ the runner based on the honest effort rule is right up there with filing a protest because one athlete wore a nose ring heading into competition. YOUR RUNNER DIDN'T EARN IT. YOUR RUNNER WASN'T HINDERED BY THE VT RUNNER. Recruit better athletes, or become a better coach. That's how you should handle the situation.