Originally Posted by form
This chat is tired of both of us.... let me close with:
• You have not and cannot defend the actions of your coach... he withheld the truth (lied) about Hammel's injury to stack her at # 3 and slide the line up down. He had actually submitted her at # 2 I am told but they moved her to three only after he admitted she was not better than Bisharat at that time. HOW ABOUT EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE LINE UP?
When a team feels another team stacked their line-up and should be disqualified the avenue available to them is to file a protest. A protest was filed against UCI, officials reviewed the case and ruled in UCI's favor. So Form can not argue that UCI should have been disqualified for stacking because the protest recourse was given its due process.
Maybe Form thinks Stephanie Hammel shouldn't have been allowed to play at #3 with a brace.
So let's play WHAT IF
Hammel played #6 singles or didn't play at all.
Long Beach St. wins doubles point - no change
1. Byron (UCI) def. Alawi - no change
2. Bisharat(UCI) def. Dallara - no change
3. Bartlett(UCI) def. Armstrong
Even Form wouldn't be dumb enough to argue Armstrong would have beaten Bartlett after Armstrong was playing so badly that particular day she couldn't even beat Hammel, who was playing courageously with her forehand tied behind her back. Plus Bartlett was on the way to beating Armstrong in straight sets the previous year in the Big West Tournament Finals before the match was stopped unfinished.
4. Kwan (UCI) vs Manasse - toss up
5. Smith (UCI) def. Jeczmionka
If Kwan easily def. Jeczmionka 6-3,6-2, Smith would have beaten her too.
6. Cantlay (LBS) vs Hammel or Holladay
Just for arguement's sake I'll give this to LBS.
None of Form's whining points changes the fact UCI defeated LBS on the tennis court. But I concede that if Stephanie Hammel had played #6 singles or not played in the line-up at all UCI would have probably defeated Long Beach St. 4-2 instead of 4-1. THERE Form you should be happy now and we can put this issue to rest.