Arbitrator in the Mike Saltzstein/USA Swimming dispute sides with Mike!

Mike Saltzstein, former USA Swimming, Vice President, had openly complained to the media regarding USA Swimming's incompetent behavior in the wake of the Andrew King Sex abuse case; consequently he was slammed! USA Swimming pulled him off the deck of major swimming competitions as a way to silence him and this was the second time he had been punished for thinking independently.

This was the last straw for, Saltzstein, and he decided to complain to the USOC. The verdict is in and and they agreed with him.

Saltzstein had been trying since 2004 to get USA Swimming to institute new policies to protect both children and coaches but all to no avail. Obviously Mike's dedication to this subject pissed-off a lot of people off and when election time came, Mike Saltzstein, had two candidates running against him.

It also did not help that John Leonard of ASCA jumps into the fray widely circulation a document stating that Saltzstein had to pay a $2,000 fine once for trading stocks incorrectly. This document was disseminated to Swimming World and perhaps other voting members at large as well. In my opinion, this letter was packaged as a "Gordon Gecko", insider-trading violation from, Oliver Stone's, movie, Wall Street. Subsequently, it was politics as usual and USA Swimming lost an independent thinker.

Well, round two went differently.

From ESPN:

A former USA Swimming vice president who complained about the organization's handling of sexual abuse cases is back on the list of potential judges at major international events after winning his arbitration case.

[Link]

Here is the arbitrator's decision:

ARBITRATOR DECISION

1. The Parties submitted post-hearing closing briefs on July 17 and post-hearing reply briefs
on July 20, 2010.

2. The Arbitrator closed the hearing on July 21, 2010.

3. The Parties agreed that the Arbitrator could announce his decision by July 22, 2010, and
thereafter issue a reasoned award.

4. On July 21, 2010, the Arbitrator announced his decision that:

a. The Arbitrator has concluded that the Respondent’s decision—to nominate Mr. Broyles as a FINA Referee rather than re-nominate the Claimant—was arbitrary, capricious, and in violation of the Claimant’s legally protected opportunity to participate as an international referee under the Sports Act, which affords him due process rights in being fairly considered as a nominee for FINA List 16.

b. The Arbitrator therefore orders the Respondent to immediately replace Mr. Broyles with the Claimant as a Referee nominee for FINA List 16 and so inform FINA immediately.

July 21, 2010
/s/
James R. Holbrook

If this were any other sports body, would behavior at the top like this be tolerated in any manner or form?