ORIGINAL: abel_pranger
Man, you've sharpened tha pencil to a very fine point. You know good and well the ED does not run AMA in such matters as safety and what we are discussing here.
I disagree. I believe the ED now runs every aspect of the organization, except making policy. If the safety policy is in place, it will be administered at the ED level or below.
Back to the topic of discussion, the weirdly contrived policy
Here we are in disagreement. No policy was made. No Rule was made. The Rule has been in place for gosh knows how long. All that was done was to point out the specifcs of the rule that was pre-existing. That is not a policy change, at least not in my book.
If you want to redefine what a sanction is, send a proposal to your VP.
Since the same policy covers the CD, the AMA member, and AMA clubs with a site aggragate of $2.5 million, and the landlord has coverage for $2.5 million, I can't see what your point is. I am not enough of an attorney to understand why you believe the AMA could be sued for issuing a sanction. If you have some reason to believe that the CD is covered by some special policy for that purpose, by the AMA I could see your point. I do not believe it is a seperate policy, and therefore do not see your point. Is there different coverage within the policy for a CD? I believe there is, but, having never seen the policy do not know for a fact.
The rule carries the stamp of the AMA. I strongly doubt that Carl had anything to do with the definition of a sanction.