Kansas teen DQ’ed for running with tape over earrings

[entropy13]

On April 10, Miranda Clark was getting ready to line up for the start of the 1,600-meter race at the Ellsworth Invitational. The Russell (Kan.) High student was ready to roll when she noticed that she had earrings in, a result of a recent ear piercing. Knowing that wearing jewelry in a race is forbidden in sporting events by the Kansas High School Activities Association, Clark knew she couldn't run with her earrings showing, so she did what most athletes do to make jewelry less conspicuous: She covered them up with tape.

As it turns out, that decision was the worst she could have made. As soon as Clark finished the event, a track official, Jim Cross, approached her and asked what was under her tape. When she admitted that the tape was covering an earring, Cross promptly judged that she was exhibiting "unsportsmanlike conduct," a ruling that disqualified the Russell (Kan.) High runner from the entire meet; Clark was scheduled to run the 3,200 meters later in the afternoon.

Perhaps most infuriating for Clark and her teammates was this bizarre technicality: If Clark had left her earrings in but not covered them up with tape she would have only received a warning and not been disqualified. As such, by trying to do the right thing, the Russell runner was punished more harshly than if she had openly disobeyed state regulations.

"The state should be encouraging runners, not making it difficult to participate," Clark, who finished the 1,600 meters in 10th place, told Prep Rally. "If KSHAA is insisting on being so picky with what is allowed to be worn at sporting events, they need to be consistent. I think it was completely unfair for me to be disqualified and rude to call me unsportsmanlike. I was definitely not trying to hide my jewelry. I was just trying to follow regulations the best I could."

Whether one agrees with the punishment that befell Clark or not, it's hard to argue with the line of logic she espouses: She didn't remove a piece of jewelry because she was protecting a recent piercing, so she tried to cover it up to keep from violating well-established state regulations. Yet instead of applauding her ingenuity, Clark was given a more harsh punishment for violating a virtually unknown technicality.



Full article here.

[m1dg3t]

I wonder what would've happened if they found the bandaid's on her nipple's?

[twilyth]

I was trying to figure out what Dairy Queen had to do with any of this.

[Screaming Beaver]

so the judge was an asshole, not like there are any shortage of those around

[cdawall]

Originally Posted by entropy13

virtually unknown technicality.

My ass every sports team I have been on since middle school has had a no jewelery policy.

[entropy13]

Originally Posted by cdawall

My ass every sports team I have been on since middle school has had a no jewelery policy.

It's not the "no jewelry" rule she violated though, but the "covering things up" rule. She would have only been given a warning if it was the "no jewelry" rule she violated, while she would have been disqualified (and she was) for violating the "covering things up" rule.

[cdawall]

Originally Posted by entropy13

It's not the "no jewelry" rule she violated though, but the "covering things up" rule. She would have only been given a warning if it was the "no jewelry" rule she violated, while she would have been disqualified (and she was) for violating the "covering things up" rule.

She got DG'd for "hiding it" in the judges eyes which is as bad as being a liar.

[entropy13]

Originally Posted by cdawall

She got DG'd for "hiding it" in the judges eyes which is as bad as being a liar.

[cdawall]

Originally Posted by entropy13

I am pretty sure they are blowing this way out of proportion.