Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Mark Gordon Cline DQed at 3.5

So 3.5 tennis just got even more interesting in 3.5 as Mark Gordon Cline was DQed today. I will preface this with saying I love USTA Leagues but this is total bullsh*t. Pull up his record, I don't see the strikes. What happened to you can beat up a player bad if he is at the low end of the scale Olivares played him close and Jairo is average at best. The final strike is against Kaiser and Ferrell, 6-2, 7-5??????????????????

Someone please explain this one to me. I hate to bring up past issues but look at the link below and tell me something isn't wrong with the system:

http://tennislink.usta.com/leagues/reports/TennisLinkReports.asp?Level=I&MemberID=DB00EB8DAEE0209EB5847B2A09686F3E2D7C&CYear=2008

Yep Mr. Oberto had dominating wins at 3.5 and solid wins at 4.0 and was allowed to continue playing through the playoffs.

I like that the league is trying to police and not necessarily announce it to us but so often players like Mark fall victim to these changes.

Thoughts????????

89 comments:

  1. This is about the moral decay of USTA tennis leagues. If you don't fight this and snuff it out it becomes acceptable. Just as Cary tries to point out. "Well so and so is doing it" Goes back to the 80/20 rule. 10% of the people are firm in their moral standing and won't compromise morals under any circumstances. 10% of people have no morals at all and will do anything. 80% of the people will go with what they believe is socially acceptable at the time and will follow masses on given circumstances. It is our job to raise the level of socially acceptable morality. In this case tennis sportsmanship and honest competition.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Just read the USTA description for a 3.5 tennis player. Mark and probably another 10 Dallas guys should be DQed and moved up.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Guess this is a reason why tanking should be ok. Cary, maybe you can share your thoughts about that.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Winning is fun, losing isnt. If you play below level you will have fun and win - yea!!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Why does it seem the USTA wants self rated players to arrive in league and lose and that is the only acceptable way to be "legit." I have never seen Mark play but his scores seem pretty standard for a good 3.5 but nothing out of the ordinary and even Kaiser who played him is saying he is a 3.5, Kaiser was playing 3.0 not that long ago so it isn't like he is a 3.5 stud. I realize there has to be some of type system to stop obvious out of level players but if Mark played 4.0 he would be 0-5 now and probably would not have won a set and do you think he would want to continue to play league tennis, of course not. The USTA might want to think about that side of it. Ideally you want to come out and "win some, lose some" but you cannot guarantee that for various reasons but if you do "win all" then you are automatically a cheater. Whatever.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'd like to hear John Kraemer's input...

    ReplyDelete
  7. The new motto is if they self rate and do well (by do well means they win over 90% of matches), then move them up. If they want to appeal then fine, otherwise let them move up and lets see how they do. The DQ though is surprising.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm on the BH team with Cline. There is no way that he is a 4.0. According to the phone call received, the computer shows he should be a mid level 4.0. Anyone that played him knows that isn't the case. He is a good player, but no 4.0 team at BH would consider having him on their team. The third strike, believe it or not, was the doubles match versus LTF. 6-2, 7-5 is not considered a competitive match according to the USTA section. If it was 6-3, then it would. There is no appeal process to this. I sent an email to the section voicing my displeasure and said that something needs to be done with the current system. Everyone on on this blog needs to complain to the Section about the system or it will happen again, but to your team.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Bad DQ...someone had to have complained or filed a grievence. Maybe some people need to be moved down to 3.0 instead of playing 3.5 and bitching about getting beat all the time.

    ReplyDelete
  10. 7:17 anon poster Morality and tennis..you must follow The Liberty Alliance and The Rev. Jerry Falwell...way overboard and right wing Christian bull crap! This was a bad DQ and had nothing to do with bad moral judgement.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Its 3.5!!!!!!!!You should be embarrassed if you lose!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hey 7:17 poster it looks like you struck a nerve with Jock Rot! Must have something to do with mentioning the "moral highground", something he obviously knows nothing about...

    ReplyDelete
  13. I agree with 11:08 poster. It is 3.5 tennis. get over it and move on.

    ReplyDelete
  14. As someone who is not really wanting to get involved in this, I take offense at being marginalized as a "right wing" Christian. You are attempting to marginalize and insult those of us who are Christians. I am tired of someone insinuating that there is something wrong with me and my fellow "right wing" Christians based on our faith. We believe in living righteous lives, albeit we fall short, but it is our ideal. That should not be insulted but others should desire the same.

    I have heard you are a nice guy but everything you say on this blog points to the contrary. You get mad everytime someone says anything that is not positive toward your group; you appear to allow anyone to have an opinion as long as it is yours.

    As for being a bad DQ, I do not know nor do I care. I am of the opinion that no grievances should ever be filed and let the computer put you where it may. Will people game the system? Of course, but that is their issue and not mine. I play tennis because I enjoy tennis; I do not play tennis to have my faith mocked or marginalized.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I am not mocking your faith as a Christian..but going around and pointing fingers and judging peoples morality in connection with tennis ratings is a bit overboard...FYI I am a strong believer and my walk and faith are very strong...but take offense to someone using morality judgements to people as a whole is not what a christian is all about. Remember to take the big log out of your own eye first! Plus..this DQ has nothing positive nor negative towards my so called group...keep to tennis and show your moral stance by example and not by accusations and finger pointing...that is my point! FYI ...I ask for your forgiveness if my honest opinion offended you! I will try to learn how to communicate better!

    ReplyDelete
  16. I forgave you before I even wrote that and for the record, I am not the one who even mentioned anything about the DQ.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Actually it was me with the first entry. I just copied it from the one I wrote about Cary and his team tanking a match last week. I thought the issues were similar, but more than anything I wanted to call attention to people doing anything to win. You are wrong if you think that USTA tennis lacks morality from many members. Sometimes people just need to be reminded to do the right thing.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I think I get your point though..your saying as a whole if more people did the right thing then the other 80% would follow because is it socially acceptable. So, therefore we must strive to do whats right to better what is socially acceptable? Hmmmmm! Shit! I think I stuck my foot in my mouth! I mean, crap!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Cline played college tennis at Florida State and failed show that when he self-rated 3.5.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I have no opinion on the DQ. But SNOTjock is truly an ass!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Funny, Snotjock. That is exactly what I was trying to say.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anon 2:10. that is not nice. I think Snotjock is finally coming around.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hey, where's the poll on to Tank or not to Tank?

    ReplyDelete
  24. there really is no question on this. You don't cheat. You don't ever try to lose... plain and simple. I think the question is more.

    Manage the score and win vs. Play your hardest and let chips fall.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Talking about possible DQS how about Mitterer6-1,Acosta 5-0,Dolson7-0,Lonninge 5-1,Anderson 5-0 and the worst of all Don Harvey 6-0. They all should get it!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anderson is computer rated so he is in no danger.

    Harvey is a mystery but since he was not moved up with ESR is he no considered Computer rated? He is still listed as Self rated.

    Mitterer has a pretty big loss and some people question if it should have been as bad as it was. he probably survives.

    Dolson had some losses in the spring so he is probably fine.

    Lonninge lost to Acosta so I would suspect Acosta goes first. Both are probably fine.

    ReplyDelete
  27. All of Acosta's scores were close matches (no lopsided scores)
    Lonninge had some lopsided scores (much worse that Cline)
    Dolson had two losses in Spring to establish a rating
    Mitterer has some lopsided scores but shows as a YE 2007 appeal???
    Anderson had many losses each of the last few seasons
    No explaining Harvey...except he only played two regulasr season matches before the ESRs came out.
    Based on results, several of these folks seem more likely DQ's that Cline.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Bazan's 24th player saidNovember 5, 2008 at 6:22 PM

    "Cline played college tennis at Florida State and failed show that when he self-rated 3.5"

    No way it can be the same guy. I have seen the guy play, he couldn't hold the worst girl's jock strap on the team at Florida state. :)

    ohhhh... points for a double slam!!!

    ReplyDelete
  29. With Harvey I think they take his age into account. It must suck to get your ass kicked by a Senior Citizen.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Looking at Brookhaven's team, Glenn Strohl on same team is rated 4.0 by USTA, yet plays 3.5. What is that story?

    ReplyDelete
  31. If Cline played college tennis then that is why he is getting DQ'ed. His results don't matter.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Glenn Strohl is indeed rated 4.0 and all of his matches should be DQ'd. I just looked him up and he is 4.0

    ReplyDelete
  33. My guess is he appealled his rating after ESR's and it was granted. It shows him as 3.5 on their roster.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I've seen Cline play and there is no way he played at Florida State.

    ReplyDelete
  35. It is bullsh*t that Cline got DQ'ed unless his game has improved dramatically since March. In March, he lost to Sergio Ballesteros in the Brookhaven Tournament, 3-6; 7-6; 6-3 and while Ballesteros is a good 3.5 player and has been bumped to 4.0, he is certainly not unbeatable - in fact his year to date tournament record is 36-14.

    So my question is, how does a guy who loses to another guy with 14 tournament losses year to date in 3.5 deserve to be disqualified?

    ReplyDelete
  36. 4.0 FLIGHTS AND SCHEDULES ARE OUT FOR DCC.

    RED FLIGHT
    BAZAAN, OAK CREEK, LAKES, LIFETIME/HILL

    BLUE FLIGHT
    IS NOT ON SITE YET.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I believe tournament records are invisible until end of year ratings.

    ReplyDelete
  38. If tournament records are invisible to USTA, then they need to revise their procedures. That is ridiculous. You can be damn sure that in a tournament, no one is going to spend their time and money to "tank" a match - they are there to win. And in Cline's case, he lost to a legit 3.5, so again, what is USTA thinking when they DQ him? It makes no sense.

    ReplyDelete
  39. A member of the Southern Section Competition Committee told me that the National USTA organization changed their DQ formula to allow less "tolerance" and therefore it is easier for self-rated players to be DQed than in the past.

    The National organization was tired of teams stocked with self-rated players winning Sectionals and Nationals every year.

    WHEN IN BETWEEN LEVELS, SELF RATED PLAYERS SHOULD PLAY UP A LEVEL NOT DOWN A LEVEL.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I talked to one of the guys involved with the rating system when I was at nationals. He said that in the women's leagues, less than 5 percent of the players were self-rated at the national level. He said in men's leagues, the amount of self-rated players was dramatically higher. I suggested some kind of limit on the number of self-rated players on each team, but he said that would be defeating the purpose of USTA leagues, which was to get more and more people out to play (of course a limit would mean less $$$$).
    I thought that if you made that limit, it would make the level of play more even.

    ReplyDelete
  41. We have a perfect system with no errors or flaws.

    I suggest you all go away and stop discussing USTA business.

    The USTA Prevails

    ReplyDelete
  42. I would think that the USTA would have a better system. I like the limit of self rated players that Mr. Coredawg suggested. That would not decrease the # of players, but increase them. If I didn't have a chance to win some matches, then I would play socially with friends. I can find enough competitive matches WITHOUT the USTA leagues or tournaments.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Years ago I was in a 4.5 USTA league and the USTA wouldn't drop me to 4.0 because I won one match (against some 4.0 players). I droppped out for a few years. When I came back in I was competitive at 4.0. I stopped playing because I dropped out of the country club that I played at. I am getting older, so now I play at the 3.5 level. I am like some other guys a tweener - a good 3.5 and a not so good 4.0.

    ReplyDelete
  44. WHAT...Flights are out and HP\Bazan has not be DQ'd. What's up with that?

    ReplyDelete
  45. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  46. It all works out in the end if Marks record is bad in 4.0 he will be bumped back down.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Mark should have started out at 4.0 not 3.5

    ReplyDelete
  48. you guys may already no about this, but the usta doesn't care about this system and who falls through the cracks and if it is accurate, its all about money...when they went to a selfrating system one of the things that were eliminated were ratings verifiers, not the ratings clinics where you recieve a rating but the highly respected group of officials and pros who rated every single post season player to the tenth of a point...but at least they saved the annual 3.1 million dollars which has contributed to the surplus this nonprofit organization has in its coffers for now the ninth year in a row! crooks if you ask me

    ReplyDelete
  49. There is a lot of arrogance at the USTA right down to the local level at the DTA.

    Players have very little input into how leagues are run. Placing teams into flights is one example. Often you find a bunch of strong teams "placed" in the same flight while another flight has a bunch of weak teams. (Seems to happen every spring.)It is a secretive process done behind closed doors. Teams are seeded but seedings are never announced. A fair, randon and public draw is not used.

    Changing our spring 4.0 playoffs _ no longer a round robin is another example of arrogant league administrative gone wrong. Players had no input into that crazy decision.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Seems like a bunch of hypocrits on this blog. Almost everyone comments on the DQ being crap and how the rules are messed up, yet 70% of the people poled think the DQ is legit. What gives?

    ReplyDelete
  51. not to mention the DTA tollerates and encourages racism and drug use among there employees

    ReplyDelete
  52. Its not hypocritical, just frustrating...there is no balance, you can't judge tennis level solely by results, if they payed attention the could do a better job...for instance I would even understand if I were DQ'd under a legit system.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Same 1 or 2 people make 100 anonymous dumb comments. Most normal thinking people leave 1 or 2 comments on something and move on to their lives. The dumb ones keep posting and make it look like most people have those same crazy thoughts. Just not the case, as the vote points out.

    Remeber how low the skill level of a 3.5 is supposed to be. DQing a player that is better is more than justified.

    ReplyDelete
  54. AGAIN, HOW DO YOU DQ A PERSON WHO LOSES TO A COMPUTER RANKED 3.5 THAT HAS 14 YEAR TO DATE TOURNAMENT LOSSES AT THE 3.5 LEVEL? I CAN UNDERSTAND MOVING MARK UP AT YEAR END TO 4.0 BUT TO DQ HIM SEEMS DRACONIAN

    ReplyDelete
  55. AGAIN, HOW DO YOU DQ A PERSON WHO LOSES TO A COMPUTER RANKED 3.5 THAT HAS 14 YEAR TO DATE TOURNAMENT LOSSES AT THE 3.5 LEVEL? I CAN UNDERSTAND MOVING MARK UP AT YEAR END TO 4.0 BUT TO DQ HIM SEEMS DRACONIAN

    ReplyDelete
  56. It's confirmed. The above poster is a crazy nut job.

    ReplyDelete
  57. The system works and there is no fairer or better system out there. This guy was self-rated and 3 of his first six sets were 6-0, 6-0, 6-1. I'm not surprised he was DQ'd.

    ReplyDelete
  58. TO 7:17 A.M.
    JUST BECAUSE YOU WERE ON THE RECEIVING END OF THAT 6-0, 6-0 BUTT=KICKING THAT CLINE GAVE YOU DOES NOT MEAN THAT HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DQ'ED. IT MEANS THAT YOU SHOULD BE PLAYING 3.0

    ReplyDelete
  59. You see even the people complaining about the complainers are making my point for me...these results are so arbitrary with out seeing the players or matches...by the way just because you once played a certain level doesn't mean thats your current level! I know 5.5's and 5.0's that would get raped at 4.5 depending on who they play that would never be allowed to play 4.5

    ReplyDelete
  60. I also think that "styles make fights" It is more pertinant to evaluate a players skills and tools to determine rating than the results

    ReplyDelete
  61. I agree with the comment about the USTA being greedy. They saved a bunch of money by eliminating paid verifiers and conseqently now we have a lot more sandbagging.

    And the DTA is no different. One of the Pros at Brookhaven told me that MOST of the money donated to the DTA to "help children" really goes to paying for their expensive office facility which is totally not needed.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Cline DQ looks legit to me and more 3.5 ringers should also be DQed

    ReplyDelete
  63. I am wondering if the system should put any self rated player who wins 80% of his or her matches up to the next level regardless of match scores. Obviously, the problem only lies with the self rated player. Anyone who is self rated probably should start one level above their self rate. So, if I think I am a 3.0 I should start out at 3.5 then if I get my ass beat then I belong in 3.0 and my rating is legit and benchmarked and I would be out of the woods from being DQ'd. The idea is to acquire benchmark players who are playing above their level or peaking at sectionals and nationals. I am confused as to how the Carribbean team maintained the same team to 3 National trips at 3.5 over a 3 or 5 year time frame. from my understanding they were bumped and appealed or were bumped back down after a year. Which to me implies legit losses or some constructed tanking. I do not think recruiting self rated players is the way to go. We need to recruit the top 3.5 or 4.0 benchmark players and get to Nationals on a even playing level. I can now see why so many object to having to play self rated players who play out of level. Acquire the proper benchmark and then go from there..but after the benchmark then the problem of tanking comes into play and that is wrong too! Am I making any sense? Please elaborate or tell me I am way off.

    ReplyDelete
  64. I agree with jock on that. If self-raters started 1/2 level higher than they think they are, then they could find their appropriate level and not screw things up for the rest of us. (Self-rate 3.5 = play first year at 4.0.)

    Glen Flora is a good example. He should have started at 4.0 and then found his appropriate level. The problem this year was that 3.5 players that played against him felt cheated _ because it was obvious he was way out of level.

    ReplyDelete
  65. The Caribbean Section is a bunch of cheating bastards. Over the years they have dominated levels 3.0 and 3.5 at the Nationals. They also very poor sports. The Caribbean is notorious for cheating on line calls and coaching players in Spanish. And the USTA does not give a dam.

    ReplyDelete
  66. I am afraid that Garland and Lifetime and High Point had a couple out of leval players including myself..I belong in 4.0 even if my record is under .500 The benefit for being at a 4.0 level is that if I play my best I will get better from playing up and if I end up being bumped back down, honestly with no tanking, then one would think I would be a better 3.5 player after playing a year in 4.0 and now with zero threat of a DQ! I think I may have found the correct formula for a team to be solid at Nationals..it may take a couple of years but at least it is as honest and within the ntrp system. But, I am going to focus on Tournaments! Anyone looking for a doubles partner for 2009 in 4.0?

    ReplyDelete
  67. I don't know how the Caribbean does it... some small peckered weasels around Dallas have been to city or playoffs or sectionals at 3.5 every year since 2004. It is probably the same way. If you have a winning record in playoffs for 5 years straight at some point you might realize that you belong in the next level.

    Is that Whining Wiley about the Caribbean team? Yes Greg, we know you have a beef with Caribbeans, they hurt your feelings in Spanish. Let it go.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Can you verify the small peckers visually?

    BTW, small peckers = perro caliente pequeno in Spanish. Just in case the Caribbeans yell that at you.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Actually, that was not me who wrote that above.

    I don't recall having perro caliente pequeno being yelled. Mostly, I just got Gringo Pendejo.

    Personally, I thought it was funny, obnoxious... but funny. I would like to say that it made so motivated I really turne dit on but that would be a lie. It was funny obnoxious but very irritating at the same time.

    No feelings were hurt in the match.

    ReplyDelete
  70. One more thing, what is it with so many people being disrespectful of others on this blog? This goes for Mr. Anonymous as well as Named posters. I am not asking "Why can't we all just get along?" or recommending us sing Kumbaya but the total lack or respect for others around here is atrocious.

    ReplyDelete
  71. anon 12:40: Lets look at the facts, moron:

    Nobody in Dallas has won Dallas 3.5 every year since 2004.

    Here are the City winners:
    2008 LifeTime/Ferrell and Garland/Sisk
    2007 High Point/Bazan
    2006 Village/Johnson
    2005 Collin County/Bender
    2004 Garland/Brueckner

    You are such an ass!

    ReplyDelete
  72. Greg,
    I agree with your point about respecting each other. Let's all try harder at that.

    But I hate those limp-dick assholes that post shit that they know is wrong!

    ReplyDelete
  73. USTA LEAGUE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS
    In the last nine years, 2000 - 2008 here the top Sections and number of times they have won an ADULT National Championships:
    Caribbean 17
    Nor CAL 15
    Southern 11
    Sou CAL 10
    Mid-Atlantic 10
    Pacific Northwest 7
    Texas & 3 others tied at 6

    This includes ALL Adult level events (2.5 - 5.0) and excludes Seniors and Mixed events.

    The Caribbean is by far the smallest Section yet has won the most National Championships _ concentrated almost exclusively at levels 2.5, 3.0, and 3.5.

    We KNOW those pricks in the Caribbean cheat. But if you dont like it _ tough crap!

    Gail Marx
    National USTA League Office

    ReplyDelete
  74. You are going to have a hard time getting on a 4.0 team, instead of a 3.5 league if you are a 3.5+ or 4.0- player. What team would want you? The only way that works is if you know someone on a team. I assume Mark plays with a bunch of 3.5 players at Brookhaven. You tend to join teams that you know the guys. If they are 3.5 then you join a 3.5 team. Comrardire is part of the equation. Also what 4.0 captain would ask a debatible 3.5 player to be on there team? Mark may have a hard time getting on a 4.0 B-haven team.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Scores of 6-0 do NOT reflect what really happens on the court. Last year, Ray Zernick got DQ'ed because he bageled a guy that shouldn't have been on the court because of an injury and then bageled a guy that never played singles. If you run into a 3.0 player and bagel them you could be in trouble, especially if you are self rated or have a mixed rating.

    If another captain pulls a switch, you are screwed. This happens quite a bit, especially with the top 3.5 teams.

    GH - BK

    ReplyDelete
  76. Still Zernick was too good for 3.5. You shouldnt sandbag like that.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Maybe someone already said this but I don't have time to sift through all the comments. When you are self-rated your first match is the most important for your rating. It sets up your dynamic ntrp. Since he beat someone who on paper looks like an average to above average 3.5 0,1 then he probably started off as a very strong 3.5 or a weak 4.0. With a couple of other wins it just solidified the computers thoughts. I've heard stories of people self rating and playing two levels. If their first match is the higher level and it is competitive then they lose easily at the lower level they still get bumped because they played that match second.

    ReplyDelete
  78. To Anonyous on 11/8 - You don't know the situation. Zernick was NOT self rated. I have known Ray for 20 years. When a mutual friend said that he was 3.5 I jumped on the chance to get him, just like any other competitive captain. A captain would have to be STUPID to pass on a nice guy like Ray. Maybe you would pass on getting someone like Ray, but I don't think many captains would. FYI Zernick also lost his first match to an excellent player from Samual Grand. Ray would NOT make the top 5 singles players. The top 5 or more players were on the the Garland, Life Time and Oakridge teams. I believe a lot of them were self rated.

    GH BK

    ReplyDelete
  79. To Anonyous on 11/8 - You don't know the situation. Zernick was NOT self rated. I have known Ray for 20 years. When a mutual friend said that he was 3.5 I jumped on the chance to get him, just like any other competitive captain. A captain would have to be STUPID to pass on a nice guy like Ray. Maybe you would pass on getting someone like Ray, but I don't think many captains would. FYI Zernick also lost his first match to an excellent player from Samual Grand. Ray would NOT make the top 5 singles players. The top 5 or more players were on the the Garland, Life Time and Oakridge teams. I believe a lot of them were self rated.

    GH BK

    ReplyDelete
  80. Are you honestly saying you believe that Zernick is a legit 3.5?

    ReplyDelete
  81. Zerick was a Mixed Exclusive rating and that is the same as a Self rate for DQ purposes.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Cut the crap _ Zernick was way too good for 3.5.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Ray Z just had too much exposure and was caught in the rating rat trap. There are many single players at 3.5 that can take him, but they stay way from players that could change their rating. It is a damn shame "tank" or "select" matching has become part of the tennis players handbook. I have never enjoyed stomping a player who was a level below me & certainly don't brag about it. I could care less if you can get away with it, do it attitude.

    ReplyDelete
  84. If Ray Z had too much exposure he should put his pants back on

    ReplyDelete
  85. I t appears that CLine got un-DQ'd and Brookhaven is in the playoffs

    ReplyDelete
  86. Cline has some friends that work at high levels in the USTA Texas Section office. They must have worked behind the scene to get the DQ changed.

    So many closed door, secretive processes within the USTA . . .

    ReplyDelete
  87. GET OVER IT DICKWEED.

    ReplyDelete