No ifs, ands or buts about guts in Iditarod rules | Sam Venable

(An earlier version of this column mistakenly switched two paragraphs.)

One thing’s certain about the folks in charge of Alaska’s Iditarod sled dog race: They follow the rule book down to a fare-the-well.

Veteran musher Dallas Seavey earned a two-hour penalty in this year’s event for not properly field-dressing a moose he killed during the 1,000-mile marathon. Seems he and his pooches rounded a blind curve in the snowy trail and encountered a moose. The moose attacked, seriously injuring one dog and tangling with others. Seavey whipped out his pistol and shot it.

Did he violate the regulations? Nope. According to Rule 34 in the Iditarod handbook, it’s permissible to kill “an edible big game animal in defense of life or property.”

Seavey erred, though, by not completely removing “intestines and other internal organs” so the moose could be retrieved and salvaged for food.

You are free to recoil in horror and yell, “What in th’wide, wide world of sports is a’goin’ on here?!” Just keep in mind this is wild and woolly Alaska — and they dang-sure aren’t playing canasta.

You are not free, however, to question the clarity of the rules. Seavey didn’t. “I think the judges made the right call,” he told Alaska Public Media.

What a difference between legal disputes Up There and Down Here! Based on a couple of recent Tennessee court cases, “clarity of the rules” translates to “clear as mud.”

I speak of (a) the NCAA’s investigation into athletic recruiting at the University of Tennessee and (b) former Knoxville Mayor Victor Ashe’s lawsuit over election procedures.

The UT matter is on hold for the moment, thanks to a preliminary injunction issued by federal Judge Clifton Corker; the NCAA, in turn, has paused its probe. The Ashe election lawsuit was dismissed by federal Judge Eli Richardson.

I agree with Judge Corker’s decision and suspect the NCAA will eventually emerge with a trainload of egg on its face. I disagree with Judge Richardson’s rationale and suspect it would be reversed on appeal.

Why? Because the only thing clear in either case is ambiguity.

The NCAA wants to punish UT for violating rules about paying athletes for legal use of their name, image or likeness. However, the rules don’t spell out “shalt” versus “shalt not.”

Ashe went to court challenging a new Tennessee law about “bona fide” Republicans and Democrats. But since Tennessee law already allows primary voters to select either ticket, what’nhell makes ’em a "bona fide" member of either party?

After Iditarod rule writers polish off that moose, they need to visit the Lower 48 and teach “What Is and What Ain’t 101” at selected law schools.

Sam Venable’s column appears every Sunday. Contact him at sam.venable@outlook.com.

This article originally appeared on Knoxville News Sentinel: Sam Venable: No ifs, ands or buts about guts in Iditarod rules