I agree that publishing rules that aren't going to be followed is absurd. But I kind of see how by not taking the paid bid, Cali can avoid the consequences, because the wording (per usual) is vague enough. It drives me crazy that even when taking a stand, the USASF still leaves all sorts of things open to interpretation. It drives me even more crazy that I truly believe they do this intentionally.
If the intention of the rule is to prevent teams from using their worlds athletes to take multiple paid bids for multiple teams, then it has, in some sense, been followed if Ghost doesn't take the bid. Since the bid can be passed down, It can be rectified, and therefore there is a "way out" for Cali.
That being said, the rule does say " earn" which means that Cali also technically broke the rule. And, it seems pretty clear that they planned on using the bid originally. They didn't hide that at least one athlete was filling in from Black Ops, they announced the bid, the athletes appear to have thought they were going to world's on the bid, AND, the program itself has previously stated that they don't mark themselves as eligible for bids they don't plan on using so that the other teams can have their moment in the sun. ( I think this was something Eddie said about summit bids, but I feel like it applies). So I'm pretty sure that they a.) overlooked this rule, or b.) thought it wouldn't apply, or c.) were intending to have the athlete compete with Ghost and be replaced on Black Ops but then changed their mind.
I find it seriously strange that no one from Cali would be aware of this rule, but I guess it happens. I did think that originally there were quite a few crossovers between Ghost and Black Ops that seemed to have disappeared, but I can't remember for sure. I can't say for certain that this was because they knew there would be issues with earning paid bids, but I kind of feel like it could have been a part of it.
As for CEA, yes, I think there would be a lot more intense public response to this if it were them. However, I do believe the USASF's response would be the same.