Clarification regarding District 5 and dual-meet tournaments

I just heard from Brian Creps regarding my previous post on the District 5 duals and I need to make a correction/clarification.
Frankly, I'm quite stunned that the post caused as much of a stir as it has. The portion about District 5 not including the duals in the points for district duals seeding is what has people particularly worked up, especially this paragraph:

There's a school of thought that the reason those results aren't included -- even though the majority of the D5 teams now compete in at least one dual-meet tournament -- is that Bedford doesn't schedule them and that, for some reason, whatever Bedford wants Bedford usually seems to get.

I've been contacted by several Bedford people who were upset with the comment. I should not have included it. I have heard that argument several times - that Bedford didn't want the dual-meet tournaments included because they don't participate in them, and I believed it, so I repeated it.
That's a poor excuse for journalism. I know that blogs generally aren't held to the same standards as newspapers, but I hold myself to a higher standard.
Before repeating the rumors, I should have researched it. While I never said that it was my opinion - only that it's a school of thought - I still shouldn't have put it out there without being sure that it was 100 percent true.
And, according to Coach Creps, it is 100 percent false. He said, and I'm paraphrasing because I don't want some text message typos to reflect poorly on him, Bedford has asked for years to count the dual meet tournament for district rankings and that Chestnut Ridge and Berlin did not support dual meets to count toward rankings. He also said that North Star and some others have consistently been against them counting.
So, according to him, the teams that are in dual-meet tournaments don't want them to count because they could just as easily pile up losses as they could wins. In that vein, according to Odoyelrules, Chestnut Ridge would have slipped to third in the district this year because of its dual-meet losses at Brookville. That certainly would not have been right.
At any rate, I apologize for jumping to the conclusion - and leading others there as well - that Bedford was the driving force behind the decision to keep dual-meet tournament points from counting in District 5.
Bedford, at least in my eyes, was on the right side of the vote.
I still believe there is a better system out there for determining seeds and some combination of strength of schedule - the complete dual-meet schedule - needs to be involved.