distance swimmers shorted

I do not understand why the distance swimmers have to chose one or the other event. I should be allowed to swim both if I chose. The sprinters are not limited to swim either the 50 or 100, so why are the distance swimmers limited. I do not by the argument that it would make the meet longer, not that many people would chose both. Also if this were an option, make the swimmer meet the qualifying times in both.

My wife loves longer swims.She liked the 5 K postal and thought the 10 K was OK.She is 63 by FINA age and not the fastest person in her age group,but would enter both if she could so that she could swim as much distance as possible.I expect there are many like her.The "I want to get as much for my money" group is well represented in the forums.If people could enter both I suspect most distance swimmers would,and if they were on different days nearly all would.

...not that many people would chose both... Considering how many people are willing to do a 2.4 mi. swim, 112 mi. bike, and 26.2 mi. run back-to-back-to-back, I'm thinking a lot more people than either of us would guess.

The sprinters are not limited to swim either the 50 or 100, so why are the distance swimmers limited. I do not by the argument that it would make the meet longer, not that many people would chose both. Also if this were an option, make the swimmer meet the qualifying times in both. Sprinters aren't limited because it takes a lot longer -- more than 30X as long -- to swim a 1500 than a 50. I disagree that "not that many people would choose both," but even a few will lengthen the meet noticeably. I have had the "pleasure" of being at a nationals late into the night even with the current rule; when you are at the pool at 11pm and you are swimming the next day, even an extra 30 minutes is a little painful. (It is not a great way to encourage volunteers, either.) The bottom line is this: distance events take a long time, and time is a limited resource. Somebody is going to come up short no matter what you do. For example: -- If you insist on NQTs, and make them more challenging to control the timeline, then the title of this thread will change to "slow distance swimmers shorted." -- If you insist on a 5-day nationals, instead of 4 days, then people will either pay for an extra day of hotel, food and rental car, or they will skip a day of nationals and lose the opportunity to swim the events that were on that day. Either of these options (or some other) may be preferable to the majority of people than the present situation. But there is no such thing as a free lunch.

I do not by the argument that it would make the meet longer, not that many people would chose both. I don't think there's any question it would make the meet longer, it's more a matter of exactly how much longer it would make the meet. Anyone entering both the 1000 and 1650 would either be replacing a different (shorter) event or simply swimming an additional event that they otherwise would not have. In both cases it's going to add time to the meet.

While I am good at distance races, I don't actually think I would enjoy doing both the 1000/1650 at a Nationals meet. It would just make me way too exhausted to perform well enough in the other events. Split request is always available to get a time in the shorter distance race while swimming the longer one. Keep it like it is with only one distance race per person allowed.

I do not understand why the distance swimmers have to chose one or the other event. I should be allowed to swim both if I chose. The sprinters are not limited to swim either the 50 or 100, so why are the distance swimmers limited. I do not by the argument that it would make the meet longer, not that many people would chose both. Also if this were an option, make the swimmer meet the qualifying times in both. Really? After reading all of that, you actually do not understand?