I don’t see it as horrific. If the pool is short, you swim your race, get your time, write it in your little log book and move on. Is it really so horrific if you don’t see you name in print on some list?
Like you I was slightly disturbed by the vote. I wonder who the 3 were who voted to intentionally disregard the rules.
1. Let us say, for sake of argument, that a pool is .0001 microns short. The pool would be invalid for official USMS competition, correct? I mean you could still have meets there, but the times wouldn't "count" in any kind of official way except, potentially, for FINA. Now, the pool's owners can remediate the pool, a la Stanford University several years ago, at no small expense, and make the pool USMS-ready. But honestly, who is going to spend many thousands, if not many tens of thousands, if not many hundreds of thousands of dollars shaving a pool wall down by .0001 microns? Nobody in their right mind. Hence, this pool will forever be ineligible for USMS competitions.
2. The mission of USMS is to encourage swimming for fun, health, and to some extent competition, with ancillary blah blah blahs thrown in for good measure. I can understand how adherence to the letter of the law makes sense. What I am having trouble understanding is how these particularly picayune letters got laid down in the first place. In some areas of the country, where there are no shortage of state-of-the-art swimming centers, it's no big whup. But there are lots of back eddies (the nation of Canada evidently being one of them) where you are lucky to get a 5 lane 25 yard pool with functional diving blocks. By making the requirements so incredibly detailed, transcending even the requirements of the international governing body of the sport of swimming, is USMS helping or hindering its mission?
3. Finally, if you can't beat them, join them. I propose that an additional requirement be added to the measurement of bulkhead containing pools in parts of the country (California, Youngstown, Ohio) where seismic events regularly occur, potentially causing subterranean settling that could have profound effects upon the number of angstroms in a pool's length. I don't think it is really fair that these earthquake zones get off with only daily measurements of their pools. I think these measurements should be conducted before and after every heat. Otherwise, who can rule out a little quake that shortens the pool when Swimmer X races, then a second little quake that lengthens the pool back right before Swimmer Y races in the next heat! I am certain this kind of thing happens all the time out there. Moreover, because water in a pool can artificially distend pool length, I furthermore submit that such before-and-after-every-heat measurements should be conducted in drained pools.
A lot of water wasted? Perhaps. Meets extended from days to years or decades? Most likely. But these are small prices to pay to ensure fairness. Not that everyone will find this an inconvenience. Some of our more coddled sprinters, I suspect, will no doubt enjoy the added rest between their swims.
So, how about it? I have asked every meet director within 50 miles of Youngstown, Ohio if he or she will agree to such new regulations in the event they were to hold a USMS meet, and I can tell you that the response was unanimous. Not one said no!
So the ball is in the Southern California court now. Of the other three Guardians of the Holy Writ who voted with you to intentionally stop the disregarding of the rules, let me just say I hope that any Californians (should there be any in this number, I have no idea!) will be consistent in their anality (I mean this in the most positive sense, but if anyone finds the term offensive, feel free to add a "b") and do the right thing lest anarchy overrun the noble sport of old people swimming.
I don’t see it as horrific. If the pool is short, you swim your race, get your time, write it in your little log book and move on. Is it really so horrific if you don’t see you name in print on some list?
Like you I was slightly disturbed by the vote. I wonder who the 3 were who voted to intentionally disregard the rules.
1. Let us say, for sake of argument, that a pool is .0001 microns short. The pool would be invalid for official USMS competition, correct? I mean you could still have meets there, but the times wouldn't "count" in any kind of official way except, potentially, for FINA. Now, the pool's owners can remediate the pool, a la Stanford University several years ago, at no small expense, and make the pool USMS-ready. But honestly, who is going to spend many thousands, if not many tens of thousands, if not many hundreds of thousands of dollars shaving a pool wall down by .0001 microns? Nobody in their right mind. Hence, this pool will forever be ineligible for USMS competitions.
2. The mission of USMS is to encourage swimming for fun, health, and to some extent competition, with ancillary blah blah blahs thrown in for good measure. I can understand how adherence to the letter of the law makes sense. What I am having trouble understanding is how these particularly picayune letters got laid down in the first place. In some areas of the country, where there are no shortage of state-of-the-art swimming centers, it's no big whup. But there are lots of back eddies (the nation of Canada evidently being one of them) where you are lucky to get a 5 lane 25 yard pool with functional diving blocks. By making the requirements so incredibly detailed, transcending even the requirements of the international governing body of the sport of swimming, is USMS helping or hindering its mission?
3. Finally, if you can't beat them, join them. I propose that an additional requirement be added to the measurement of bulkhead containing pools in parts of the country (California, Youngstown, Ohio) where seismic events regularly occur, potentially causing subterranean settling that could have profound effects upon the number of angstroms in a pool's length. I don't think it is really fair that these earthquake zones get off with only daily measurements of their pools. I think these measurements should be conducted before and after every heat. Otherwise, who can rule out a little quake that shortens the pool when Swimmer X races, then a second little quake that lengthens the pool back right before Swimmer Y races in the next heat! I am certain this kind of thing happens all the time out there. Moreover, because water in a pool can artificially distend pool length, I furthermore submit that such before-and-after-every-heat measurements should be conducted in drained pools.
A lot of water wasted? Perhaps. Meets extended from days to years or decades? Most likely. But these are small prices to pay to ensure fairness. Not that everyone will find this an inconvenience. Some of our more coddled sprinters, I suspect, will no doubt enjoy the added rest between their swims.
So, how about it? I have asked every meet director within 50 miles of Youngstown, Ohio if he or she will agree to such new regulations in the event they were to hold a USMS meet, and I can tell you that the response was unanimous. Not one said no!
So the ball is in the Southern California court now. Of the other three Guardians of the Holy Writ who voted with you to intentionally stop the disregarding of the rules, let me just say I hope that any Californians (should there be any in this number, I have no idea!) will be consistent in their anality (I mean this in the most positive sense, but if anyone finds the term offensive, feel free to add a "b") and do the right thing lest anarchy overrun the noble sport of old people swimming.
