And with apologies for getting back to the Top 10 listing…
I extend a very heartfelt thank you to all the local Top 10 volunteers and to our Records and Tabulation Committee for the stellar work they do. And a special thanks to Mary Beth Windrath :angel:for the all the time and effort she puts into our Top Ten. :applaud:
You guys are truly amazing:cheerleader::bow::cheerleader:
Bob, I really don't think that is the issue here. No one is saying that the volunteers don't work hard. Additionally, no one (at least no one in an official capacity) is saying that Montreal was a short pool. The evidence apparently is to the contrary and FINA has accepted the results. The argument is w/ the USMS rule which was I believe was new at the time and has since been repealed, at least in regard to foreign meets. The rule was not applied to the Worlds at Stanford.
And with apologies for getting back to the Top 10 listing…
I extend a very heartfelt thank you to all the local Top 10 volunteers and to our Records and Tabulation Committee for the stellar work they do. And a special thanks to Mary Beth Windrath :angel:for the all the time and effort she puts into our Top Ten. :applaud:
You guys are truly amazing:cheerleader::bow::cheerleader:
Bob, I really don't think that is the issue here. No one is saying that the volunteers don't work hard. Additionally, no one (at least no one in an official capacity) is saying that Montreal was a short pool. The evidence apparently is to the contrary and FINA has accepted the results. The argument is w/ the USMS rule which was I believe was new at the time and has since been repealed, at least in regard to foreign meets. The rule was not applied to the Worlds at Stanford.
