I see a series of statements rather than an argument following any kind of valid logic, but I'll do my best to respond.
1. Incorrect. We do not know if it was the correct length because they refused to measure it at the meet. (Honestly, I'm not sure why this point continues to fail to register with you.)
2. True.
3. Prior to the current rules, yes.
4. Only if the proposed rule passes. It might not. And even if it does, it might not affect Worlds. Of course, people who attend Worlds might do their homework and measure the pool, as you could have done yourself.
5. No they weren't granted exemptions. Any previous international meet that occurred after our current rules were in place and that was accepted without the proper measurements was done in violation of the rules. (And two wrongs don't make a right.)
6. The motion was to apply for a rules exception. Yes, it failed.
Jack, it's done. Finished, no matter how many times you plant the flag :canada:. For someone who professes to have no time to keep up with rule changes or read the rule book, you sure spend a lot of time beating a dead horse. It takes all of 5-10 minutes to find and read the relevant sections in the rule book.
You said that you would have gone to the meet even if you knew it wasn't going to be accepted. That's excellent: enjoy the meet for what it was and move on. If top ten is so vitally important to you then in the future I suggest either attending only sanctioned meets or doing due diligence before attending recognized meets such as this one.
Chris,
Here is the link to the minutes of the board meeting that I used for my facts:
www.usms.org/.../records-2012-2-26-1.pdf
It states that exemptions were granted for Worlds and Canadian Nationals in the past. That was the precedent that was disregarded. I thought that you were there, but it must have been a different Chris Stevenson (that happens to me a lot BTW, my name is very common). I am pretty sure that FINA or Canadian Masters require that the pool be measured prior to competition for a championship meet. In any case the pool is probably measured periodically. In my opinion, if the pool w/ bulkhead is measured every few months and is ok, times swum there are presumptively valid. If something happens to rebut that presumption, for example everyone at the meet PRs or the bulkhead does not appear to be located properly, then the pool should be re-measured and thereafter measured more frequently.
I think FINA had this one right! Sometimes you have to trust that meet officials do their job properly. BTW, a laser measuring device must be calibrated frequently to insure accuracy and an individual who wants to set a WR in a pool, has more of an incentive to fudge the results or may make an honest mistake. A neutral meet official or FINA representative should ideally make the measurement. To me the "bring your own measuring device idea", is an option of last resort. :canada:
I hope I made my point in an understandable manner and I thank you for reading my opinion!
I see a series of statements rather than an argument following any kind of valid logic, but I'll do my best to respond.
1. Incorrect. We do not know if it was the correct length because they refused to measure it at the meet. (Honestly, I'm not sure why this point continues to fail to register with you.)
2. True.
3. Prior to the current rules, yes.
4. Only if the proposed rule passes. It might not. And even if it does, it might not affect Worlds. Of course, people who attend Worlds might do their homework and measure the pool, as you could have done yourself.
5. No they weren't granted exemptions. Any previous international meet that occurred after our current rules were in place and that was accepted without the proper measurements was done in violation of the rules. (And two wrongs don't make a right.)
6. The motion was to apply for a rules exception. Yes, it failed.
Jack, it's done. Finished, no matter how many times you plant the flag :canada:. For someone who professes to have no time to keep up with rule changes or read the rule book, you sure spend a lot of time beating a dead horse. It takes all of 5-10 minutes to find and read the relevant sections in the rule book.
You said that you would have gone to the meet even if you knew it wasn't going to be accepted. That's excellent: enjoy the meet for what it was and move on. If top ten is so vitally important to you then in the future I suggest either attending only sanctioned meets or doing due diligence before attending recognized meets such as this one.
Chris,
Here is the link to the minutes of the board meeting that I used for my facts:
www.usms.org/.../records-2012-2-26-1.pdf
It states that exemptions were granted for Worlds and Canadian Nationals in the past. That was the precedent that was disregarded. I thought that you were there, but it must have been a different Chris Stevenson (that happens to me a lot BTW, my name is very common). I am pretty sure that FINA or Canadian Masters require that the pool be measured prior to competition for a championship meet. In any case the pool is probably measured periodically. In my opinion, if the pool w/ bulkhead is measured every few months and is ok, times swum there are presumptively valid. If something happens to rebut that presumption, for example everyone at the meet PRs or the bulkhead does not appear to be located properly, then the pool should be re-measured and thereafter measured more frequently.
I think FINA had this one right! Sometimes you have to trust that meet officials do their job properly. BTW, a laser measuring device must be calibrated frequently to insure accuracy and an individual who wants to set a WR in a pool, has more of an incentive to fudge the results or may make an honest mistake. A neutral meet official or FINA representative should ideally make the measurement. To me the "bring your own measuring device idea", is an option of last resort. :canada:
I hope I made my point in an understandable manner and I thank you for reading my opinion!
