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!
Jack, I think you're misreading the minutes and missing the point about Stanford worlds specifically. It's been mentioned more than once that the pools at Stanford were indeed measured before the meet- how else did the meet host know that they were going to have to grind down the wall in the one pool??? Once a non-bulkhead pool has been measured, and assuming it has had no significant work done to it, it doesn't need to be measured again by USMS rules. The "exemption" for worlds that year was to allow the times to count, even though each swimmer didn't submit their times to their individual Top Ten Recorders (as required by USMS rules). Measuring the pool had nothing to do with it. Trying to use the fact that Stanford worlds got a pass is a false equivalence, since the reason Canadian Nationals in 2011 didn't get included is different than Stanford Worlds.
As for bulkhead placement, measuring every few months is not a realistic idea. Again, as it's been mentioned in this thread, simply tightening the lane ropes too tight can cause lanes to be too short. The eye can't see this, but a steel tape or laser can detect it. And if your proposal to assume that the pool is okay till everyone PBs would result in times getting thrown out, once the meet host knew the pool was short. So we'd be right back to where we were prior to the measurement rule taking effect in 2003.
I think the Records and Tabulation committee was in a tough spot, but ultimately they made the only call they could, based on the rules as they were written in 2011. Since the rules have obviously caused a problem, R&T is doing what they can to prevent a similar situation in the future. I do feel for everyone who had their times not count, but swimming in an unsanctioned meet anywhere (even here in the good ole' USA) poses a risk for the swimmer.
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!
Jack, I think you're misreading the minutes and missing the point about Stanford worlds specifically. It's been mentioned more than once that the pools at Stanford were indeed measured before the meet- how else did the meet host know that they were going to have to grind down the wall in the one pool??? Once a non-bulkhead pool has been measured, and assuming it has had no significant work done to it, it doesn't need to be measured again by USMS rules. The "exemption" for worlds that year was to allow the times to count, even though each swimmer didn't submit their times to their individual Top Ten Recorders (as required by USMS rules). Measuring the pool had nothing to do with it. Trying to use the fact that Stanford worlds got a pass is a false equivalence, since the reason Canadian Nationals in 2011 didn't get included is different than Stanford Worlds.
As for bulkhead placement, measuring every few months is not a realistic idea. Again, as it's been mentioned in this thread, simply tightening the lane ropes too tight can cause lanes to be too short. The eye can't see this, but a steel tape or laser can detect it. And if your proposal to assume that the pool is okay till everyone PBs would result in times getting thrown out, once the meet host knew the pool was short. So we'd be right back to where we were prior to the measurement rule taking effect in 2003.
I think the Records and Tabulation committee was in a tough spot, but ultimately they made the only call they could, based on the rules as they were written in 2011. Since the rules have obviously caused a problem, R&T is doing what they can to prevent a similar situation in the future. I do feel for everyone who had their times not count, but swimming in an unsanctioned meet anywhere (even here in the good ole' USA) poses a risk for the swimmer.
