Let me see if I am following the logic here.
1.We think that the Canadian pool was properly measured and the right length. So the times are valid.
2. We agree that FINA rules were complied with as required by Canada. Therefore, the results are valid times everywhere else in the world.
3. We agree that the previous policy would have allowed those results.
4. We agree that the USMS in the future (hopefully before Worlds) will again accept times from (major) international meets that comply with the standards of that federation.
5. The results from Stanford Worlds and previous Canadian National Meets were granted exemptions from USMS standards.
6. A motion to grant the same exemption was not granted for the 2011 canadian Nationals.
Can anyone explain to me how denying the exemption for Montreal is a proper, well reasoned decision? It flaunts the precedent set in the Stanford and previous Canadian Nationals decisions. It punishes USMS members who were unaware of the rule, reasonably I might add, since it had not been applied in similar situations. It punishes some of our members and rewards others whose times were not as fast. It appears to be an arbitrary decision. It is offensive to some of us, since it could be perceived as an attempt to force the Canadians to apply our rules to their meets.
As John Kennedy said, "An error is not a mistake until you fail to correct it."
So, correct it USMS!:canada:
You can add:
7. USA-S meets won't be measured. Make sure it is a fixed wall pool with measurements on file.
Not quite true, Leslie. I do LC Jr Champs each year at UMD which has a bulkhead. Prior to the meet I email the director and ask him if the pool can be measured. The staff there is great at measuring it for me before and after and filing out the forms.
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.
.
In the case of the THills Zone meet, which was at my home pool at the time, the rec. department did take off the new tile they had put on which made the pool too short. In this case, the pool had been re-tiled on all 4 walls. For cost savings, they only shaved down the deep end to make it legal for 50m and, with bulkheads, 25y and 25m. It is still not legal width-wise and I doubt it ever will be. I was the lucky one that had to measure the pool after the new rule. It was not enjoyable at 7 months pregnant!
It flaunts the precedent set in the Stanford
As has already been mentioned this is not an apples to apples comparison because the pools at Stanford do not have bulkheads.
…my whole life has been dedicated to trying to prove that I am slightly more than a half a person…
…none of my own TT-worthy swims have been thrown out because of pool measurement problems. They have been thrown out because our LSMC didn't opt to recognize…
Jimmy Carter put it best. Life's not fair.
So you mean if we stipulate that USMS recognizes you as 50.00001% person, you will stop grousing about a meet that choose not to be recognized by USMS? If that’s all it will take then I’ll even go as high as 52%! Anyone else? Do I hear 53?
And like SwimShark, in Georgia we are blessed to have officials who are willing to perform USMS measurements at USA Swimming meets, when Masters Swimmers have fast times. Thank you Ed Saltzman!!!
Skip, thanks for posting the article about measurement issues at NCAA’s. I hadn’t seen that yet.
The pool can be assumed to maintain the same length at all times between the two mesurements.
What makes you think the bulkhead was never moved? Also there have been cases where lane lines have been overtensioned causing the pool to be shorter in the center lanes. If the pool is properly measured before the competition these problems can be identified and corrected, if not it's a guessing game. That's why the pool needs to be measured immediately before the competition begins.
Let me see if I am following the logic here.
1.We think that the Canadian pool was properly measured and the right length. So the times are valid.
2. We agree that FINA rules were complied with as required by Canada. Therefore, the results are valid times everywhere else in the world.
3. We agree that the previous policy would have allowed those results.
4. We agree that the USMS in the future (hopefully before Worlds) will again accept times from (major) international meets that comply with the standards of that federation.
5. The results from Stanford Worlds and previous Canadian National Meets were granted exemptions from USMS standards.
6. A motion to grant the same exemption was not granted for the 2011 canadian Nationals.
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; the R&T Committee does not have the authority to ignore the rules. But 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.
What makes you think the bulkhead was never moved? Also there have been cases where lane lines have been overtensioned causing the pool to be shorter in the center lanes. If the pool is properly measured before the competition these problems can be identified and corrected, if not it's a guessing game. That's why the pool needs to be measured immediately before the competition begins.
That's what I meant in my response to Jack. I was quibbling with the "totally correct" assertion.
I hope the USMS rule is changed and that times from this international meet, and others, will count in the future. I don't see that USMS had much choice but to apply the rules as written in this instance though.
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!
What makes you think the bulkhead was never moved? Also there have been cases where lane lines have been overtensioned causing the pool to be shorter in the center lanes. If the pool is properly measured before the competition these problems can be identified and corrected, if not it's a guessing game. That's why the pool needs to be measured immediately before the competition begins.
What makes you think it was moved and not placed back properly? FINA trusted the accuracy of the pool. Do you know something they don't?
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:
