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.
Canadian Nationals were also exempted in the past and the minutes do compare the Montreal situation to the Worlds and previous Canadian meets. I think if the bulkhead pools are measured periodically and in conformance w/ the jurisdictions sanctioning regulations that should be enough. I believe you when you say that tightening a lane line can make a bulkhead short but for many reasons that should be an extremely rare occurrence. It is possible that the measurement procedure was flawed in those cases or the bulkhead was defective. This is the first time I have heard that the pool was not measured at all either before or after the meet. I believe you when you say that, but I never heard anyone from the meet admit to that.
I thought it was measured before competition as Canada requires.
Worlds will be there in 2014. So FINA thinks they run a good meet.
Canadian Nationals were also exempted in the past and the minutes do compare the Montreal situation to the Worlds and previous Canadian meets. I think if the bulkhead pools are measured periodically and in conformance w/ the jurisdictions sanctioning regulations that should be enough. I believe you when you say that tightening a lane line can make a bulkhead short but for many reasons that should be an extremely rare occurrence. It is possible that the measurement procedure was flawed in those cases or the bulkhead was defective. This is the first time I have heard that the pool was not measured at all either before or after the meet. I believe you when you say that, but I never heard anyone from the meet admit to that.
I thought it was measured before competition as Canada requires.
Worlds will be there in 2014. So FINA thinks they run a good meet.
Actually, you'd be surprised how often that happens. That's why you're not supposed to measure a course until it is completely set up, because it can move slightly when the lane ropes are put in.
Canada requires measurements once a year, by a qualified surveyor, correct? Without documentation, how do you know that it was measured after the competition course was set up for nationals? That's the crux of the issue- no one knows for sure if the course was the right length. We can all assume it was, till we're blue in the face, but until there's documented proof, we're just assuming.
No one is saying that they don't run a good meet. All we're saying is that the meet was not run according to USMS rules, so it can't be accepted for top tens and national records. It's irrelevant that FINA is accepting the times, and that they gave Montreal the 2014 bid. Our rules weren't followed, therefore our NGB isn't accepting the times. It's as simple as that, however unfortunate the situation is.
Molly, It probably happens approximately as often as the measuring device malfunctions or is used incorrectly. I don't know what the Canadian standards are, but I assume they were followed and the precedence is that the meet results were accepted by USMS in past years.
I agree that both sides of this argument will lose, unfortunately.
So, the bottom line is the Canadians were not officially contacted by the Committee and no measurements were requested but it is assumed by the commitee that they don't exist and that they were never done? I would have the contacted Meet Director to make a definitive determination, but that's just me.
It isn't the responsibility of the committee or any top ten recorder or any other USMS volunteer to contact the meet hosts of all masters meets that are not sanctioned by USMS to check on measurements just on the off chance that USMS members might be swimming there.
That is why it is the swimmer's responsibiility to get the measurements and inform their LMSC's top ten recorder about the meet and the results (preferably before the meet so the TTR can tell the swimmer what is needed).
But why do you assume that the meet directors weren't contacted?
U.S. Masters Swimming Discussion Forums - View Single Post - Canadian Masters Swimming Championships 2011
Walt Reid also received no measurements with the USMS/FINA record application. USMS records require them. Based on the meet hosts response and since no measurements were included in the record applications, yes we assumed no measurements were done. And again: it isn't our responsibility to get them for recognized meets. I simply don't know how to say it any plainer.
Feel free to contact the meet hosts. It doesn't matter. The deadline for submission is long past and the top ten lists are final. I don't know what you are hoping to accomplish here, but it sure is a shame that all the time and energy you have expended on this matter wasn't proactive rather than reactive. So are we done? I'm going to assume so.
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!
Yes, I am the same person who is the committee chair, called the meeting, set the agenda and ran it. I think I have a reasonable command of the facts but that is open for debate, of course.
About the measurements, I posted the FINA requirements (masters and not) earlier. My understanding is that Canada only measures that pool once a year, with a surveyor, and that they did not do so at the meet. We never received any measurements done at the meet; certainly none accompanied the record application. From the Rule Book, "it is the responsibility of the swimmer to submit times obtained in recognized events with complete documentation to the appropriate LMSC Top 10 recorder." Documentation includes measurements, if they are needed. In the absence of such documentation (which was YOUR responsibility to collect, not ours) we cannot just "assume" that the pool was okay, no matter how much you would like it to be so.
Previous Canadian Nationals meets have appeared in Top 10, that is true. If those meets were in a bulkhead pool and no measurements were collected, then this was done in ignorance and in violation of the rules, not as an explicit exemption to the rules (the matter has never come before the Committee before). As I said earlier, TTRs and the R&T Committee do not have the authority to disregard the rules in any case.
So why were they accepted? If no record is broken it is up to the TTR of the swimmer's LMSC to verify that the measurements were done (ie, ask the swimmer if s/he collected them) and to hold on to them in case they are ever needed (eg if there is some later question about it, or it was later determined that a record was broken at the meet). The TTR should not submit the results for TT consideration without these measurements. I have half a dozen swimmers in my LMSC who regularly attend USA-S and/or international meets, and they all know the drill: they tell me about the meet beforehand, I check to see if pool has been measured previously and if they use a bulkhead, and if measurements are needed the swimmers get them (usually from the facility manager, but they can collect the measurements themselves if they follow the protocol). Fortress -- who isn't in my LMSC but knows the drill also -- tried to do this for the Canada meet and they refused to do it; that's why she didn't go.
Procedures for results and top ten are being upgraded nowadays, what with the whole national results database, and some shortcomings in older procedures are now being exposed for the first time. Mary Beth, for example, now asks TTRs to verify that they have the pool measurements in their possession for all bulkhead pools (they still don't have to send them in unless there was a national record). When a TTR uploads results to the national database, there is also now a checkbox to verify that the measurements are in hand. Still "on the honor system" to a degree; we are trusting TTRs not to lie to our faces. But in the past, the TTRs may not have been aware of the rules about measurements. There is a lot of turnover in the position (gee, I wonder why...).
The only reason that the vote was 4-3, instead of 7-0, was because previous results from this meet had been accepted. If it had been a straightforward application of the rules then it would not have been controversial at all; in fact, I doubt I would have had a meeting about it. But ultimately the ones who voted against ASKING for an exemption (which may not have been granted anyway) reasoned that "two wrongs don't make a right." In other words, an unknowing mistake made in the past shouldn't cause us to make another in full knowledge of the facts.
Another reason is that, if the rule proposal to accept such results in the future does NOT pass, then where does that leave us with respect to this meet? We accept Canadian Nationals but not others?
I disagree. There are some facilities that switch between long course and short course all the time--perhaps even daily. And who knows how they are placing the bulkhead? Perhaps they just eyeball it to some kind of marking. That's good enough for practice but not good enough for meets.
I think Montreal and the facility know how to set their bulkhead. It was their National Championship meet, which was well run. I assume that they complied with their measurement rules and I believe that the times are valid.
As you know, State's pool has a bulkhead. They moved it for the divers or for "LC" training. I don't remember it ever being out of position when replaced. We never remeasured it, because it wasn't required. We swam dual meets there, got Q times for Nationals there, held the Big Tens there. If the bulkhead looked wrong someone would have noticed and it would have been fixed. It stopped in the right place automatically.
BTW, UM just took it on the chin from Ohio U and State won by 22.
