Though this topic has received some attention in various threads over the years, it is the dead of winter, and I think that those of us in the Northeast, at least, could do with a little blood boiling to warm up the extremities!
To this end, I am wondering how many of my fellow swimmers have had swim times disallowed ex post facto in USMS sanctioned meets, and if so, for what reason?
As some of you who read my blog may recall, I have had a number of TT-worthy times disallowed for various reasons over the years, ranging from lack of timeliness in submitting the paperwork, to swimming a couple races in the "Open" category.
Recently, I have had my first and only All American swim retroactively yanked, some five weeks after the Top 10 list was officially published. Obviously, this is not as bad as those unfortunate souls who have had World Records declared ineligible for consideration.
Nevertheless, it does sting. I invite you to read the details of my De-All'ing (from my perspective) here: byjimthornton.com/.../
Note: I do not question the right of USMS to have rules more stringent than USA-S and FINA. What I do believe is unfair to us swimmers is when these rules apply to us but not to those in charge of making sure that all the i's are dotted and the t's crossed when they secure sanctions for meets and collect the meet fees. My own AA-rescinded swim was done at Michael Phelps's famous pool, the North Baltimore Aquatics Club, in a meet that had a USMS sanction number. Skip Thompson, who traveled from Michigan to swim in this meet, told me he asked about the pool measurement and was told that it was on file. There were no bulkheads involved. I did not make the mistake of swimming in an "open" event. I feel I did everything right this time!
I also feel that the USMS rule book is so dense and complex that it's hopeless for swimmers to know if they are complying. I feel like the mole in a game of bureaucratic whack-a-mole!
Anyhow, if you have your own examples of TT or All American or even World Record times that were rescinded after the fact, please use this thread to post them!
Thanks for the kind comments, and to those who have had times and WR's yanked ex post facto, I definitely feel your pain!
Part of me thinks it's crazy to get worked up at all about this kind of thing. It's not as if it were the Olympics or the Tour de France! But I suppose if you have enough competitive spirit to go to meets in the first place, you are going to want whatever you manage to swim to count, especially if you comply with all known rules and have absolutely no way to determine something is afoul! (Thanks, That Guy, I shall consult you book of measured pools in the future, though it sounds like even this is not etched in stone since pools can fall out of compliance by changing tile since the last measurement was made!)
One of the biggest questions I am left with is why hand-timing (two watches for most events; three watches for World Records) continues to be legal whereas a pool that measures a hair too short is, in the minds of many, such a clear violation of the spirit of fairness?
In my case, I still don't know how short Michael Phelps' LCM pool is. I have heard everything from 2/1000s of an inch from the NBAC guy (who I suspect is not telling the truth) to up to 5 inches too short in some of the lanes. Even if it was the full 5 inches, this would have made a .15 second difference in my 100 LCM free--a significant amount, I acknowledge, but I would have still beaten the new official AA time by over a second.
Hand timing, by contrast, is extremely unreliable. There is the initial delay between the starter's horn and the timer's finger jerk. And the finish of the race is equally subject to human error--either anticipating the finish and stopping the watch a bit too soon, or hesitating and stopping it a hair too late. Usually, the benefit goes to the swimmer, and even when you average two or three times, I suspect hand-timing races are, more often than not, awarded faster rather than slower times.
So why is absolute pool measurement required and hand-timing overlooked?
Am I paranoid to suggest that requiring electronic timing to usurp hand-timing would obviate tons of meets--partly because some pools can't afford to purchase a timing system, and partly because other pools are so close to the cutoff measurement that adding timing pads would make the pool too short?
This is what I mean by expediency in my blog. Overlook a greater potential deviation from absolute fairness while insisting on rules to prevent a lesser potential deviation, all in the name of more meets, more meet fees, and more participation? I know this has probably been argued to death before, but could someone explain why exactly USMS has decided on more stringent measurement rules than both USA-S swimming and FINA?
Thanks for the kind comments, and to those who have had times and WR's yanked ex post facto, I definitely feel your pain!
Part of me thinks it's crazy to get worked up at all about this kind of thing. It's not as if it were the Olympics or the Tour de France! But I suppose if you have enough competitive spirit to go to meets in the first place, you are going to want whatever you manage to swim to count, especially if you comply with all known rules and have absolutely no way to determine something is afoul! (Thanks, That Guy, I shall consult you book of measured pools in the future, though it sounds like even this is not etched in stone since pools can fall out of compliance by changing tile since the last measurement was made!)
One of the biggest questions I am left with is why hand-timing (two watches for most events; three watches for World Records) continues to be legal whereas a pool that measures a hair too short is, in the minds of many, such a clear violation of the spirit of fairness?
In my case, I still don't know how short Michael Phelps' LCM pool is. I have heard everything from 2/1000s of an inch from the NBAC guy (who I suspect is not telling the truth) to up to 5 inches too short in some of the lanes. Even if it was the full 5 inches, this would have made a .15 second difference in my 100 LCM free--a significant amount, I acknowledge, but I would have still beaten the new official AA time by over a second.
Hand timing, by contrast, is extremely unreliable. There is the initial delay between the starter's horn and the timer's finger jerk. And the finish of the race is equally subject to human error--either anticipating the finish and stopping the watch a bit too soon, or hesitating and stopping it a hair too late. Usually, the benefit goes to the swimmer, and even when you average two or three times, I suspect hand-timing races are, more often than not, awarded faster rather than slower times.
So why is absolute pool measurement required and hand-timing overlooked?
Am I paranoid to suggest that requiring electronic timing to usurp hand-timing would obviate tons of meets--partly because some pools can't afford to purchase a timing system, and partly because other pools are so close to the cutoff measurement that adding timing pads would make the pool too short?
This is what I mean by expediency in my blog. Overlook a greater potential deviation from absolute fairness while insisting on rules to prevent a lesser potential deviation, all in the name of more meets, more meet fees, and more participation? I know this has probably been argued to death before, but could someone explain why exactly USMS has decided on more stringent measurement rules than both USA-S swimming and FINA?
