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 My own AA-rescinded swim was done at Michael Phelps's famous pool, the North Baltimore Aquatics Club, in a meet that had a USMS sanction number.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Anyhow, if you have your own examples of TT or All American or even World Record times that were rescinded after the fact, please use this thread to post them!
While Jim and others like to portray USMS as heartless automatons characterized mostly by a slavish devotion to rules -- even while appealing to those same instincts ("You can't change the Top 10 *now*, it is against the rules!") -- it is arguable that this situation was created by a willingness to be flexible. The sanctions chair gave her blessing because she believed the facility manager when he said the measurements were on hand and in order. Mary Beth included the times because she believed the Top 10 Recorder when she said the same (the TTR and Sanctions chair are the same person, BTW) during the submission process.
I don't think that either of these things are uncommon occurrences. While I am less familiar with the sanctioning process, I know that Mary Beth does sometimes accept the TTR's word that the proper measurements are forthcoming. It is just that usually those measurements ARE, in fact, in order. Maybe now she won't be so trusting, though realize with 52 LMSCs and maybe 100+ meets that means that the entire process of publishing the TT lists may be delayed further.
So in this case once it was apparent that the pool was short -- and the person measured each lane twice, and of the 16 measurements not a single one showed the pool at 50m or more -- the question was what to do about it. We chose this as the lesser of two evils, even though I understand people's frustration.
(I disagree with you, though, that there would have been resigned acceptance from Jim if the times from this meet had been missing from either the preliminary or final TT list. The outcry would have just begun a month earlier. And as an FYI, I didn't know about this situation until a couple days before Jim did.)
While Jim and others like to portray USMS as heartless automatons characterized mostly by a slavish devotion to rules -- even while appealing to those same instincts ("You can't change the Top 10 *now*, it is against the rules!") -- it is arguable that this situation was created by a willingness to be flexible. The sanctions chair gave her blessing because she believed the facility manager when he said the measurements were on hand and in order. Mary Beth included the times because she believed the Top 10 Recorder when she said the same (the TTR and Sanctions chair are the same person, BTW) during the submission process.
I don't think that either of these things are uncommon occurrences. While I am less familiar with the sanctioning process, I know that Mary Beth does sometimes accept the TTR's word that the proper measurements are forthcoming. It is just that usually those measurements ARE, in fact, in order. Maybe now she won't be so trusting, though realize with 52 LMSCs and maybe 100+ meets that means that the entire process of publishing the TT lists may be delayed further.
So in this case once it was apparent that the pool was short -- and the person measured each lane twice, and of the 16 measurements not a single one showed the pool at 50m or more -- the question was what to do about it. We chose this as the lesser of two evils, even though I understand people's frustration.
(I disagree with you, though, that there would have been resigned acceptance from Jim if the times from this meet had been missing from either the preliminary or final TT list. The outcry would have just begun a month earlier. And as an FYI, I didn't know about this situation until a couple days before Jim did.)
