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 My own AA-rescinded swim was done at Michael Phelps's famous pool, the North Baltimore Aquatics Club, in a meet that had a USMS sanction number.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Anyhow, if you have your own examples of TT or All American or even World Record times that were rescinded after the fact, please use this thread to post them!
I apologize if any of my screed came off as screaming or mean-spirited. I AM GENERALLY NOT A SCREAMER! I think of myself as actually more of a whisperer.
Many of our members are engineers and the like, which I am not, so what I propose as the "solution" to these ongoing snafus may be ludicrous from an engineering point of view, but I shall take a whack at it nonetheless:
1. Masters swimming is a messy world. You have big, medium, and tiny meets all across the country, in state-of-the-art pools and ancient ones. At some meets, the officials are highly professional, and the judges eagle-eyed. At other meets, to be honest, not so much. Some swims are electronically timed; others are hand-timed. Some meet directors are thoroughly up to date on the USMS rule book and its mind-boggling minutiae. Other meet directors don't know what the rules are and give the wrong advice. There is, in other words, a tremendous amount of variability in this system we call USMS swimming.
2. The Top 10 list is a way, first and foremost, of motivating adult swimmers to compete, and in the process, derive the various health and mental benefits that Ransom Arthur envisioned when he championed adult swimming in the first place. In an effort to be as inclusive as possible, USMS allows any swim performed in any venue in the country to count for TT consideration, as long as the rules are followed. You do not, therefore, need to be wealthy enough to travel to nationals to earn a spot in the Top 10--you can do it at a pool near to where you live, provided the competition is kosher according to USMS regulations.
3. So what are these regulations, and are they either too stringent, too loose, or just about right? I would argue, personally, that it's hard to argue that the regulations adopted by USA-S and FINA, which govern elite youth and international and Olympic swimming, are too loose. If USMS were to use these standards, one might argue it might even be a bit of overkill, given that masters swimmers--as enthusiastic and dedicated and committed as many of us are--are nevertheless not exactly comparable to Olympians per se (though there are more than a few ex-Olympians within our ranks.) This is not meant in any way to belittle masters swimming. But honestly, it's just not the same thing. It's not! In the Olympics, competition is the only thing that matters, and top swimmers are essentially professionals. In masters, competition is the icing on the cake, and even the legends in our ranks do it not as a job but as a sideline. The mission of USMS is to promote swimming for health, not just for competition. Thus I would argue that matching USA-S and FINA standards would be more than sufficient; but exceeding them, especially given how much variation there is in recreational pools across the country, and from region to region, seems crazy to me. In an earlier forum, Michael Heather wrote something along the lines of not accepting any times of his own that were swum in a pool even a millimeter short. Well, until laser technology came along, it was virtually impossible to measure pools to such detail. But there are so many other factors that influence speed in pools. Is an outdoor pool on a windy day that is 1-3 inches short of 50 meters long but only 4' - 6' deep significantly "faster" because of its reduced length than an indoor pool with state of the art lane ropes, gutters, starting blocks, etc. that is exactly 50 meters long and 9'-14' deep? I would argue that because it is easy, thanks to lasers, to measure a pool's length, and difficult, because there are no tools to specifically quantify such effects as depth and wind, etc., USMS has opted to give the illusion of unwavering standards by insisting on the former and overlooking the latter. As for electronic vs. hand timing, the choice to allow the latter seems so clearly a matter of expediency as to be risible. Surely, no one seriously argues that swimming 2-6" short per 100 LCM provides a significantly greater "cheating" advantage than hand-timing? Bottom line: if you have a messy system, you need to build in some flexibility in the letter of the law. I am not arguing against hand-timing, though I personally would rather see this banned than not. I'm just saying that if you allow something with a high probability of plus or minus variation from exactitude, why not permit the same reasonable flexibility for other aspects being measured? Why not go with FINA standards, in other words, with regards to pool measurements?
4. Finally, I suppose my biggest plea is simply this: If USMS has rules that it insists upon, then why can it not come up with a way to guarantee that any meet that receives its official sanction and/or recognition is guaranteed to be in compliance with all of these rules? You know how speed suits now have those little Fina Legal bar code things on the butt? Why couldn't USMS come up with a similar Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval-style logo that is posted on any meet where swimmers have a reasonable expectation that their times will count for TT consideration? Without this logo printed on the meet info sheet, swimmers would know whether or not to make the investment in meet fees, travel expenses, etc. and come anyway, knowing that their times may or may not "count." Such Super Sanctioned meets, moreover, would have provisions in place for measuring bulkhead movements, not holding any events as "Open" swims, and generally guaranteeing that any swimmer participating can't accidentally make the mistake of running afoul of some rule he or she might not know exists. I applaud Chris and the numerous other folks out there that make this great organization run, and I can already anticipate suggestions a la "volunteer yourself" or "buy the rule book and study each codicil in all its intricacies." Alas, I am not a volunteering type, at least when it comes to organizational behavior; nor do I have the head for regulatory minutiae. It is probably, therefore, unfair and even hypocritical of me to ask this, but ask it I do. Why can't USMS make it so that we swimmers can identify, quickly and reliably, what meets will absolutely count before we sign up for them? Then make sure, barring fraud on our part, they absolutely do count. There is just too much potential disappointment in this messy system the way it is right now.
PS I absolutely forgive and absolve Jill for the mistakes in the present circumstance and strongly suspect she was a victim of the NBAC pool people. But if my suggestion for a Super Sanction Logo had appeared on the meet info sheet, and every duck was thereby guaranteed to be in a row, all this could have been avoided. I am sure plenty of swimmers would have still attended the meet. But those of us who traveled to Baltimore only for a "last chance" assault on the TT's would have saved our time and money.
PS No. 2 As some of you may know, USMS sent their own engineers in December to measure the NBAC pool where I and many others raced last summer. The pool was completely drained around Halloween and was empty when the laser measurements were done. I don't know the ground temperature at the time of measurement. The combination of no hydrodynamic pressure pushing outwards on the walls may have made no difference whatsoever in the pool's length. On the other hand, water is heavy--a cubic foot alone weighs 62.42796 lb. Perhaps an engineer within our ranks could give an opinion on whether a 50 meter pool with 10 lanes and some depth (I don't know this figure exactly) might, when filled with seemingly a gazillion cubic feet of water, expand ever so slightly compared to its empty winter state? Balloons filled with water expand. Granted, cement is not the same as latex. But it's not the same as reinforced tungsten either. Again, it's a messy system, and insisting on exactitude in measurement is not the same as achieving it.
Proposed new USMS "Super Sanction" Meet seal:
7086
I apologize if any of my screed came off as screaming or mean-spirited. I AM GENERALLY NOT A SCREAMER! I think of myself as actually more of a whisperer.
Many of our members are engineers and the like, which I am not, so what I propose as the "solution" to these ongoing snafus may be ludicrous from an engineering point of view, but I shall take a whack at it nonetheless:
1. Masters swimming is a messy world. You have big, medium, and tiny meets all across the country, in state-of-the-art pools and ancient ones. At some meets, the officials are highly professional, and the judges eagle-eyed. At other meets, to be honest, not so much. Some swims are electronically timed; others are hand-timed. Some meet directors are thoroughly up to date on the USMS rule book and its mind-boggling minutiae. Other meet directors don't know what the rules are and give the wrong advice. There is, in other words, a tremendous amount of variability in this system we call USMS swimming.
2. The Top 10 list is a way, first and foremost, of motivating adult swimmers to compete, and in the process, derive the various health and mental benefits that Ransom Arthur envisioned when he championed adult swimming in the first place. In an effort to be as inclusive as possible, USMS allows any swim performed in any venue in the country to count for TT consideration, as long as the rules are followed. You do not, therefore, need to be wealthy enough to travel to nationals to earn a spot in the Top 10--you can do it at a pool near to where you live, provided the competition is kosher according to USMS regulations.
3. So what are these regulations, and are they either too stringent, too loose, or just about right? I would argue, personally, that it's hard to argue that the regulations adopted by USA-S and FINA, which govern elite youth and international and Olympic swimming, are too loose. If USMS were to use these standards, one might argue it might even be a bit of overkill, given that masters swimmers--as enthusiastic and dedicated and committed as many of us are--are nevertheless not exactly comparable to Olympians per se (though there are more than a few ex-Olympians within our ranks.) This is not meant in any way to belittle masters swimming. But honestly, it's just not the same thing. It's not! In the Olympics, competition is the only thing that matters, and top swimmers are essentially professionals. In masters, competition is the icing on the cake, and even the legends in our ranks do it not as a job but as a sideline. The mission of USMS is to promote swimming for health, not just for competition. Thus I would argue that matching USA-S and FINA standards would be more than sufficient; but exceeding them, especially given how much variation there is in recreational pools across the country, and from region to region, seems crazy to me. In an earlier forum, Michael Heather wrote something along the lines of not accepting any times of his own that were swum in a pool even a millimeter short. Well, until laser technology came along, it was virtually impossible to measure pools to such detail. But there are so many other factors that influence speed in pools. Is an outdoor pool on a windy day that is 1-3 inches short of 50 meters long but only 4' - 6' deep significantly "faster" because of its reduced length than an indoor pool with state of the art lane ropes, gutters, starting blocks, etc. that is exactly 50 meters long and 9'-14' deep? I would argue that because it is easy, thanks to lasers, to measure a pool's length, and difficult, because there are no tools to specifically quantify such effects as depth and wind, etc., USMS has opted to give the illusion of unwavering standards by insisting on the former and overlooking the latter. As for electronic vs. hand timing, the choice to allow the latter seems so clearly a matter of expediency as to be risible. Surely, no one seriously argues that swimming 2-6" short per 100 LCM provides a significantly greater "cheating" advantage than hand-timing? Bottom line: if you have a messy system, you need to build in some flexibility in the letter of the law. I am not arguing against hand-timing, though I personally would rather see this banned than not. I'm just saying that if you allow something with a high probability of plus or minus variation from exactitude, why not permit the same reasonable flexibility for other aspects being measured? Why not go with FINA standards, in other words, with regards to pool measurements?
4. Finally, I suppose my biggest plea is simply this: If USMS has rules that it insists upon, then why can it not come up with a way to guarantee that any meet that receives its official sanction and/or recognition is guaranteed to be in compliance with all of these rules? You know how speed suits now have those little Fina Legal bar code things on the butt? Why couldn't USMS come up with a similar Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval-style logo that is posted on any meet where swimmers have a reasonable expectation that their times will count for TT consideration? Without this logo printed on the meet info sheet, swimmers would know whether or not to make the investment in meet fees, travel expenses, etc. and come anyway, knowing that their times may or may not "count." Such Super Sanctioned meets, moreover, would have provisions in place for measuring bulkhead movements, not holding any events as "Open" swims, and generally guaranteeing that any swimmer participating can't accidentally make the mistake of running afoul of some rule he or she might not know exists. I applaud Chris and the numerous other folks out there that make this great organization run, and I can already anticipate suggestions a la "volunteer yourself" or "buy the rule book and study each codicil in all its intricacies." Alas, I am not a volunteering type, at least when it comes to organizational behavior; nor do I have the head for regulatory minutiae. It is probably, therefore, unfair and even hypocritical of me to ask this, but ask it I do. Why can't USMS make it so that we swimmers can identify, quickly and reliably, what meets will absolutely count before we sign up for them? Then make sure, barring fraud on our part, they absolutely do count. There is just too much potential disappointment in this messy system the way it is right now.
PS I absolutely forgive and absolve Jill for the mistakes in the present circumstance and strongly suspect she was a victim of the NBAC pool people. But if my suggestion for a Super Sanction Logo had appeared on the meet info sheet, and every duck was thereby guaranteed to be in a row, all this could have been avoided. I am sure plenty of swimmers would have still attended the meet. But those of us who traveled to Baltimore only for a "last chance" assault on the TT's would have saved our time and money.
PS No. 2 As some of you may know, USMS sent their own engineers in December to measure the NBAC pool where I and many others raced last summer. The pool was completely drained around Halloween and was empty when the laser measurements were done. I don't know the ground temperature at the time of measurement. The combination of no hydrodynamic pressure pushing outwards on the walls may have made no difference whatsoever in the pool's length. On the other hand, water is heavy--a cubic foot alone weighs 62.42796 lb. Perhaps an engineer within our ranks could give an opinion on whether a 50 meter pool with 10 lanes and some depth (I don't know this figure exactly) might, when filled with seemingly a gazillion cubic feet of water, expand ever so slightly compared to its empty winter state? Balloons filled with water expand. Granted, cement is not the same as latex. But it's not the same as reinforced tungsten either. Again, it's a messy system, and insisting on exactitude in measurement is not the same as achieving it.
Proposed new USMS "Super Sanction" Meet seal:
7086
