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 My own AA-rescinded swim was done at Michael Phelps's famous pool, the North Baltimore Aquatics Club, in a meet that had a USMS sanction number.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Anyhow, if you have your own examples of TT or All American or even World Record times that were rescinded after the fact, please use this thread to post them!
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.
Jim, I hate to see what has happened in this case. You earned it and definitely deserve recognition for your efforts. I'm banking on 15 more years of mediocrity (and lots of preservatives) to carry me into the elite status that you have found.
You have two engineering problems here: First is the hydro-static pressure of water on the pool walls. The second is the thermal expansion of the pool deck materials. Both are not insignificant.
Hydro-static pressure on a vertical wall can be calculated with the following formula: Sw*h/2 where Sw is the specific weight of water (62.4lbs/ft^3) and height is the height of the wall. Let's say the pool is 6 feet deep all around. That means each wall has an average pressure of 187.2 lbs/ft^2. If the walls at the start and finish are 75 feet long, then those walls each hold back 84240 lbs of force. Pools are constructed so that all the sides are connected. So, the structure itself will brace against some of the contraction due to water removal. Still, I would fully expect there to be some contraction (especially in the middle of the wall) but how much really depends on the concrete thickness and soil composition around the pool. I really couldn't even guess.
Thermal expansion (or contraction) in this case is a little easier to look at. Concrete shrinks when it gets cold. Not by much but it does shrink. The formula is pretty simple. dL = L * (dT) * Ct where dL = the change in length, dT = the change in temperature and Ct is the coefficient of linear thermal expansion for concrete. Different concretes have different coefficients but looking around, 6 x 10^-6 per degree F is somewhere in the ballpark. If the pool is 80 degrees when you swam and 50 degrees in the winter when they measured, you get a dT of 30 F. Plugging it all in, I get .009 meters of "shrinkage" or about .35 inches. So, a full pool at exactly the correct length and at normal competition temperature will certainly fail measurements when it is emptied and cooled. The only real hope you had was if the pool was already a little too long. Perhaps a measurement in the spring with the pool filled will vindicate your time... if they allow it.
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.
Jim, I hate to see what has happened in this case. You earned it and definitely deserve recognition for your efforts. I'm banking on 15 more years of mediocrity (and lots of preservatives) to carry me into the elite status that you have found.
You have two engineering problems here: First is the hydro-static pressure of water on the pool walls. The second is the thermal expansion of the pool deck materials. Both are not insignificant.
Hydro-static pressure on a vertical wall can be calculated with the following formula: Sw*h/2 where Sw is the specific weight of water (62.4lbs/ft^3) and height is the height of the wall. Let's say the pool is 6 feet deep all around. That means each wall has an average pressure of 187.2 lbs/ft^2. If the walls at the start and finish are 75 feet long, then those walls each hold back 84240 lbs of force. Pools are constructed so that all the sides are connected. So, the structure itself will brace against some of the contraction due to water removal. Still, I would fully expect there to be some contraction (especially in the middle of the wall) but how much really depends on the concrete thickness and soil composition around the pool. I really couldn't even guess.
Thermal expansion (or contraction) in this case is a little easier to look at. Concrete shrinks when it gets cold. Not by much but it does shrink. The formula is pretty simple. dL = L * (dT) * Ct where dL = the change in length, dT = the change in temperature and Ct is the coefficient of linear thermal expansion for concrete. Different concretes have different coefficients but looking around, 6 x 10^-6 per degree F is somewhere in the ballpark. If the pool is 80 degrees when you swam and 50 degrees in the winter when they measured, you get a dT of 30 F. Plugging it all in, I get .009 meters of "shrinkage" or about .35 inches. So, a full pool at exactly the correct length and at normal competition temperature will certainly fail measurements when it is emptied and cooled. The only real hope you had was if the pool was already a little too long. Perhaps a measurement in the spring with the pool filled will vindicate your time... if they allow it.
