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 My own AA-rescinded swim was done at Michael Phelps's famous pool, the North Baltimore Aquatics Club, in a meet that had a USMS sanction number.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Anyhow, if you have your own examples of TT or All American or even World Record times that were rescinded after the fact, please use this thread to post them!
Since I lost 6, Top 10's in the 2011 Montreal Nationals, I am in favor of the above-captioned rule. So, Chris, you think that because there is no rule saying that you can not remove a Top 10 time after it has been approved and published, that USMS does have the authority and has it absolutely? I think that might be an open question. Why have a deadline if it is meaningless and can be disregarded? And, if that is true, can you change the 2011 SCM Top 10 to reflect my Montreal times? After all, there is no rule that says you can't do that either. Remember, the integrity of the sport is the most important thing and what's right is right!
So, do you want me to email you my times from Montreal, or can you pull them up on the internet?
Of course there is a rule. The only deadline is for submission of times for TT consideration. Eligible times that are submitted by the deadline can make the list. Your time was not eligible according to the rules at the time of the swim, as others have noted.
It turns out that Jim's time was not eligible either and should not have been accepted, though that was not known at the time.
I'm not sure most people -- even those who have volunteered for a long time -- realize how much policy drives practice in some cases. So let's consider Top 10 lists. From what I can see (I am not a lawyer, just married to one), the existence of these lists derives from article 105.2.1:
The 10 best times nationally in each age division and for each gender shall be published annually for the events listed under article 102.5.
Technically we do not actually follow this rule, do we? We publish lists of the fastest 10 *swimmers* not the fastest 10 times. That is a long-standing policy. (And in this case probably the rule should be re-worded to reflect this policy.)
Policies, including those of Records & Tabulation, are posted here:
www.usms.org/.../
Even I get surprised at the fact that some of our practices derive from policies and not rules. For example, there is a practice that two relays from the same club cannot be listed in the TT of the same event/age-group unless they have four completely different swimmers (think "A" and "B" relays). I had always assumed this came from a rule somewhere but it just isn't so: for example, there is nothing in the rules that prevents a club with three superstar swimmers team up with (say) four different swimmers and achieving four TT relay times.
Policies are simply unavoidable; the rules cannot cover all cases and their intent has to be interpreted.
From a governance standpoint there are at least two big problems with policies vs rules: (i) they are decided by a relatively small, possibly non-representative group (instigated by a committee, approved -- sometimes tacitly -- by the board), and (ii) they are sometimes not well documented.
For my part I am doing my best to drag the policies of my committee into the "light of day," and try to make sure that the committee reflects on these policies and that they represent our best judgment. This is an ongoing process because I am still discovering policies. (Another example: USMS have been recognizing pool All-Stars, right? The term wasn't in the rule book until this year, much less the process by which they are decided.)
USMS has been encouraging this process by asking each committee to list its policies so that they can publish them; the documents in the linked "policy" page did not exist two years ago.
Secondly personally I think that any policy that is far-reaching or controversial should probably eventually be proposed as a rule so that the entire house of delegates can debate, modify and approve it (or not).
Since I lost 6, Top 10's in the 2011 Montreal Nationals, I am in favor of the above-captioned rule. So, Chris, you think that because there is no rule saying that you can not remove a Top 10 time after it has been approved and published, that USMS does have the authority and has it absolutely? I think that might be an open question. Why have a deadline if it is meaningless and can be disregarded? And, if that is true, can you change the 2011 SCM Top 10 to reflect my Montreal times? After all, there is no rule that says you can't do that either. Remember, the integrity of the sport is the most important thing and what's right is right!
So, do you want me to email you my times from Montreal, or can you pull them up on the internet?
Of course there is a rule. The only deadline is for submission of times for TT consideration. Eligible times that are submitted by the deadline can make the list. Your time was not eligible according to the rules at the time of the swim, as others have noted.
It turns out that Jim's time was not eligible either and should not have been accepted, though that was not known at the time.
I'm not sure most people -- even those who have volunteered for a long time -- realize how much policy drives practice in some cases. So let's consider Top 10 lists. From what I can see (I am not a lawyer, just married to one), the existence of these lists derives from article 105.2.1:
The 10 best times nationally in each age division and for each gender shall be published annually for the events listed under article 102.5.
Technically we do not actually follow this rule, do we? We publish lists of the fastest 10 *swimmers* not the fastest 10 times. That is a long-standing policy. (And in this case probably the rule should be re-worded to reflect this policy.)
Policies, including those of Records & Tabulation, are posted here:
www.usms.org/.../
Even I get surprised at the fact that some of our practices derive from policies and not rules. For example, there is a practice that two relays from the same club cannot be listed in the TT of the same event/age-group unless they have four completely different swimmers (think "A" and "B" relays). I had always assumed this came from a rule somewhere but it just isn't so: for example, there is nothing in the rules that prevents a club with three superstar swimmers team up with (say) four different swimmers and achieving four TT relay times.
Policies are simply unavoidable; the rules cannot cover all cases and their intent has to be interpreted.
From a governance standpoint there are at least two big problems with policies vs rules: (i) they are decided by a relatively small, possibly non-representative group (instigated by a committee, approved -- sometimes tacitly -- by the board), and (ii) they are sometimes not well documented.
For my part I am doing my best to drag the policies of my committee into the "light of day," and try to make sure that the committee reflects on these policies and that they represent our best judgment. This is an ongoing process because I am still discovering policies. (Another example: USMS have been recognizing pool All-Stars, right? The term wasn't in the rule book until this year, much less the process by which they are decided.)
USMS has been encouraging this process by asking each committee to list its policies so that they can publish them; the documents in the linked "policy" page did not exist two years ago.
Secondly personally I think that any policy that is far-reaching or controversial should probably eventually be proposed as a rule so that the entire house of delegates can debate, modify and approve it (or not).
