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 My own AA-rescinded swim was done at Michael Phelps's famous pool, the North Baltimore Aquatics Club, in a meet that had a USMS sanction number.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Anyhow, if you have your own examples of TT or All American or even World Record times that were rescinded after the fact, please use this thread to post them!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 tech suits ARE part of the WR/NR/TT i will respond on here.
speedo started this fiasco.
2% or 3% or 5% or 10% faster in full color full page ads in every magazine that was related to them selling suits.
usa-s/fina has ALWAYS had a rule that no device was allowed to aid the swimmer in any way, shape or form.
so either the suits did violate this rule and speedo's money and commercial money (ie olympic broadcasts) swayed fina to allow them
or
it was false advertising.
period.
pick 1
then when speedo got beat at their own game, they complained to fina to have them banned.
so then we could all pay almost the same price for a suit 1/3rd the size! (for men anyway)
at the olympic level only a very few of the mens records have fallen. lochte broke his own 200im (in a jammer) with a non-slick jammer and Sun broke the 1500. i think those are the only 2. oh, unless you might count the triple kick breaststrokers.
i hate them because they NEVER should have been allowed in the 1st place. or once allowed, never taken away.
the other sports (there are plenty to name) have had technology improvements and kept them. only swimming has been a yo-yo on the rules with technology.
rant off :D
Very fine rant.
I loved the tech suits, and liked the idea that swimming technology, like other sports, could advance. However, the yoyo did muck up the record books (even for masters). And I do resent paying the same price for a flimsy suit that doesn't last long. (Having been an avid tech suit fan, I nonetheless note that I am doing better vis-a-vis my competitors without them. heehee)
Jack, I thought you were kidding on your first post! USMS has no choice but to apply the then existing rules to your times from 2011. And unlike poor Jim, you did not do your due diligence -- I reported on the forum that the Canadian meet director told me he would not measure the pool.
since tech suits ARE part of the WR/NR/TT i will respond on here.
speedo started this fiasco.
2% or 3% or 5% or 10% faster in full color full page ads in every magazine that was related to them selling suits.
usa-s/fina has ALWAYS had a rule that no device was allowed to aid the swimmer in any way, shape or form.
so either the suits did violate this rule and speedo's money and commercial money (ie olympic broadcasts) swayed fina to allow them
or
it was false advertising.
period.
pick 1
then when speedo got beat at their own game, they complained to fina to have them banned.
so then we could all pay almost the same price for a suit 1/3rd the size! (for men anyway)
at the olympic level only a very few of the mens records have fallen. lochte broke his own 200im (in a jammer) with a non-slick jammer and Sun broke the 1500. i think those are the only 2. oh, unless you might count the triple kick breaststrokers.
i hate them because they NEVER should have been allowed in the 1st place. or once allowed, never taken away.
the other sports (there are plenty to name) have had technology improvements and kept them. only swimming has been a yo-yo on the rules with technology.
rant off :D
Very fine rant.
I loved the tech suits, and liked the idea that swimming technology, like other sports, could advance. However, the yoyo did muck up the record books (even for masters). And I do resent paying the same price for a flimsy suit that doesn't last long. (Having been an avid tech suit fan, I nonetheless note that I am doing better vis-a-vis my competitors without them. heehee)
Jack, I thought you were kidding on your first post! USMS has no choice but to apply the then existing rules to your times from 2011. And unlike poor Jim, you did not do your due diligence -- I reported on the forum that the Canadian meet director told me he would not measure the pool.
