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 My own AA-rescinded swim was done at Michael Phelps's famous pool, the North Baltimore Aquatics Club, in a meet that had a USMS sanction number.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Anyhow, if you have your own examples of TT or All American or even World Record times that were rescinded after the fact, please use this thread to post them!
Those swims could have been accepted in 2011 by a VOTE of the Top 10 committee. That committee has apparently determined that their decision in 2011, was wrong and not in the best interests of USMS and FINA.
Both of these statements are incorrect. The committee is not empowered to disregard the rules. We took a vote on whether to apply (to the Rules Committee) for an exception to the rule. The motion failed, narrowly as I recall. But if it had passed, the Rules Committee would have voted on whether to recommend the exception be granted and then the Board of Directors, or maybe the Executive Committee (I always confuse those two), would have had the final say.
We did not later decide we were wrong. We decided the rules should be changed and we proposed a change that applied to these circumstances (eligibility of swims for USMS TT when performed in foreign meets). The proposed rule was passed easily by the HOD.
Chris, I believe there should be some finality in the Top 10 list.
Fair enough, I think reasonable people can disagree on this point. And of course "some finality" needs to be defined a little more precisely. One possibility is to allow non-significant changes such as correcting club affiliation or incorrect names (eg if a swimmer's maiden name was used improperly). A significant change would be one that affects times or TT placement.
I will schedule a discussion on the matter for Records & Tabulation. It won't affect the decision in this case. And the committee may very well decide to continue current policy, but it is worth revisiting and discussing.
To take a Top 10 time away from someone is difficult and once it is published (in December by rule ) a swimmer should be able to rely on it. In this case there are many extenuating circumstances. I doubt the pool is short when filled and the swim was by FAR the best if the year. The time should in fairness and logic stand. You have the authority to strike it if you want but to do so would be wrong.
"I doubt the pool is short when filled" -- there is no evidence for this statement; if there were (in the form of actual measurements) then we wouldn't be having this discussion. In fact, there is evidence for the opposite in that the pool length has never been certified by USA-S.
This isn't just about Jim Thornton's swim, others are affected as well. For every top 10 time that was "taken," another was "given" (ie the total number of TT times stayed the same). One could also argue that it isn't fair for someone's time to be displaced from the TT lists by a swim performed in a short pool. Ultimately I think that is the most compelling argument in these admittedly-less-than-ideal circumstances.
Changing the times after the "final" lists was disconcerting and in retrospect (with all the advantages of Monday-morning quarterbacking) perhaps Mary Beth should not have included those times in either preliminary or final lists. But in my opinion this was not the main problem because it was fixable after the fact, though this is not ideal. It was sanctioning the meet in the first place without the measurements in hand. It was an understandable error given the circumstances but one we can learn from and hopefully avoid in the future.
Those swims could have been accepted in 2011 by a VOTE of the Top 10 committee. That committee has apparently determined that their decision in 2011, was wrong and not in the best interests of USMS and FINA.
Both of these statements are incorrect. The committee is not empowered to disregard the rules. We took a vote on whether to apply (to the Rules Committee) for an exception to the rule. The motion failed, narrowly as I recall. But if it had passed, the Rules Committee would have voted on whether to recommend the exception be granted and then the Board of Directors, or maybe the Executive Committee (I always confuse those two), would have had the final say.
We did not later decide we were wrong. We decided the rules should be changed and we proposed a change that applied to these circumstances (eligibility of swims for USMS TT when performed in foreign meets). The proposed rule was passed easily by the HOD.
Chris, I believe there should be some finality in the Top 10 list.
Fair enough, I think reasonable people can disagree on this point. And of course "some finality" needs to be defined a little more precisely. One possibility is to allow non-significant changes such as correcting club affiliation or incorrect names (eg if a swimmer's maiden name was used improperly). A significant change would be one that affects times or TT placement.
I will schedule a discussion on the matter for Records & Tabulation. It won't affect the decision in this case. And the committee may very well decide to continue current policy, but it is worth revisiting and discussing.
To take a Top 10 time away from someone is difficult and once it is published (in December by rule ) a swimmer should be able to rely on it. In this case there are many extenuating circumstances. I doubt the pool is short when filled and the swim was by FAR the best if the year. The time should in fairness and logic stand. You have the authority to strike it if you want but to do so would be wrong.
"I doubt the pool is short when filled" -- there is no evidence for this statement; if there were (in the form of actual measurements) then we wouldn't be having this discussion. In fact, there is evidence for the opposite in that the pool length has never been certified by USA-S.
This isn't just about Jim Thornton's swim, others are affected as well. For every top 10 time that was "taken," another was "given" (ie the total number of TT times stayed the same). One could also argue that it isn't fair for someone's time to be displaced from the TT lists by a swim performed in a short pool. Ultimately I think that is the most compelling argument in these admittedly-less-than-ideal circumstances.
Changing the times after the "final" lists was disconcerting and in retrospect (with all the advantages of Monday-morning quarterbacking) perhaps Mary Beth should not have included those times in either preliminary or final lists. But in my opinion this was not the main problem because it was fixable after the fact, though this is not ideal. It was sanctioning the meet in the first place without the measurements in hand. It was an understandable error given the circumstances but one we can learn from and hopefully avoid in the future.
