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 My own AA-rescinded swim was done at Michael Phelps's famous pool, the North Baltimore Aquatics Club, in a meet that had a USMS sanction number.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Anyhow, if you have your own examples of TT or All American or even World Record times that were rescinded after the fact, please use this thread to post them!
Chris, I believe there should be some finality in the Top 10 list. 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.
Actually Jack, I believe you (probably inadvertently) just illustrated Chris' point about the difference between policies and rules. If you look in the rule book (section 105.1.2), the publication date is not listed. It is, however, listed in the Top 10 FAQs, which would make it a policy, rather than a rule, I would think.
Chris, it's good to know you guys are working on getting policies codified. This whole hullabaloo would have been at least partially mitigated if the policy of lists not really being final, even after being posted as such, were known outside of Rec & Tabs.
Based on this current situation, is this the kind of incident that is controversial and far-reaching enough that some sort of rule should be proposed? Would it cause a ton more work for Mary Beth (or Rec & Tabs) if a rule was inserted into section 105 that required her to have all the paperwork by the deadline for corrections?
Chris, I believe there should be some finality in the Top 10 list. 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.
Actually Jack, I believe you (probably inadvertently) just illustrated Chris' point about the difference between policies and rules. If you look in the rule book (section 105.1.2), the publication date is not listed. It is, however, listed in the Top 10 FAQs, which would make it a policy, rather than a rule, I would think.
Chris, it's good to know you guys are working on getting policies codified. This whole hullabaloo would have been at least partially mitigated if the policy of lists not really being final, even after being posted as such, were known outside of Rec & Tabs.
Based on this current situation, is this the kind of incident that is controversial and far-reaching enough that some sort of rule should be proposed? Would it cause a ton more work for Mary Beth (or Rec & Tabs) if a rule was inserted into section 105 that required her to have all the paperwork by the deadline for corrections?
