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 My own AA-rescinded swim was done at Michael Phelps's famous pool, the North Baltimore Aquatics Club, in a meet that had a USMS sanction number.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Anyhow, if you have your own examples of TT or All American or even World Record times that were rescinded after the fact, please use this thread to post them!
The NBAC pool was measured to be 2/1000 of an inch short in two lanes when empty. An engineer posted that it was his opinion in light of his expertise that the pool would be correct when filled. The hydrostatic pressure would push the walls back especially in the middle of the pool. In both situations the pools were ok, the application of the rules was in the circumstances, too harsh. The fact that FINA accepted the Canadian times and USSA accepts the NBAC times is also a factor to consider.
Yes I heard that the NBAC pool was remeasured and I heard this tale of 2/1000 of an inch short. However even after this supposed remeasure the facilities manager did not send us the actual measurements. Even Jim wonders about the reliability of these measurements since the facilities manager has an obvious stake in the outcome. (Plus he said they would use a steel tape, and I have a hard time imagining how such a device could possibly indicate that the pool was 2/1000 of an inch short.)
But that doesn't really matter; USMS even allows *the swimmer themselves* to measure pools for their own times. But without measurements in hand it is as if they never happened.
So we have to go with the measurements we *do* have. An engineer measured each lane twice using a laser device. He reported the longest of the two measurements. Not a single one of the 16 measurements was 50m or longer, and the average was 3 inches short (and one lane was 5 inches short). These are the only measurements we have and so they are what we have to go by. I think I heard it is a concrete pool, so I doubt that filling the pool will push the walls back almost half a foot; if they did I think the pool would have much bigger problems than its length.
I personally wouldn't have a problem with remeasuring the pool in the spring and then reinstating Jim's time. However, if I were USMS, I'd think carefully before proceeding. It seems that this story is rife with attempts to fix mistakes that just end up making the situation worse.
Oh yes I thought of that too. It is one of the best arguments for "freezing" the TT lists (except for non-significant changes), and I suspect that it is an argument that the committee -- almost all of the current or past TT Recorders -- would be very receptive to. Compiling the TT lists once is hard enough without having to worry about revising them in a significant manner after publication. But I will be interested in what the most experienced members have to say about why it has been allowed in the past. Perhaps it was in response to some different crisis from 20 years ago. :-)
The NBAC pool was measured to be 2/1000 of an inch short in two lanes when empty. An engineer posted that it was his opinion in light of his expertise that the pool would be correct when filled. The hydrostatic pressure would push the walls back especially in the middle of the pool. In both situations the pools were ok, the application of the rules was in the circumstances, too harsh. The fact that FINA accepted the Canadian times and USSA accepts the NBAC times is also a factor to consider.
Yes I heard that the NBAC pool was remeasured and I heard this tale of 2/1000 of an inch short. However even after this supposed remeasure the facilities manager did not send us the actual measurements. Even Jim wonders about the reliability of these measurements since the facilities manager has an obvious stake in the outcome. (Plus he said they would use a steel tape, and I have a hard time imagining how such a device could possibly indicate that the pool was 2/1000 of an inch short.)
But that doesn't really matter; USMS even allows *the swimmer themselves* to measure pools for their own times. But without measurements in hand it is as if they never happened.
So we have to go with the measurements we *do* have. An engineer measured each lane twice using a laser device. He reported the longest of the two measurements. Not a single one of the 16 measurements was 50m or longer, and the average was 3 inches short (and one lane was 5 inches short). These are the only measurements we have and so they are what we have to go by. I think I heard it is a concrete pool, so I doubt that filling the pool will push the walls back almost half a foot; if they did I think the pool would have much bigger problems than its length.
I personally wouldn't have a problem with remeasuring the pool in the spring and then reinstating Jim's time. However, if I were USMS, I'd think carefully before proceeding. It seems that this story is rife with attempts to fix mistakes that just end up making the situation worse.
Oh yes I thought of that too. It is one of the best arguments for "freezing" the TT lists (except for non-significant changes), and I suspect that it is an argument that the committee -- almost all of the current or past TT Recorders -- would be very receptive to. Compiling the TT lists once is hard enough without having to worry about revising them in a significant manner after publication. But I will be interested in what the most experienced members have to say about why it has been allowed in the past. Perhaps it was in response to some different crisis from 20 years ago. :-)
