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 My own AA-rescinded swim was done at Michael Phelps's famous pool, the North Baltimore Aquatics Club, in a meet that had a USMS sanction number.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Anyhow, if you have your own examples of TT or All American or even World Record times that were rescinded after the fact, please use this thread to post them!
1. Okay, for the record, I strongly suspect that the NBAC was short. Here are the only measurements I've seen. These were done in December in the empty pool by the engineers that USMS hired. (I have not seen the measurements that the NBAC guy claims to have also done this winter, and frankly, I am dubious they exist):
These below measurements were taken December 7, 2012, of the outdoor pool at the NBAC Meadowbrook aquatic facility in Baltimore, MD.
First, here are the converted equivalents for 50 meters:
50 meters = 164.042 feet = 1,968.50 inches
Measured values:
Lane 1: 49.856 m
Lane 2: 49.910 m
Lane 3: 49.956 m
Lane 4: 49.960 m
Lane 5: 49.910 m
Lane 6: 49.971 m
Lane 7: 49.910 m
Lane 8: 49.893 m
Lane 9: 49.956 m
Lane 10: 49.892 m
Converted to inches:
Lane 1: 1,962.83 inches
Lane 2: 1,964.96 inches
Lane 3: 1,966.77 inches
Lane 4: 1,966.93 inches
Lane 5: 1,964.96 inches
Lane 6: 1,967.36 inches
Lane 7: 1,964.96 inches
Lane 8: 1,964.29 inches
Lane 9: 1,966.77 inches
Lane 10: 1,964.25 inches
Difference from nominal:
Lane 1: 5.67 inches
Lane 2: 3.54 inches
Lane 3: 1.73 inches
Lane 4: 1.57 inches
Lane 5: 3.54 inches
Lane 6: 1.14 inches
Lane 7: 3.54 inches
Lane 8: 4.21 inches
Lane 9: 1.73 inches
Lane 10: 4.25 inches
2. I tried to look up the heat sheets from the meet because I can't remember which lane I was in. I know it was somewhere in the middle of the pool. I am pretty sure that lanes 1 and 10 weren't ever used. Leslie, for her part, thinks I was in lane 4, but I could have just as easily been in 5, 6, or 3. So if these measurements are accurate, and measuring the pool in winter without any water in it makes zero difference, I swam anywhere from 2.28 inches short to 7.08 inches short. Those who read my blog on this will recall that I did the calculations based on the "worst case scenario"--i.e., I swam in a pool that was 5" short, or 10" short per 100 LCM free. Under this assumption, it would have made a .15 second difference in my time. Under a more realistic worst case scenario, i.e., I swam in lane 5 and did a race that was 7.08 inches too short, then it would have made a .10 or .11 difference. My 1:01.43, in other words, would have been a 1:01.54. The new winning time is 1:02.66. The meet was hand-timed, and I absolutely acknowledge there may well have been an advantage from this, too, though both my hand timers got me at exactly the same time on their watches, which I imagine is pretty hard to do. In any event, I find it hard to believe that any accumulation of unintentional "cheating" on my part would have made more than a 1.12 second difference in my final time, which was the time separating my NBAC swim from Greg's Omaha swim.
3. At this point, I simply reiterate the same plea: make what ever rules you want, but put in safeguards for us swimmers so that we don't inadvertently run afoul of them. When two of my times were yanked a year ago, for instance, when I swam in "Open" events, I specifically asked the meet director if I could do this and still qualify for TT consideration. He assured me the times would count. When Skip asked the NBAC meet director if the pool had been measured and was in compliance, he assured him it absolutely had been and was in compliance. The IRS tells the public that any information provided by IRS agents may not be accurate. Perhaps there should be something on meet information, as Rob suggested, specifically saying if the meet will or will not count and why.
4. I have decided to switch my plan of attack! Though the NBAC meet was not in compliance for TT times, this does not obviate the health insurance coverage for swimmers participating in the meet, correct? Would someone please let me know how I can file a claim for mental trauma incurred last summer in Baltimore? Granted, this trauma didn't manifest itself immediately, but it has been slowly incubating inside my admittedly frail elderly brain for months now, and exploded into full blown SSES Syndrome (Sudden Self Esteem Shock Syndrome) that has had lingering effects on my psyche and, quite frankly, ability to earn a livelihood as a writer because--as this post may illustrate--my rationality and judgement brain lobes appear to be permanently damaged. I imagine therapy will include considerable time in a subtropical sanitarium and involve hydrotherapy, two-girl, hot-oil massage of the sort pioneered at the Deepak Chopra spa in La Jolla, and quite a bit in the way of medications of the spirit-soothing, pain-killing, joie-de-vivre-augmenting variety. Fortunately, the meet was sanctioned and my membership in USMS is in good standing, so the considerable costs of getting Jim well again should not be a burden to anybody but the insurer! I am starting to feel better already (albeit not so much better as to call into any question my need for several years minimum in a Bahamian sanitarium.)
1. Okay, for the record, I strongly suspect that the NBAC was short. Here are the only measurements I've seen. These were done in December in the empty pool by the engineers that USMS hired. (I have not seen the measurements that the NBAC guy claims to have also done this winter, and frankly, I am dubious they exist):
These below measurements were taken December 7, 2012, of the outdoor pool at the NBAC Meadowbrook aquatic facility in Baltimore, MD.
First, here are the converted equivalents for 50 meters:
50 meters = 164.042 feet = 1,968.50 inches
Measured values:
Lane 1: 49.856 m
Lane 2: 49.910 m
Lane 3: 49.956 m
Lane 4: 49.960 m
Lane 5: 49.910 m
Lane 6: 49.971 m
Lane 7: 49.910 m
Lane 8: 49.893 m
Lane 9: 49.956 m
Lane 10: 49.892 m
Converted to inches:
Lane 1: 1,962.83 inches
Lane 2: 1,964.96 inches
Lane 3: 1,966.77 inches
Lane 4: 1,966.93 inches
Lane 5: 1,964.96 inches
Lane 6: 1,967.36 inches
Lane 7: 1,964.96 inches
Lane 8: 1,964.29 inches
Lane 9: 1,966.77 inches
Lane 10: 1,964.25 inches
Difference from nominal:
Lane 1: 5.67 inches
Lane 2: 3.54 inches
Lane 3: 1.73 inches
Lane 4: 1.57 inches
Lane 5: 3.54 inches
Lane 6: 1.14 inches
Lane 7: 3.54 inches
Lane 8: 4.21 inches
Lane 9: 1.73 inches
Lane 10: 4.25 inches
2. I tried to look up the heat sheets from the meet because I can't remember which lane I was in. I know it was somewhere in the middle of the pool. I am pretty sure that lanes 1 and 10 weren't ever used. Leslie, for her part, thinks I was in lane 4, but I could have just as easily been in 5, 6, or 3. So if these measurements are accurate, and measuring the pool in winter without any water in it makes zero difference, I swam anywhere from 2.28 inches short to 7.08 inches short. Those who read my blog on this will recall that I did the calculations based on the "worst case scenario"--i.e., I swam in a pool that was 5" short, or 10" short per 100 LCM free. Under this assumption, it would have made a .15 second difference in my time. Under a more realistic worst case scenario, i.e., I swam in lane 5 and did a race that was 7.08 inches too short, then it would have made a .10 or .11 difference. My 1:01.43, in other words, would have been a 1:01.54. The new winning time is 1:02.66. The meet was hand-timed, and I absolutely acknowledge there may well have been an advantage from this, too, though both my hand timers got me at exactly the same time on their watches, which I imagine is pretty hard to do. In any event, I find it hard to believe that any accumulation of unintentional "cheating" on my part would have made more than a 1.12 second difference in my final time, which was the time separating my NBAC swim from Greg's Omaha swim.
3. At this point, I simply reiterate the same plea: make what ever rules you want, but put in safeguards for us swimmers so that we don't inadvertently run afoul of them. When two of my times were yanked a year ago, for instance, when I swam in "Open" events, I specifically asked the meet director if I could do this and still qualify for TT consideration. He assured me the times would count. When Skip asked the NBAC meet director if the pool had been measured and was in compliance, he assured him it absolutely had been and was in compliance. The IRS tells the public that any information provided by IRS agents may not be accurate. Perhaps there should be something on meet information, as Rob suggested, specifically saying if the meet will or will not count and why.
4. I have decided to switch my plan of attack! Though the NBAC meet was not in compliance for TT times, this does not obviate the health insurance coverage for swimmers participating in the meet, correct? Would someone please let me know how I can file a claim for mental trauma incurred last summer in Baltimore? Granted, this trauma didn't manifest itself immediately, but it has been slowly incubating inside my admittedly frail elderly brain for months now, and exploded into full blown SSES Syndrome (Sudden Self Esteem Shock Syndrome) that has had lingering effects on my psyche and, quite frankly, ability to earn a livelihood as a writer because--as this post may illustrate--my rationality and judgement brain lobes appear to be permanently damaged. I imagine therapy will include considerable time in a subtropical sanitarium and involve hydrotherapy, two-girl, hot-oil massage of the sort pioneered at the Deepak Chopra spa in La Jolla, and quite a bit in the way of medications of the spirit-soothing, pain-killing, joie-de-vivre-augmenting variety. Fortunately, the meet was sanctioned and my membership in USMS is in good standing, so the considerable costs of getting Jim well again should not be a burden to anybody but the insurer! I am starting to feel better already (albeit not so much better as to call into any question my need for several years minimum in a Bahamian sanitarium.)
