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 My own AA-rescinded swim was done at Michael Phelps's famous pool, the North Baltimore Aquatics Club, in a meet that had a USMS sanction number.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Anyhow, if you have your own examples of TT or All American or even World Record times that were rescinded after the fact, please use this thread to post them!
It seems to me it is in our best interest to identify issues, like short and uncertified pools, as early as possible. And to notify the swimmers so we can make informed decisions. So one solution would be to get these things identified when the event is sanctioned and not after the fact. Which leads me to suggesting a change to section 202 and not 105. For example:
202.1.1.F(4) Sanctioned events may be conducted in facilities not meeting the dimensional tolerance for required pool length or in facilities without pool certification, but the results of those events shall not count for USMS records and Top 10. It must be noted in the meet information that events conducted in these facilities are noncompliant.
Two things about adding wording to section 202- 1) what happens in a situation just like this one, where the Sanctions chair in an LMSC takes a meet director in good faith and at their word that measurements will be forthcoming (so nothing ends up being added to the meet information) and 2) is the pool length database the official compendium for pool length certifications? If it is, I think more needs to be added to your bolded text, just to make it very clear where the certification needs to be (i.e.- not just with the facility, but fully vetted and accepted by USMS).
I also think adding something to section 105 would be helpful, because it would mitigate a situation like my point 1 above. If a meet slipped through the sanctioning process without being certified, and the certification didn't make it to USMS before the top ten correction deadline, the time wouldn't count, and there would be a published rule that would be enforceable (preventing any one volunteer from being the "bad guy".)
It seems to me it is in our best interest to identify issues, like short and uncertified pools, as early as possible. And to notify the swimmers so we can make informed decisions. So one solution would be to get these things identified when the event is sanctioned and not after the fact. Which leads me to suggesting a change to section 202 and not 105. For example:
202.1.1.F(4) Sanctioned events may be conducted in facilities not meeting the dimensional tolerance for required pool length or in facilities without pool certification, but the results of those events shall not count for USMS records and Top 10. It must be noted in the meet information that events conducted in these facilities are noncompliant.
Two things about adding wording to section 202- 1) what happens in a situation just like this one, where the Sanctions chair in an LMSC takes a meet director in good faith and at their word that measurements will be forthcoming (so nothing ends up being added to the meet information) and 2) is the pool length database the official compendium for pool length certifications? If it is, I think more needs to be added to your bolded text, just to make it very clear where the certification needs to be (i.e.- not just with the facility, but fully vetted and accepted by USMS).
I also think adding something to section 105 would be helpful, because it would mitigate a situation like my point 1 above. If a meet slipped through the sanctioning process without being certified, and the certification didn't make it to USMS before the top ten correction deadline, the time wouldn't count, and there would be a published rule that would be enforceable (preventing any one volunteer from being the "bad guy".)
