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 My own AA-rescinded swim was done at Michael Phelps's famous pool, the North Baltimore Aquatics Club, in a meet that had a USMS sanction number.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Anyhow, if you have your own examples of TT or All American or even World Record times that were rescinded after the fact, please use this thread to post them!
Right now we don't know enough about the actual discrepancy in length. 2/1000 is a lot different than 5 inches. I do believe NBAC did "remeasure" the pool. I assume the procedure they used satisfied them. They don't believe it is a problem. There is a big discrepancy in the two conflicting measurements though and the one on file w/ USMS was done by someone independent from NBAC. Many USSA records have been set there and I assume would be in jeopardy if the pool is actually 5 inches short. It will be very embarrassing for NBAC if you guys are right.
It's irrelevant if NBAC doesn't think there's a problem with the measurement- USMS says there is an issue, and that means (as much as it sucks) Jim's times weren't eligible for Top Ten, and really should have never been accepted, based on the wording in section 105.1.6. Also, wouldn't the fact that the measurements on file with USMS were done independently be a good thing- no ulterior motive to make it seem like the lack of water and cold weather is the only reason the pool measured short?
And based on the actions of the facility and its director, I'm highly skeptical that they ever remeasured the pool. I think there's probably a very good reason they didn't want to hand over a certification form to USMS, for exactly what you said above about it being embarrassing for NBAC when the pool came up short.
Right now we don't know enough about the actual discrepancy in length. 2/1000 is a lot different than 5 inches. I do believe NBAC did "remeasure" the pool. I assume the procedure they used satisfied them. They don't believe it is a problem. There is a big discrepancy in the two conflicting measurements though and the one on file w/ USMS was done by someone independent from NBAC. Many USSA records have been set there and I assume would be in jeopardy if the pool is actually 5 inches short. It will be very embarrassing for NBAC if you guys are right.
It's irrelevant if NBAC doesn't think there's a problem with the measurement- USMS says there is an issue, and that means (as much as it sucks) Jim's times weren't eligible for Top Ten, and really should have never been accepted, based on the wording in section 105.1.6. Also, wouldn't the fact that the measurements on file with USMS were done independently be a good thing- no ulterior motive to make it seem like the lack of water and cold weather is the only reason the pool measured short?
And based on the actions of the facility and its director, I'm highly skeptical that they ever remeasured the pool. I think there's probably a very good reason they didn't want to hand over a certification form to USMS, for exactly what you said above about it being embarrassing for NBAC when the pool came up short.
