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 My own AA-rescinded swim was done at Michael Phelps's famous pool, the North Baltimore Aquatics Club, in a meet that had a USMS sanction number.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Anyhow, if you have your own examples of TT or All American or even World Record times that were rescinded after the fact, please use this thread to post them!
I appreciate the work that USMS volunteers do. It makes the experience of swimming much more enjoyable for me. However, I disagree with USMS on this issue. An important aspect of USMS competitive rules is to ensure fairness. For Top 10 times that means that the rules should disallow invalid or fraudulant times, but, those rules should also not prevent valid times from being approved. So, the rules must balance those two considerations. In my experience, the rules have unfairly been applied to strike every single Top 10 swim from the last 2 Canadian Nationals from the USMS record books. Those swims were in complete compliance with Canadian rules and the times were valid.
Jim Thornton swam the fastest 100 free LCM time of any American male 60-64 last year. He swam it as a USMS member in a sanctioned meet. I disagree with the result the Top 10 Committee reached in that case. If USMS sanctions a meet, they should stand by that sanction. If USMS publishes a Top 10 list, they should not strike a time from that list after the publication date. True, the pool was measured and found to be short, but it was measured while empty and NBAC assured Jim that when filled with water, the pool will be the proper length. USMS apparently doesn't believe NBAC, but there is no dispute that NBAC claims that the pool is the proper length.
Jim's time would have been faster than the 2nd place time had the pool been a foot over 50M. Removing that swim does not move another swimmer into the Top 10 because Jim's second fastest 100M swim is now the #2 ranked swim.
Our volunteers do good work, but in these cases I disagree with their decisions. When the strict application of a rule results in an injustice or causes a result that defies logic, commonsense and principles of fairness should be substituted to achieve a fair and logical result.
I appreciate the work that USMS volunteers do. It makes the experience of swimming much more enjoyable for me. However, I disagree with USMS on this issue. An important aspect of USMS competitive rules is to ensure fairness. For Top 10 times that means that the rules should disallow invalid or fraudulant times, but, those rules should also not prevent valid times from being approved. So, the rules must balance those two considerations. In my experience, the rules have unfairly been applied to strike every single Top 10 swim from the last 2 Canadian Nationals from the USMS record books. Those swims were in complete compliance with Canadian rules and the times were valid.
Jim Thornton swam the fastest 100 free LCM time of any American male 60-64 last year. He swam it as a USMS member in a sanctioned meet. I disagree with the result the Top 10 Committee reached in that case. If USMS sanctions a meet, they should stand by that sanction. If USMS publishes a Top 10 list, they should not strike a time from that list after the publication date. True, the pool was measured and found to be short, but it was measured while empty and NBAC assured Jim that when filled with water, the pool will be the proper length. USMS apparently doesn't believe NBAC, but there is no dispute that NBAC claims that the pool is the proper length.
Jim's time would have been faster than the 2nd place time had the pool been a foot over 50M. Removing that swim does not move another swimmer into the Top 10 because Jim's second fastest 100M swim is now the #2 ranked swim.
Our volunteers do good work, but in these cases I disagree with their decisions. When the strict application of a rule results in an injustice or causes a result that defies logic, commonsense and principles of fairness should be substituted to achieve a fair and logical result.
