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 My own AA-rescinded swim was done at Michael Phelps's famous pool, the North Baltimore Aquatics Club, in a meet that had a USMS sanction number.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Anyhow, if you have your own examples of TT or All American or even World Record times that were rescinded after the fact, please use this thread to post them!
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.
Jack, thank you for sharing your thoughts. I believe we're at an impasse. You and I are not going to agree on what constitutes commonsense and fairness. I have to follow what I believe to be the wishes of the USMS House of Delegates. The rules established by the HOD are pretty clear on the need for measurement standards, and despite my sympathy for Jim and my regret that this situation has evolved the way it has, I believe that accepting times for TT from a pool known to be short would violate the HOD's idea of fairness.
I offer two points. First, as I've said before, this decision was not just about one swim by Jim Thornton. There were others at that meet, and there are also swimmers whose times would be displaced from the TT if the meet was included. Secondly, USMS would have happily believed NBAC's measurements if they had provided them when asked (repeatedly). They still have not done so even after supposedly measuring again. Even Jim doesn't seem to believe their claims at this point, though apparently you do. The Maryland LMSC did in fact believe their assurances initially and that turns out to have been the mistake that started this whole mess, though hindsight is always 20/20.
Even though the decision is not to your liking, please believe that your and others' objections are noted and have an impact. Somewhere between a free-for-all competition with no rules whatsoever and an over-regulated and joyless competition there must lie a happy compromise that will please most people and we will continue to struggle to find it.
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.
Jack, thank you for sharing your thoughts. I believe we're at an impasse. You and I are not going to agree on what constitutes commonsense and fairness. I have to follow what I believe to be the wishes of the USMS House of Delegates. The rules established by the HOD are pretty clear on the need for measurement standards, and despite my sympathy for Jim and my regret that this situation has evolved the way it has, I believe that accepting times for TT from a pool known to be short would violate the HOD's idea of fairness.
I offer two points. First, as I've said before, this decision was not just about one swim by Jim Thornton. There were others at that meet, and there are also swimmers whose times would be displaced from the TT if the meet was included. Secondly, USMS would have happily believed NBAC's measurements if they had provided them when asked (repeatedly). They still have not done so even after supposedly measuring again. Even Jim doesn't seem to believe their claims at this point, though apparently you do. The Maryland LMSC did in fact believe their assurances initially and that turns out to have been the mistake that started this whole mess, though hindsight is always 20/20.
Even though the decision is not to your liking, please believe that your and others' objections are noted and have an impact. Somewhere between a free-for-all competition with no rules whatsoever and an over-regulated and joyless competition there must lie a happy compromise that will please most people and we will continue to struggle to find it.
