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 My own AA-rescinded swim was done at Michael Phelps's famous pool, the North Baltimore Aquatics Club, in a meet that had a USMS sanction number.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Anyhow, if you have your own examples of TT or All American or even World Record times that were rescinded after the fact, please use this thread to post them!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 recently took the opportunity to read through the USA-S Measuring and Certifying Competition Pools July 2010 guidance. I think they did a great job of describing the process and also found their other USA-S docs on the website regarding pool measurement and certification interesting. www.usaswimming.org/DesktopDefault.aspx . Our firm does construction verification surveying for major roadways, bridges, dams etc. and our "general"opinion is that laser measurement methods with professional survey grade equipment should be accurate (how close is the measurerment to the true value) to within about .01 or .02 feet (1/8"-1/4") +. Our surveyors seem to feel that the reflectorless laser method described in Part 2 is inherently more accurate than using a Total Station(Part 3), because of the reflecting prism used with the Total Station (both methods use laser light pulses for measurement).
The quality of the measuring equipment and set-up matters for accuracy in either method. In our experience with verification survey, it is likely that two surveyors measuring the same distance will produce two slightly different results, hopefully within reasonable tolerances. So there are some precision issues (reprpduction of the measurement) in addition to accuracy as described above. Could the accuracy and precision "error" total the 1.73 inches per 50m that Jim needs, probably not.
1. Professional grade laser measuring devices cannot measure accurately to 2/1000ths ( .002)inches, which is .00017 feet. I believe there are devices that can measure that accurately (maybe at NASA or something), but I doubt such a device was used for competition pool measurement by NBAC and this may confirm that the NBAC pool director is “misguided.” If the NBAC 2/1000th is correct, Jim might have a chance, because that’s a very small distance and one could argue and an engineer/surveyor could certify ,that 2/1000th inches is within standard tolerances of accuracy. That is, a pool that is 50m + .000 inches can not reasonably be distinguished by measurement from a pool that is 50m -.002 inches and therefore the pool length and JIm's swim should be acceptable. This would require NBAC to provide the 2/1000th certification (by a professional engineer or surveyor). However, it seems unlikely they can or will do that. I do not personally believe it is possible to accurately measure to .002 inches with a steel tape and plumb bob, but maybe that is exactly their point.
2. If the pool is really short by 1” to 3” or more (as the LMSC engineer determined and as was posted on the forum) this would require a lot of expansion by hydrostatic pressure and/or temperature when the pool is refilled and warms up to compettion temperature. Even 1” of pool expansion would be a lot, but 3” to 5” would be a very large expansion movement and one would expect to see problems with all of the surrounding features like underground pipe connections, electrical, pool decks, etc. were that much expansion movement to take place when the pool is filled. Unfortunately I don't think Jim will get his 1.73 inches when they fill the pool, but who knows.
3. Peter McCoy calculated possible thermal expansion to be about .35inches, which seems about right to me. However if the pool ends are constrained by earth or steel reinforcing, the walls can’t move, and the expansion pressure then builds up in the wall without movement (unless the pressure were then to exceed the yield point, and then the concrete buckles and cracks as some roads do in the summer when it is really hot). Pools don't have expansion joints and one would assume they are constrained and don't move much from thermal expansion. And because concrete basically has no tensional strength, reinforing "temperature" steel is needed to constrain movement or it will crack from tension stress. Any movement from temperature change should be small.
4. Similarly, pool walls must be constrained to prevent expansion and tension from the additional hydrostatic pressure pushing out when the pool is filled. The reinforcing in the pool walls or frame must keep the concrete from expanding or the pool walls would crack when you fill it from tension. Typically the bigger problem is the earth and groundwater pressure pushing the walls inward and the bottom up when one empties a pool, especially with liner pools. It seems probable that expansion movement when the pool is filled will not be significant.
While I'm hopeful that the spring measurement will find Jim the 1.73 more inches, it doesn't seem too likely. However, If NBAC provides the .002 inches pool cert, I think usms should accept the meet swims including Jim's. At the time of the meet everyone relied on that cert being presented by NBAC; a 50m -.002 inches pool is not a measurable difference from 50m + .000 inches pool.
I think usms has gone out of its way to be accomodating and not too officious, first trusting that the certification would be provided by NBAC before the meet and then when they never received it, sending an engineer to measure the pool so that the swims, if the pool was proven certified, could be counted. When i first read of Jim's plight, it seemed a conspiracy against him, but after looking closely at the circumstances it seems those involved, including Jim, were and still are trying to do the right thing and that the problem is just life being imperfect. :worms:
Jim, tell us your hot oil massage and girl friends are real! I can't take anymore fiction.
I recently took the opportunity to read through the USA-S Measuring and Certifying Competition Pools July 2010 guidance. I think they did a great job of describing the process and also found their other USA-S docs on the website regarding pool measurement and certification interesting. www.usaswimming.org/DesktopDefault.aspx . Our firm does construction verification surveying for major roadways, bridges, dams etc. and our "general"opinion is that laser measurement methods with professional survey grade equipment should be accurate (how close is the measurerment to the true value) to within about .01 or .02 feet (1/8"-1/4") +. Our surveyors seem to feel that the reflectorless laser method described in Part 2 is inherently more accurate than using a Total Station(Part 3), because of the reflecting prism used with the Total Station (both methods use laser light pulses for measurement).
The quality of the measuring equipment and set-up matters for accuracy in either method. In our experience with verification survey, it is likely that two surveyors measuring the same distance will produce two slightly different results, hopefully within reasonable tolerances. So there are some precision issues (reprpduction of the measurement) in addition to accuracy as described above. Could the accuracy and precision "error" total the 1.73 inches per 50m that Jim needs, probably not.
1. Professional grade laser measuring devices cannot measure accurately to 2/1000ths ( .002)inches, which is .00017 feet. I believe there are devices that can measure that accurately (maybe at NASA or something), but I doubt such a device was used for competition pool measurement by NBAC and this may confirm that the NBAC pool director is “misguided.” If the NBAC 2/1000th is correct, Jim might have a chance, because that’s a very small distance and one could argue and an engineer/surveyor could certify ,that 2/1000th inches is within standard tolerances of accuracy. That is, a pool that is 50m + .000 inches can not reasonably be distinguished by measurement from a pool that is 50m -.002 inches and therefore the pool length and JIm's swim should be acceptable. This would require NBAC to provide the 2/1000th certification (by a professional engineer or surveyor). However, it seems unlikely they can or will do that. I do not personally believe it is possible to accurately measure to .002 inches with a steel tape and plumb bob, but maybe that is exactly their point.
2. If the pool is really short by 1” to 3” or more (as the LMSC engineer determined and as was posted on the forum) this would require a lot of expansion by hydrostatic pressure and/or temperature when the pool is refilled and warms up to compettion temperature. Even 1” of pool expansion would be a lot, but 3” to 5” would be a very large expansion movement and one would expect to see problems with all of the surrounding features like underground pipe connections, electrical, pool decks, etc. were that much expansion movement to take place when the pool is filled. Unfortunately I don't think Jim will get his 1.73 inches when they fill the pool, but who knows.
3. Peter McCoy calculated possible thermal expansion to be about .35inches, which seems about right to me. However if the pool ends are constrained by earth or steel reinforcing, the walls can’t move, and the expansion pressure then builds up in the wall without movement (unless the pressure were then to exceed the yield point, and then the concrete buckles and cracks as some roads do in the summer when it is really hot). Pools don't have expansion joints and one would assume they are constrained and don't move much from thermal expansion. And because concrete basically has no tensional strength, reinforing "temperature" steel is needed to constrain movement or it will crack from tension stress. Any movement from temperature change should be small.
4. Similarly, pool walls must be constrained to prevent expansion and tension from the additional hydrostatic pressure pushing out when the pool is filled. The reinforcing in the pool walls or frame must keep the concrete from expanding or the pool walls would crack when you fill it from tension. Typically the bigger problem is the earth and groundwater pressure pushing the walls inward and the bottom up when one empties a pool, especially with liner pools. It seems probable that expansion movement when the pool is filled will not be significant.
While I'm hopeful that the spring measurement will find Jim the 1.73 more inches, it doesn't seem too likely. However, If NBAC provides the .002 inches pool cert, I think usms should accept the meet swims including Jim's. At the time of the meet everyone relied on that cert being presented by NBAC; a 50m -.002 inches pool is not a measurable difference from 50m + .000 inches pool.
I think usms has gone out of its way to be accomodating and not too officious, first trusting that the certification would be provided by NBAC before the meet and then when they never received it, sending an engineer to measure the pool so that the swims, if the pool was proven certified, could be counted. When i first read of Jim's plight, it seemed a conspiracy against him, but after looking closely at the circumstances it seems those involved, including Jim, were and still are trying to do the right thing and that the problem is just life being imperfect. :worms:
Jim, tell us your hot oil massage and girl friends are real! I can't take anymore fiction.
