RE: Top 10 Horror Stories?

jroddin — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 09:25:34 GMT

i think you are wrong Jeff. i know for a fact that when i set my NAG (lets not talk about how many decades ago that was) the pool was measured and they actually took 0.02 off my time because the pool was long. 1. Application and all required paperwork should be submitted within 30 days of performance. 2. If the NAG record is set at a USA Swimming National Championship, Junior National Championship, or U.S. Open meet, National Event staff members and/or Program Operations designees will provide documentation and ensure that all criteria are met. 3. The Rules for Swimming Records are found in Article 104 of USA Swimming Rules and Regulations. 4. Only USA Swimming members, who are U.S. citizens representing a USA Swimming club or competing unattached, are eligible to establish National Age Group records. Times submitted for Age Group records must comply with all requirements for Best Times tabulation as listed in 205.8 (104.2.3 A (1)-(2). 5. It is the responsibility of the meet referee to certify that all USA Swimming rules pertaining to the swimming performance (Parts 1 and 2) have been met. 6. Times must be registered by automatic (Level 1 or Level 2) equipment and submitted in hundredths of a second and must conform to Article 102.16.4C of USA Swimming Rules & Regulations. and in 104.2 we find: 4. Pool measurement is required (104.2 C (3) (a)). It can accompany the record application or already be on file with USA Swimming. Certifications last indefinitely unless structural changes are made to the pool. . Measurement must be attested to by an accredited surveyor or engineer (104.2 C (4) (a)) using a steel tape or other acceptable method.. I went on vacation last week and never got to follow up on this. I stand by my response. While USA-S has a rule about pool measurements for NAG records, their policy is they don't require the host to submit the paperwork. They do require the host to use a laser device to verify the pool, but the actual measurements need not be submitted. Which is much the same as USMS policy for Top Ten swims (bulkheads need to be certified but the actual measurements don't need to be sent past the LMSC Top Ten recorder). USA-S does require the measurements for an American Record, however. Anyway, I'm quoting a policy that was in place in 2012. Jeff

RE: Top 10 Horror Stories?

Former Member — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 09:11:13 GMT

First, congrats to everyone for being able to hold a civil discussion on this topic; I well remember the original vituperation this aroused years ago. Jim is perhaps, the only one who could work health insurance into the debate (even in jest); I do believe he holds the Facebook record for connecting disparate entries to health insurance ( I am on record as offering to adopt him so he could shelter within our Canadian health care system, now even more reason with our pool measurement slackness). As to the actual topic, my subjective observation (our engineer-types just tuned out) is that there is far more serious problem being ignored: pools that are far too long! I base this observation on numerous 200m breastroke swims where there is no question in my mind that extra distance was in play (perhaps even retreating bulkheads). Perhaps the Committee regulating Oxygen Deprivation could address this...

RE: Top 10 Horror Stories?

Chris Stevenson — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 12:08:30 GMT

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.

RE: Top 10 Horror Stories?

jim thornton — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 11:57:42 GMT

Jim, tell us your hot oil massage and girl friends are real! I can't take anymore fiction. Brilliant summation of the engineering details, Bill! As for my planned trip to the sanitarium for Sudden Self Esteem Shock Syndrome, paid for by my fully compliant USMS health insurance for any injuries suffered at a sanctioned event and/or practice, I must say that I am still awaiting advice on how to put in a claim. Perhaps Chris could tell me who on the board is in charge of health insurance claims and/or where I can find the necessary paperwork. The longer SSES Syndrome goes untreated, alas, the more intractable it can become. If I were to leave for the Bahama sanitarium/tropical waterpark/hydrotherapy institute tomorrow, I dare say I could recover to perhaps 80 percent full function with the help of only two girl, hot oil massages as pioneered at the Deepak Chopra Center for Spiritual and Prostate Health in La Jolla, California. However, with each passing day and health insurance delay, my problems intensify. Who knows how many additional girls and how much additional hot oil (perhaps with myrr added as an adjuvant) will be necessary to treat me if USMS, like NBAC, stonewalls me on this perfectly legitimate request for information?

RE: Top 10 Horror Stories?

Sojerz — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:57:14 GMT

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.

RE: Top 10 Horror Stories?

Rob Copeland — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 12:54:15 GMT

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.Just a couple of questions… What is USSA? What USSA records have been set there? Were the records set before or after the walls were resurfaced?

RE: Top 10 Horror Stories?

Rob Copeland — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 12:48:06 GMT

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). 1) In the situation like the one that occurred, the sanction chair wouldn’t take it on faith. If the facility isn’t certified, then the meet information would need to state the pool is not compliant. I imagine this would get many meet hosts to get the certification done. 2) More could be added to the bolded text, but I believe “105.1.6 Pool Certification” clearly states the pool certification requirements. I guess we could call it Pool Certification instead of pool certification. Note - 2013 is a Legislation year.

RE: Top 10 Horror Stories?

ourswimmer — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 12:47:18 GMT

In fact, there is evidence for the opposite in that the pool length has never been certified by USA-S. Do they ever hold USA-S meets of any kind in that pool, then?

RE: Top 10 Horror Stories?

rodent — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 12:46:22 GMT

Right now we don't know enough about the actual discrepancy in length. 2/1000 of an inch 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 they would be in jeopardy if the pool is actually 5 inches short. It will be very embarrassing for NBAC if you guys are right.

RE: Top 10 Horror Stories?

swimmieAvsFan — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 12:41:29 GMT

...Well naturally policies are constantly evolving; rules change too. I don't think there can ever be an unchanging list of either. I think an important thing is transparency, which is the main reason I'm here discussing all this. But USMS is a big site and lots of people don't know about policies. Heck the rules themselves are complicated and even Kathy Casey probably gets surprised from time to time. I am sure that this policy will be reviewed. I can't predict exactly what will happen: status quo, changed policy, rule proposal, etc. Honestly as chair my power is surprisingly limited. I can set the agenda and sometimes make suggestions but I can't make motions, I only vote on tie-breakers, and am not supposed to take sides or let my preferences be known during discussions. But the committee has a good mix of new blood to question things and propose ideas, and veterans whose institutional experience dwarfs mine. (Emphasis is mine.) I don't think anyone expects an unchanging list of rules or policies, just a list of current practices, so they know what to expect in unusual situations. Basically, the transparency mentioned is all any reasonable person should be looking for. I also think educating people about the current policies is a good idea, as long as everyone understands that they are fluid (just like the rules are). Typically, when people have a fuller understanding of what goes into decision making, they tend to appreciate the work that people are putting in to making everything run smoothly. Even if Rec & Tabs isn't the appropriate place for this to be discussed, I would hope someone would take it up, just to prevent a redo of this situation in a few years. To that end, is 2013 a rules or a legislation year?

RE: Top 10 Horror Stories?

swimmieAvsFan — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 12:32:33 GMT

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".)

RE: Top 10 Horror Stories?

Rob Copeland — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 12:27:40 GMT

I tried to look up the heat sheets from the meet because I can't remember which lane I was in Jim the USMS event results database lists the heat and lane for your swims. admittedly frail elderly brain for months now, and exploded into full blown SSES Syndrome (Sudden Self Esteem Shock Syndrome) that has had lingering effects on my psyche On the bright side all we need is the distraction of a shiny object to send your “admittedly frail elderly brain” off on to thoughts of rainbows and unicorns. And regardless of what’s printed, you should be rightfully proud of your accomplishments. Your hard work truly paid off. Congratulations! Great swims! :applaud::banana:

RE: Top 10 Horror Stories?

knelson — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 12:24:56 GMT

The Canadian times were legit and Jim's time is legit too. That should be all that.matters! How can you say that when the pool was not measured or was measured but came up short? Sorry but not legit.

RE: Top 10 Horror Stories?

Rob Copeland — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 12:21:20 GMT

Yes I heard that the NBAC pool was remeasured and I heard this tale of 2/1000 of an inch short. However even after this supposed remeasure the facilities manager did not send us the actual measurements. Even Jim wonders about the reliability of these measurements since the facilities manager has an obvious stake in the outcome. (Plus he said they would use a steel tape, and I have a hard time imagining how such a device could possibly indicate that the pool was 2/1000 of an inch short.)Chris, “Never let the facts get in the way of a good story” - Mark Twain:popcorn: But I will be interested in what the most experienced members have to say about why it has been allowed in the past. Perhaps it was in response to some different crisis from 20 years ago. :-)20 years ago our LMSC top 10 recorders typed up the top 10 and mailed them to our national Top 10 recorder. As an aside it was 10 years ago that we introduced “Dimensional tolerance”, I still recall the gleam in Leo’s eye as he and other engineering and scientific types debated the issue.

RE: Top 10 Horror Stories?

jim thornton — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 12:10:27 GMT

1. Okay, for the record, I strongly suspect that the NBAC was short. Here are the only measurements I've seen. These were done in December in the empty pool by the engineers that USMS hired. (I have not seen the measurements that the NBAC guy claims to have also done this winter, and frankly, I am dubious they exist): These below measurements were taken December 7, 2012, of the outdoor pool at the NBAC Meadowbrook aquatic facility in Baltimore, MD. First, here are the converted equivalents for 50 meters: 50 meters = 164.042 feet = 1,968.50 inches Measured values: Lane 1: 49.856 m Lane 2: 49.910 m Lane 3: 49.956 m Lane 4: 49.960 m Lane 5: 49.910 m Lane 6: 49.971 m Lane 7: 49.910 m Lane 8: 49.893 m Lane 9: 49.956 m Lane 10: 49.892 m Converted to inches: Lane 1: 1,962.83 inches Lane 2: 1,964.96 inches Lane 3: 1,966.77 inches Lane 4: 1,966.93 inches Lane 5: 1,964.96 inches Lane 6: 1,967.36 inches Lane 7: 1,964.96 inches Lane 8: 1,964.29 inches Lane 9: 1,966.77 inches Lane 10: 1,964.25 inches Difference from nominal: Lane 1: 5.67 inches Lane 2: 3.54 inches Lane 3: 1.73 inches Lane 4: 1.57 inches Lane 5: 3.54 inches Lane 6: 1.14 inches Lane 7: 3.54 inches Lane 8: 4.21 inches Lane 9: 1.73 inches Lane 10: 4.25 inches 2. I tried to look up the heat sheets from the meet because I can't remember which lane I was in. I know it was somewhere in the middle of the pool. I am pretty sure that lanes 1 and 10 weren't ever used. Leslie, for her part, thinks I was in lane 4, but I could have just as easily been in 5, 6, or 3. So if these measurements are accurate, and measuring the pool in winter without any water in it makes zero difference, I swam anywhere from 2.28 inches short to 7.08 inches short. Those who read my blog on this will recall that I did the calculations based on the "worst case scenario"--i.e., I swam in a pool that was 5" short, or 10" short per 100 LCM free. Under this assumption, it would have made a .15 second difference in my time. Under a more realistic worst case scenario, i.e., I swam in lane 5 and did a race that was 7.08 inches too short, then it would have made a .10 or .11 difference. My 1:01.43, in other words, would have been a 1:01.54. The new winning time is 1:02.66. The meet was hand-timed, and I absolutely acknowledge there may well have been an advantage from this, too, though both my hand timers got me at exactly the same time on their watches, which I imagine is pretty hard to do. In any event, I find it hard to believe that any accumulation of unintentional "cheating" on my part would have made more than a 1.12 second difference in my final time, which was the time separating my NBAC swim from Greg's Omaha swim. 3. At this point, I simply reiterate the same plea: make what ever rules you want, but put in safeguards for us swimmers so that we don't inadvertently run afoul of them. When two of my times were yanked a year ago, for instance, when I swam in "Open" events, I specifically asked the meet director if I could do this and still qualify for TT consideration. He assured me the times would count. When Skip asked the NBAC meet director if the pool had been measured and was in compliance, he assured him it absolutely had been and was in compliance. The IRS tells the public that any information provided by IRS agents may not be accurate. Perhaps there should be something on meet information, as Rob suggested, specifically saying if the meet will or will not count and why. 4. I have decided to switch my plan of attack! Though the NBAC meet was not in compliance for TT times, this does not obviate the health insurance coverage for swimmers participating in the meet, correct? Would someone please let me know how I can file a claim for mental trauma incurred last summer in Baltimore? Granted, this trauma didn't manifest itself immediately, but it has been slowly incubating inside my admittedly frail elderly brain for months now, and exploded into full blown SSES Syndrome (Sudden Self Esteem Shock Syndrome) that has had lingering effects on my psyche and, quite frankly, ability to earn a livelihood as a writer because--as this post may illustrate--my rationality and judgement brain lobes appear to be permanently damaged. I imagine therapy will include considerable time in a subtropical sanitarium and involve hydrotherapy, two-girl, hot-oil massage of the sort pioneered at the Deepak Chopra spa in La Jolla, and quite a bit in the way of medications of the spirit-soothing, pain-killing, joie-de-vivre-augmenting variety. Fortunately, the meet was sanctioned and my membership in USMS is in good standing, so the considerable costs of getting Jim well again should not be a burden to anybody but the insurer! I am starting to feel better already (albeit not so much better as to call into any question my need for several years minimum in a Bahamian sanitarium.)

RE: Top 10 Horror Stories?

rodent — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 12:02:13 GMT

RE: Top 10 Horror Stories?

rodent — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 11:40:22 GMT

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.

RE: Top 10 Horror Stories?

ourswimmer — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 11:32:34 GMT

RE: Top 10 Horror Stories?

Chris Stevenson — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 11:18:39 GMT

The NBAC pool was measured to be 2/1000 of an inch short in two lanes when empty. An engineer posted that it was his opinion in light of his expertise that the pool would be correct when filled. The hydrostatic pressure would push the walls back especially in the middle of the pool. In both situations the pools were ok, the application of the rules was in the circumstances, too harsh. The fact that FINA accepted the Canadian times and USSA accepts the NBAC times is also a factor to consider. Yes I heard that the NBAC pool was remeasured and I heard this tale of 2/1000 of an inch short. However even after this supposed remeasure the facilities manager did not send us the actual measurements. Even Jim wonders about the reliability of these measurements since the facilities manager has an obvious stake in the outcome. (Plus he said they would use a steel tape, and I have a hard time imagining how such a device could possibly indicate that the pool was 2/1000 of an inch short.) But that doesn't really matter; USMS even allows *the swimmer themselves* to measure pools for their own times. But without measurements in hand it is as if they never happened. So we have to go with the measurements we *do* have. An engineer measured each lane twice using a laser device. He reported the longest of the two measurements. Not a single one of the 16 measurements was 50m or longer, and the average was 3 inches short (and one lane was 5 inches short). These are the only measurements we have and so they are what we have to go by. I think I heard it is a concrete pool, so I doubt that filling the pool will push the walls back almost half a foot; if they did I think the pool would have much bigger problems than its length. I personally wouldn't have a problem with remeasuring the pool in the spring and then reinstating Jim's time. However, if I were USMS, I'd think carefully before proceeding. It seems that this story is rife with attempts to fix mistakes that just end up making the situation worse. Oh yes I thought of that too. It is one of the best arguments for "freezing" the TT lists (except for non-significant changes), and I suspect that it is an argument that the committee -- almost all of the current or past TT Recorders -- would be very receptive to. Compiling the TT lists once is hard enough without having to worry about revising them in a significant manner after publication. But I will be interested in what the most experienced members have to say about why it has been allowed in the past. Perhaps it was in response to some different crisis from 20 years ago. :-)

RE: Top 10 Horror Stories?

Sojerz — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 10:47:59 GMT

Difference from nominal: Lane 1: 5.67 inches Lane 2: 3.54 inches Lane 3: 1.73 inches Lane 4: 1.57 inches Lane 5: 3.54 inches Lane 6: 1.14 inches Lane 7: 3.54 inches Lane 8: 4.21 inches Lane 9: 1.73 inches Lane 10: 4.25 inches Seems like near the water surface in this pool there may be a very irregular pool wall with tiles or other surface protrusions and bulges that caused the leveled surface between which the measurements were taken to be offset quite a bit from what would otherwise be considered the pool wall. This would produce the variance from lane to lane. If you look at the pdf from USA-S www.usaswimming.org/DesktopDefault.aspx and the diagrams that show laser (Part 2) and Total Station (Part 3) pool certification measurements, you can see how large bulges in the pool wall would impact the measurement surfaces. Additionally, had touch pads been used they would add an additional 5mm (3/16") or 15mm (5/8") to the difference from nominal and twice that amount if added at both ends. Not relevant for Jim, but probably used for AG compettions.

RE: Top 10 Horror Stories?

rodent — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 10:45:26 GMT

i think you are wrong Jeff. i know for a fact that when i set my NAG (lets not talk about how many decades ago that was) the pool was measured and they actually took 0.02 off my time because the pool was long. 1. Application and all required paperwork should be submitted within 30 days of performance. 2. If the NAG record is set at a USA Swimming National Championship, Junior National Championship, or U.S. Open meet, National Event staff members and/or Program Operations designees will provide documentation and ensure that all criteria are met. 3. The Rules for Swimming Records are found in Article 104 of USA Swimming Rules and Regulations. 4. Only USA Swimming members, who are U.S. citizens representing a USA Swimming club or competing unattached, are eligible to establish National Age Group records. Times submitted for Age Group records must comply with all requirements for Best Times tabulation as listed in 205.8 (104.2.3 A (1)-(2). 5. It is the responsibility of the meet referee to certify that all USA Swimming rules pertaining to the swimming performance (Parts 1 and 2) have been met. 6. Times must be registered by automatic (Level 1 or Level 2) equipment and submitted in hundredths of a second and must conform to Article 102.16.4C of USA Swimming Rules & Regulations. and in 104.2 we find: 4. Pool measurement is required (104.2 C (3) (a)). It can accompany the record application or already be on file with USA Swimming. Certifications last indefinitely unless structural changes are made to the pool. . Measurement must be attested to by an accredited surveyor or engineer (104.2 C (4) (a)) using a steel tape or other acceptable method.. I think you may be reading the wrong rule. The rule USAS quotes is R. 104.2.3A(1) and (2), the rule that you referenced is R. 104.2 C(3) (a).

RE: Top 10 Horror Stories?

pmccoy — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 10:29:26 GMT

The Montreal pool had been measured according to the practice of Canadian Masters. The NBAC pool was measured to be 2/1000 of an inch short in two lanes when empty. An engineer posted that it was his opinion in light of his expertise that the pool would be correct when filled. The hydrostatic pressure would push the walls back especially in the middle of the pool. In both situations the pools were ok, the application of the rules was in the circumstances, too harsh. The fact that FINA accepted the Canadian times and USSA accepts the NBAC times is also a factor to consider.I probably should clarify a couple things on this: * I am a mechanical engineer and solved simple hydrostatic problems in school but I'm mostly a software developer now. * It's impossible to quantify how much the pool would shrink due to lack of hydrostatic pressure because I just don't know anything about the actual construction of the pool. IF (and this is a big if) the pool were EXACTLY in compliance before they emptied the pool, I would expect the hydrostatic pressure to take the pool out of compliance. Same thing with the thermal contraction. * I've read through various tales that the pool is somewhere between 5 inches and 2/1000 inches out of compliance. If it is the former, I don't expect it to be in compliance when filled and warmed... but i could be wrong. If it is the latter, I expect warming alone will bring it back into compliance... but I could be wrong. * I do think Jim's swim is legit and his efforts were outstanding but I'm firmly in the camp that they never should have been considered for TT in the first place. Someone did him a huge favor in going back and attempting to remeasure the pool even if the conditions were less than ideal. * I personally wouldn't have a problem with remeasuring the pool in the spring and then reinstating Jim's time. However, if I were USMS, I'd think carefully before proceeding. It seems that this story is rife with attempts to fix mistakes that just end up making the situation worse.

RE: Top 10 Horror Stories?

sunruh — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 09:57:33 GMT

We need fewer rules and more commonsense. Compiling a list of the top times is not the Manhattan Project and should not be treated that way. The Canadian times were legit and Jim's time is legit too. That should be all that matters! are you serious? if so, i just broke all of the NR's this morning for both SCY and SCM (oh all of those are WRs as well). dont bother measuring the pool. it's good. it may *look* to only be 20yds long, but it's legit for both 25 SCY NRs and 25 SCM WRs.

RE: Top 10 Horror Stories?

knelson — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 09:56:00 GMT

An engineer posted that it was his opinion in light of his expertise that the pool would be correct when filled. Doesn't matter. This is all pure conjecture. Unless the pool is actually measured and comes out to 50 meters it doesn't meet the length requirement. Simple as that. And I don't believe for a minute anyone is measuring a 50 meter pool to .001 on an inch. I think USMS has an obligation to make sure anyone hosting a sanctioned meet understands the dimensional requirements, but at the end of the day the responsibility goes to the meet director to make sure the pool has been measured and that the measurement data has been submitted properly. I don't see why USMS is the bad guy for throwing out swims that don't meet the requirements. I really don't want USMS making judgment calls, "yeah, that's close enough..."

RE: Top 10 Horror Stories?

rodent — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 09:34:26 GMT

How can you say that when the pool was not measured or was measured but came up short? Sorry but not legit. The Montreal pool had been measured according to the practice of Canadian Masters. The NBAC pool was measured to be 2/1000 of an inch short in two lanes when empty. An engineer posted that it was his opinion in light of his expertise that the pool would be correct when filled. The hydrostatic pressure would push the walls back especially in the middle of the pool. In both situations the pools were ok, the application of the rules was in the circumstances, too harsh. The fact that FINA accepted the Canadian times and USSA accepts the NBAC times is also a factor to consider.