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 My own AA-rescinded swim was done at Michael Phelps's famous pool, the North Baltimore Aquatics Club, in a meet that had a USMS sanction number.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Anyhow, if you have your own examples of TT or All American or even World Record times that were rescinded after the fact, please use this thread to post them!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 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
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...
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
...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?
