Top 10 Horror Stories?

I have had losses from several of the possibilities.I had an AA/ZR time lost because when they measured the bulk head after the meet it had shifted 1 cm in 3 lanes(5 of the lanes had their swims allowed.)I lost 3 TT times in the 2001 NW Zone meet where the pool was redone and the new tile was thicker than the old.This meet and the ensuing complaints/flame war about it led to the current USMS measuring rules as well as the current forum decorum rules(go back to the thread about that in early 2002 if you want a sample of true vitriol.)I also lost 2 TT times from a meet that was advertised as dual sanctioned,but wasn't. That one wasn't a big deal as I got better times in a later meet. All of them ,especially the AA/ZR time seemed a big deal at the time.Now,thinking of them hardly raises my blood pressure. Jim,I am so sorry.You are definitely the peoples All-American

"Sometimes people just make stuff up." – Rev. Benjamin Franklin, DDS Jim, this is awful. This spreadsheet will help you investigate whether a pool’s measurements are actually on file or not, so that you don’t have to take someone else’s word for it: www.usms.org/.../poollengthdb.xls Note that there are different worksheets for SCY, LCM, and SCM.

i was 1 of the 2 timers last year for Graham Jonshston new record in the 1650. however, since we didnt have touch pads, 2 watches is not enough and it was thrown out. on a wilder note, i saw a person do a 100 IM in a TT time that was *NOT* done fly, back, ***, free and it held up.

Thanks for the kind comments, and to those who have had times and WR's yanked ex post facto, I definitely feel your pain! Part of me thinks it's crazy to get worked up at all about this kind of thing. It's not as if it were the Olympics or the Tour de France! But I suppose if you have enough competitive spirit to go to meets in the first place, you are going to want whatever you manage to swim to count, especially if you comply with all known rules and have absolutely no way to determine something is afoul! (Thanks, That Guy, I shall consult you book of measured pools in the future, though it sounds like even this is not etched in stone since pools can fall out of compliance by changing tile since the last measurement was made!) One of the biggest questions I am left with is why hand-timing (two watches for most events; three watches for World Records) continues to be legal whereas a pool that measures a hair too short is, in the minds of many, such a clear violation of the spirit of fairness? In my case, I still don't know how short Michael Phelps' LCM pool is. I have heard everything from 2/1000s of an inch from the NBAC guy (who I suspect is not telling the truth) to up to 5 inches too short in some of the lanes. Even if it was the full 5 inches, this would have made a .15 second difference in my 100 LCM free--a significant amount, I acknowledge, but I would have still beaten the new official AA time by over a second. Hand timing, by contrast, is extremely unreliable. There is the initial delay between the starter's horn and the timer's finger jerk. And the finish of the race is equally subject to human error--either anticipating the finish and stopping the watch a bit too soon, or hesitating and stopping it a hair too late. Usually, the benefit goes to the swimmer, and even when you average two or three times, I suspect hand-timing races are, more often than not, awarded faster rather than slower times. So why is absolute pool measurement required and hand-timing overlooked? Am I paranoid to suggest that requiring electronic timing to usurp hand-timing would obviate tons of meets--partly because some pools can't afford to purchase a timing system, and partly because other pools are so close to the cutoff measurement that adding timing pads would make the pool too short? This is what I mean by expediency in my blog. Overlook a greater potential deviation from absolute fairness while insisting on rules to prevent a lesser potential deviation, all in the name of more meets, more meet fees, and more participation? I know this has probably been argued to death before, but could someone explain why exactly USMS has decided on more stringent measurement rules than both USA-S swimming and FINA?

What I find most objectionable, is the ex post facto removal of an TT/AA time that was declared "official" after preliminary times were released and a correction period ensued. Jim did his due diligence and did his level best not to get his hopes up until the list was declared final. If a swim gets through the whole process without being flagged as having missing paperwork or whatnot, why is that the swimmer's fault? If the powers that be don't catch it during the fairly lengthy TT vetting process, it seems cruel to yank it later. Is this really necessary? And is this retroactive yanking of official times provided for in the rule book? I have had quite a few times go missing over my 8 year masters career for various reasons. The worst was a referee sanctioned 50 fly time trial that was .02 off the WR. The sting was made worse when another masters swimmer in my age group was invited to do a sanctioned time trial to attempt a WR. The sting was taken off that when I went faster the following year. I've also had split requests go missing, though generally if they don't appear in the preliminary TT list, you can email and ask/beg the meet directors to submit them. If electronic timing were required for every meet, there would be fewer local in season meets. Generally, people aren't tapered for these meets, so the benefit of manual timing may not be very important. And of course if you did taper for a meet like that, you risk getting the time thrown out for lack of measurement. And, honestly, a perhaps more important factor than manual timing is meets were there are very few officials and they can't possibly monitor every lane or see every infraction. Does a pool to have to have a measurement on file for the meet to get a USMS sanction? I would assume no since bulkhead pools always have to be measured.

After reading your explanation of why it was disallowed I think this one may be the most unfair.You did what should have been due diligence, you had the AA time when the times became "official" and still it was disallowed:censor: Wow! I am pretty sure the measuring rule for USMS goes back to the fiasco from the disallowed 2001 NW Zone meet.That situation caused so much ill will and angry recriminations that USMS decided to measure everything(twice.)

After reading your explanation of why it was disallowed I think this one may be the most unfair.You did what should have been due diligence, you had the AA time when the times became "official" and still it was disallowed:censor: Wow! Indeed. I wonder if it has ever happened before?

What I find most objectionable, is the ex post facto removal of an TT/AA time that was declared "official" after preliminary times were released and a correction period ensued. Jim did his due diligence and did his level best not to get his hopes up until the list was declared final. If a swim gets through the whole process without being flagged as having missing paperwork or whatnot, why is that the swimmer's fault? If the powers that be don't catch it during the fairly lengthy TT vetting process, it seems cruel to yank it later. Is this really necessary? And is this retroactive yanking of official times provided for in the rule book? So the main deadline is for submission of times for TT consideration; times are not accepted after that deadline for any reason (and there have been stories of entire LMSCs whose times were refused over this). That is the only TT-related deadline in the rule book that I know about. The "correction" period and all that is pure policy, not rules, which is set by the Records and Tabulation Committee and approved by the Board of Directors. This is done purely in an attempt to improve the accuracy of the lists, and mistakes are indeed caught all the time. No such correction period is required by the rules nor is there any rule saying that TT lists are frozen once published. While times cannot be added after the deadline, they can be (and have been) taken away. Other corrections that are made are things like club affiliation, incorrect names, and so forth. Top 10 lists get corrected after the "official" publications quite often. Go to www.usms.org/.../top10print and you'll see links to Errata. It is admittedly unusual that an entire meet gets pulled; I'm not sure that it has been done before, but I haven't been around as some others. I do know of at least one situation where a person was found to have falsified his age and all his TT times (including relays) and USMS records were erased retroactively. If electronic timing were required for every meet, there would be fewer local in season meets. Yes, I strongly suspect this is the reason that manual timing is allowed, so that there can be more meets in facilities that do not have touchpads or meet hosts who cannot afford to rent them. Does a pool to have to have a measurement on file for the meet to get a USMS sanction? I would assume no since bulkhead pools always have to be measured. Technically no. But if a pool is known to be too short then the LMSC is required to put a notice on the meet form that the times will not be eligible for consideration for TT or records. Some LMSCs (Virginia is one of them) have made it their own policy where they will not sanction or even recognize a meet if the pool is known to be too short. Of course, if the pool has a bulkhead and the host fails to measure it, then the times are not eligible for TT even if the meet info sheet said that they would be. You guys are mostly missing the problem. The failing here was in sanctioning the meet in the first place without the measurements in hand. The sanctions chair was assured by the facility manager that those measurements were on file and that the pool was the proper length. And as people have said, this was Michael Phelps' pool so she assumed it must be okay. It was a mistake though perhaps an understandable one -- Michael Phelps' pool! -- we're all only human. The meet was sanctioned and held. Similarly the Top 10 Recorder, when submitting the LMSC times to Mary Beth for TT consideration, assured her that the measurements were forthcoming. Everyone assumed they would be okay, so Mary Beth proceeded under that assumption. Week after week of asking for those measurements went unanswered. Some local masters swimmers even asked some age-groupers who swim at NBAC to ask for the measurements; they were told to stop asking. USA Swimming said that the pool was not on their list of approved pools (and unlike USMS, they do not keep their rejected applications so we don't know if they ever submitted a certification form to USA-S). So finally the LMSC chair sent their own engineer and the pool was measured way too short (an average of 3 inches, which is a lot). We have never received any measurements to contradict that so to the best of our knowledge the pool is too short and the times from the meet were pulled. Yes this is a very frustrating situation all around. The sanctions chair obviously feels awful and there will never be another meet at that pool again. But USMS long ago, for whatever reasons, decided that pool measurements were important. This isn't some small, secretive group of people making this decision: hundreds of delegates voted on these rules and can presumably vote them off the island if they so choose. It isn't really my place to say whether the measurement rules are right or wrong, but I can absolutely guarantee one thing: for every person who would be happy if times from a pool KNOWN to be short were allowed to stand, there would be at least two other people who would complain about their times being bumped from TT by those times.

Thanks for taking the time to write that, Chris. Though there is no rule "freezing" the TT lists at the the time they are final, I would still think that a better policy -- and that's all there really appears to be on this topic -- is to make "final" lists final in terms of material substantive changes. Errata are for correcting scrivener's errors or minor clarifications. As for the person falsifying their age, fraud would vitiate any claim to a time. (Good lord that's pathetic.) In this case, moreover, it seems that this error could have been caught and corrected before the TT list was "final." The real culprit here is the meet director and/or top ten recorder (whoever made knowing misrepresentations) who basically hoodwinked Mary Beth and handled the whole situation in bad faith -- from creating the meet entry form, to getting a sanctions number, to accepting people's entry fees, to assuring people the measurement was on file/forthcoming, etc. I have to admit, it makes me rather leery about going to MD Series meets. I rather doubt that Greg Shaw would complain about his time getting bumped by Jim. He seems like a stand up guy, and I can't imagine him or anyone wanting to have a #1 time if he/she knew someone else had really earned it. And, despite the 3 inches, Jim's adjusted time would still have been faster. He really was screwed. The way the rules are written now can be pretty harsh. If the pool is 3/1000 of a centimeter off in 2 of 8 lanes, those selective times don't count. Perhaps there should be some tiny margin of deviation/error permitted. Is this rule going to be revisited any time soon? As things stand now, USMS IS in fact accepting times from pools that haven't been measured when USMS swimmers compete abroad in FINA sanctioned meets.

Though there is no rule "freezing" the TT lists at the the time they are final, I would still think that a better policy -- and that's all there really appears to be on this topic -- is to make "final" lists final in terms of material substantive changes. Errata are for correcting scrivener's errors or minor clarifications. As for the person falsifying their age, fraud would vitiate any claim to a time. (Good lord that's pathetic.) The real culprit here is the meet director who basically hoodwinked the poor sanctions chair and handled the whole situation in bad faith -- from creating the meet entry form, to getting a sanctions number, to accepting people's entry fees, to assuring people the measurement was on file, etc. I have to admit, it makes me rather leery about going to MD Series meets. I rather doubt that Greg Shaw would complain about his time getting bumped by Jim. He seems like a stand up guy, and I can't imagine him or anyone wanting to have a #1 time if he/she knew someone else had really earned it. And, despite the 3 inches, Jim's adjusted time would still have been faster. He really was screwed. The way the rules are written now can be pretty harsh. If the pool is 3/1000 of a centimeter off in 2 of 8 lanes, those selective times don't count. Perhaps there should be some tiny margin of deviation/error permitted. Is this rule going to be revisited any time soon? As things stand now, USMS IS in fact accepting times from pools that haven't been measured when USMS swimmers compete abroad in FINA sanctioned meets. It is worth considering whether it is a better policy, but it must depend on the circumstances. Let's say, for instance, that someone's time was submitted but through some error was accidentally left off the list and the error was not caught until after the "final" list was published. Should the error not be corrected? I guess the current policy (which pre-dates my time on Recs & Tab) is there to make sure the published list accurately reflects the eligible times that were properly submitted by the deadline. I'm sure Greg wouldn't complain but he isn't the only one affected. There were many times and swimmers in that meet, not just Jim (he's just screaming the loudest). Imagine a person who is currently 10th on a TT list now that the meet was pulled. Perhaps it is that person's first-ever TT time. Wouldn't that person have a legitimate beef if we decided to ignore the pool's measurements and allow the times? The rules can be revisited in a rules year unless it is deemed an emergency. Proposed rules have to be submitted to the Rules Committee by another standing committee or by an LMSC. USMS is not accepting times from unmeasured international pools (Article 105.1.6A "Record applications and Top10 submissions shall not be accepted unless certification of course length accompanies them or is on file with USMS or FINA."). What changed in 2013 is that we stopped insisting that other national governing bodies follow USMS measurement rules for bulkhead pools. Basically we decided that if -- as was the case at Canadian Nationals a while back -- a time is acceptable to FINA as a WR, then it should be acceptable to USMS as a NR or TT time. (Surely you aren't arguing against that decision?)