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 My own AA-rescinded swim was done at Michael Phelps's famous pool, the North Baltimore Aquatics Club, in a meet that had a USMS sanction number.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Anyhow, if you have your own examples of TT or All American or even World Record times that were rescinded after the fact, please use this thread to post them!
Perhaps an engineer within our ranks could give an opinion on whether a 50 meter pool with 10 lanes and some depth (I don't know this figure exactly) might, when filled with seemingly a gazillion cubic feet of water, expand ever so slightly compared to its empty winter state? Balloons filled with water expand. Granted, cement is not the same as latex. But it's not the same as reinforced tungsten either. Again, it's a messy system, and insisting on exactitude in measurement is not the same as achieving it.
Jim, I hate to see what has happened in this case. You earned it and definitely deserve recognition for your efforts. I'm banking on 15 more years of mediocrity (and lots of preservatives) to carry me into the elite status that you have found.
You have two engineering problems here: First is the hydro-static pressure of water on the pool walls. The second is the thermal expansion of the pool deck materials. Both are not insignificant.
Hydro-static pressure on a vertical wall can be calculated with the following formula: Sw*h/2 where Sw is the specific weight of water (62.4lbs/ft^3) and height is the height of the wall. Let's say the pool is 6 feet deep all around. That means each wall has an average pressure of 187.2 lbs/ft^2. If the walls at the start and finish are 75 feet long, then those walls each hold back 84240 lbs of force. Pools are constructed so that all the sides are connected. So, the structure itself will brace against some of the contraction due to water removal. Still, I would fully expect there to be some contraction (especially in the middle of the wall) but how much really depends on the concrete thickness and soil composition around the pool. I really couldn't even guess.
Thermal expansion (or contraction) in this case is a little easier to look at. Concrete shrinks when it gets cold. Not by much but it does shrink. The formula is pretty simple. dL = L * (dT) * Ct where dL = the change in length, dT = the change in temperature and Ct is the coefficient of linear thermal expansion for concrete. Different concretes have different coefficients but looking around, 6 x 10^-6 per degree F is somewhere in the ballpark. If the pool is 80 degrees when you swam and 50 degrees in the winter when they measured, you get a dT of 30 F. Plugging it all in, I get .009 meters of "shrinkage" or about .35 inches. So, a full pool at exactly the correct length and at normal competition temperature will certainly fail measurements when it is emptied and cooled. The only real hope you had was if the pool was already a little too long. Perhaps a measurement in the spring with the pool filled will vindicate your time... if they allow it.
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?)
Since I lost 6, Top 10's in the 2011 Montreal Nationals, I am in favor of the above-captioned rule. So, Chris, you think that because there is no rule saying that you can not remove a Top 10 time after it has been approved and published, that USMS does have the authority and has it absolutely? I think that might be an open question. Why have a deadline if it is meaningless and can be disregarded? And, if that is true, can you change the 2011 SCM Top 10 to reflect my Montreal times? After all, there is no rule that says you can't do that either. Remember, the integrity of the sport is the most important thing and what's right is right!
So, do you want me to email you my times from Montreal, or can you pull them up on the internet?
Since I lost 6, Top 10's in the 2011 Montreal Nationals, I am in favor of the above-captioned rule. So, Chris, you think that because there is no rule saying that you can not remove a Top 10 time after it has been approved and published, that USMS does have the authority and has it absolutely? I think that might be an open question. Why have a deadline if it is meaningless and can be disregarded? And, if that is true, can you change the 2011 SCM Top 10 to reflect my Montreal times? After all, there is no rule that says you can't do that either. Remember, the integrity of the sport is the most important thing and what's right is right!
So, do you want me to email you my times from Montreal, or can you pull them up on the internet?
I don't think you have a fair analogy. This would be akin to saying you were DQ'd in 1996 for dropping your shoulder on a breastroke turn but now it is legal to drop your shoulder so your time should be reinstated. Times from 2011 need to conform to rules and policies in place at the time of the swim - not to current rules and policies.
I don't think you have a fair analogy. This would be akin to saying you were DQ'd in 1996 for dropping your shoulder on a breastroke turn but now it is legal to drop your shoulder so your time should be reinstated. Times from 2011 need to conform to rules and policies in place at the time of the swim - not to current rules and policies.
exactly!
or else we get to remove *ALL* of the WR/NR and top ten from the full body tech suit era.
4. Finally, I suppose my biggest plea is simply this: If USMS has rules that it insists upon, then why can it not come up with a way to guarantee that any meet that receives its official sanction and/or recognition is guaranteed to be in compliance with all of these rules? You know how speed suits now have those little Fina Legal bar code things on the butt? Why couldn't USMS come up with a similar Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval-style logo that is posted on any meet where swimmers have a reasonable expectation that their times will count for TT consideration? Without this logo printed on the meet info sheet, swimmers would know whether or not to make the investment in meet fees, travel expenses, etc. and come anyway, knowing that their times may or may not "count." Such Super Sanctioned meets, moreover, would have provisions in place for measuring bulkhead movements, not holding any events as "Open" swims, and generally guaranteeing that any swimmer participating can't accidentally make the mistake of running afoul of some rule he or she might not know exists. I applaud Chris and the numerous other folks out there that make this great organization run, and I can already anticipate suggestions a la "volunteer yourself" or "buy the rule book and study each codicil in all its intricacies." Alas, I am not a volunteering type, at least when it comes to organizational behavior; nor do I have the head for regulatory minutiae. It is probably, therefore, unfair and even hypocritical of me to ask this, but ask it I do. Why can't USMS make it so that we swimmers can identify, quickly and reliably, what meets will absolutely count before we sign up for them? Then make sure, barring fraud on our part, they absolutely do count. There is just too much potential disappointment in this messy system the way it is right now.
You can't pre-guarantee that every meet will be in 100% compliance the way the rules currently stand. Fixed length pools with measurements on file are fine, assuming the meet director timely submits the times/split requests. But bulkhead pools have to measured before and after a meet. So swimmers must enter the meet relying on the meet director to ensure that proper measurements are taken and that the pool does not measure short. Even if the entry forms affirmatively says the pool will be measured, you are still relying on people to be diligent about their job.
Steve, you are a real tech suit hater!
I don't think you have a fair analogy. This would be akin to saying you were DQ'd in 1996 for dropping your shoulder on a breastroke turn but now it is legal to drop your shoulder so your time should be reinstated. Times from 2011 need to conform to rules and policies in place at the time of the swim - not to current rules and policies.
Who said anything about being DQ'd? The swims were legal and there was no competitive advantage that is inherent in a act leading to disqualification. But, if the Top 10 list can be changed at ANY time w/o limitation, why could it not be changed a few years later, in the interest of fairness and accuracy. Those swims could have been accepted in 2011 by a VOTE of the Top 10 committee. That committee has apparently determined that their decision in 2011, was wrong and not in the best interests of USMS and FINA. Since the decision dening the Canadian times was found to be wrong and since the Top 10 apparently can be changed at ANY time w/o limitation (because the rules are silent on that issue) why should they not correct the 2011 Top 10.:canada:
As far as records in the full body flotation suits, I don't know what can be done. Is there a record of who was wearing a flotation suit and who was not during that time? What about the non-flotation suits that were slick and provided compression? Both types of suits provided a clear competitive advantage. WR's set in those suits may not be broken for years, if ever. Is it fair to the current swimmers who are a few fractions of a second off those artificial records?
Since I lost 6, Top 10's in the 2011 Montreal Nationals, I am in favor of the above-captioned rule. So, Chris, you think that because there is no rule saying that you can not remove a Top 10 time after it has been approved and published, that USMS does have the authority and has it absolutely? I think that might be an open question. Why have a deadline if it is meaningless and can be disregarded? And, if that is true, can you change the 2011 SCM Top 10 to reflect my Montreal times? After all, there is no rule that says you can't do that either. Remember, the integrity of the sport is the most important thing and what's right is right!
So, do you want me to email you my times from Montreal, or can you pull them up on the internet?
Of course there is a rule. The only deadline is for submission of times for TT consideration. Eligible times that are submitted by the deadline can make the list. Your time was not eligible according to the rules at the time of the swim, as others have noted.
It turns out that Jim's time was not eligible either and should not have been accepted, though that was not known at the time.
I'm not sure most people -- even those who have volunteered for a long time -- realize how much policy drives practice in some cases. So let's consider Top 10 lists. From what I can see (I am not a lawyer, just married to one), the existence of these lists derives from article 105.2.1:
The 10 best times nationally in each age division and for each gender shall be published annually for the events listed under article 102.5.
Technically we do not actually follow this rule, do we? We publish lists of the fastest 10 *swimmers* not the fastest 10 times. That is a long-standing policy. (And in this case probably the rule should be re-worded to reflect this policy.)
Policies, including those of Records & Tabulation, are posted here:
www.usms.org/.../
Even I get surprised at the fact that some of our practices derive from policies and not rules. For example, there is a practice that two relays from the same club cannot be listed in the TT of the same event/age-group unless they have four completely different swimmers (think "A" and "B" relays). I had always assumed this came from a rule somewhere but it just isn't so: for example, there is nothing in the rules that prevents a club with three superstar swimmers team up with (say) four different swimmers and achieving four TT relay times.
Policies are simply unavoidable; the rules cannot cover all cases and their intent has to be interpreted.
From a governance standpoint there are at least two big problems with policies vs rules: (i) they are decided by a relatively small, possibly non-representative group (instigated by a committee, approved -- sometimes tacitly -- by the board), and (ii) they are sometimes not well documented.
For my part I am doing my best to drag the policies of my committee into the "light of day," and try to make sure that the committee reflects on these policies and that they represent our best judgment. This is an ongoing process because I am still discovering policies. (Another example: USMS have been recognizing pool All-Stars, right? The term wasn't in the rule book until this year, much less the process by which they are decided.)
USMS has been encouraging this process by asking each committee to list its policies so that they can publish them; the documents in the linked "policy" page did not exist two years ago.
Secondly personally I think that any policy that is far-reaching or controversial should probably eventually be proposed as a rule so that the entire house of delegates can debate, modify and approve it (or not).
While Jim and others like to portray USMS as heartless automatons characterized mostly by a slavish devotion to rules -- even while appealing to those same instincts ("You can't change the Top 10 *now*, it is against the rules!") -- it is arguable that this situation was created by a willingness to be flexible. The sanctions chair gave her blessing because she believed the facility manager when he said the measurements were on hand and in order. Mary Beth included the times because she believed the Top 10 Recorder when she said the same (the TTR and Sanctions chair are the same person, BTW) during the submission process.
I don't think that either of these things are uncommon occurrences. While I am less familiar with the sanctioning process, I know that Mary Beth does sometimes accept the TTR's word that the proper measurements are forthcoming. It is just that usually those measurements ARE, in fact, in order. Maybe now she won't be so trusting, though realize with 52 LMSCs and maybe 100+ meets that means that the entire process of publishing the TT lists may be delayed further.
So in this case once it was apparent that the pool was short -- and the person measured each lane twice, and of the 16 measurements not a single one showed the pool at 50m or more -- the question was what to do about it. We chose this as the lesser of two evils, even though I understand people's frustration.
(I disagree with you, though, that there would have been resigned acceptance from Jim if the times from this meet had been missing from either the preliminary or final TT list. The outcry would have just begun a month earlier. And as an FYI, I didn't know about this situation until a couple days before Jim did.)
About rules: if people feel that the Top 10 lists should be frozen (except maybe for minor corrections?) once published, there is no reason that an LMSC can't propose exactly that. I can take this up with Records & Tabulation next year if I'm still on it, but they are not the only possible avenue.
(If such a rule were approved, we will probably all be back here in a couple years complaining about the fact the USMS is following it when some "obvious" correction isn't applied.)
