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 My own AA-rescinded swim was done at Michael Phelps's famous pool, the North Baltimore Aquatics Club, in a meet that had a USMS sanction number.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Anyhow, if you have your own examples of TT or All American or even World Record times that were rescinded after the fact, please use this thread to post them!
Chris, I believe there should be some finality in the Top 10 list. To take a Top 10 time away from someone is difficult and once it is published (in December by rule ) a swimmer should be able to rely on it. In this case there are many extenuating circumstances. I doubt the pool is short when filled and the swim was by FAR the best if the year. The time should in fairness and logic stand. You have the authority to strike it if you want but to do so would be wrong.
Actually Jack, I believe you (probably inadvertently) just illustrated Chris' point about the difference between policies and rules. If you look in the rule book (section 105.1.2), the publication date is not listed. It is, however, listed in the Top 10 FAQs, which would make it a policy, rather than a rule, I would think.
Chris, it's good to know you guys are working on getting policies codified. This whole hullabaloo would have been at least partially mitigated if the policy of lists not really being final, even after being posted as such, were known outside of Rec & Tabs.
Based on this current situation, is this the kind of incident that is controversial and far-reaching enough that some sort of rule should be proposed? Would it cause a ton more work for Mary Beth (or Rec & Tabs) if a rule was inserted into section 105 that required her to have all the paperwork by the deadline for corrections?
FINA doesn't require measurements, right? Is Jim's time acceptable to FINA?
FINA does not require measurements. However, they require the swim to be legal according to whichever masters National Governing Body sanctioned the event. So it's not acceptable to FINA because USMS says it's no good. If you ripped the same pool out of the ground, put it in Canada, and they sanctioned the event, it would have been acceptable to both Canada and FINA.
I highly doubt Jim views USMS as "heartless." If you read his screed, you know that he's had several meets worth of times that have been thrown out in the last couple years. So he feels snakebit. I think this is a fairly normal reaction in the circumstances.
...
Given our current rules, it doesn't seem like USMS had any choice but to pull the times in this instance given that the pool was short. But I don't see the problem in letting Jim express his frustration. He'll move on, and continue his self-described quest of sustained mediocrity. Hopefully, he'll grab another AA at some point.
What, Jim is the only one allowed to go over-the-top in his descriptions?
I certainly don't blame Jim for being frustrated or mind that he expresses his frustrations. (I really only get upset when he makes statements about how USMS volunteers don't really care about the welfare of the swimmers, or some such.)
It was a particularly cruel turn of events this time around, but I'm sure that Mary Beth fully expected that the times would be validated and that's why she left them in. It is easy to second-guess after the fact, and as they say about referees we only notice the bad calls.
I'm sure it is small consolation to him, but the PDF ("printed") versions of the Top 10 never change -- they are truly frozen -- partly because they are mailed out to some people and partly because it would be asking too much for the person who formats them every season to do it every time there is a change.
So I believe Jim's "AA" swim will live here forever:
www.usms.org/.../2012_t10_lcm.pdf
In reading the posts and thinking on it it seems to me the "error"was to actually be too accommodating.The proper papers weren't in,but people wanted to give the pool(Michael Phelps pool) and the meet, the benefit of the doubt.
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.
I was thinking the contraction of the concrete could make the pool bigger, but I just spoke to a P.Eng. structural engineer and she said she would expect the pool to shrink as it got colder.
...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...
...(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.)
Instead of delaying the finalization of the lists, how about making the date that is posted as the deadline for corrections an actual deadline? That date should be sufficiently far after a meet for a host to get any outstanding paperwork to Mary Beth, especially if the meet host is actually working in good faith. It really seems like it makes more work for her if that deadline is really more of a request than a hard-and-fast date.
And I think your characterization of Jim in your parenthetical statement is unfair. Believe it or not, he's actually a reasonable, thoughtful guy. As Leslie mentioned, it's not as if Jim didn't do his due diligence for this meet, and this isn't the first time he's been screwed by the "flexibility" of some of our rules.
And I think your characterization of Jim in your parenthetical statement is unfair. Believe it or not, he's actually a reasonable, thoughtful guy.
I don't believe I characterized Jim as anything but frustrated, and with cause. If I implied otherwise, I apologize; it was not my intent.
FINA does not require measurements. However, they require the swim to be legal according to whichever masters National Governing Body sanctioned the event. So it's not acceptable to FINA because USMS says it's no good. If you ripped the same pool out of the ground, put it in Canada, and they sanctioned the event, it would have been acceptable to both Canada and FINA.
For a pool to be sanctioned in Canada for masters it still has to be measured. The difference is pools only have to be measured once, even if there are moving bulkheads.
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.
It's irrelevant if NBAC doesn't think there's a problem with the measurement- USMS says there is an issue, and that means (as much as it sucks) Jim's times weren't eligible for Top Ten, and really should have never been accepted, based on the wording in section 105.1.6. Also, wouldn't the fact that the measurements on file with USMS were done independently be a good thing- no ulterior motive to make it seem like the lack of water and cold weather is the only reason the pool measured short?
And based on the actions of the facility and its director, I'm highly skeptical that they ever remeasured the pool. I think there's probably a very good reason they didn't want to hand over a certification form to USMS, for exactly what you said above about it being embarrassing for NBAC when the pool came up short.
Jim the USMS event results database lists the heat and lane for your swims.
:applaud::banana:
Rob, I can find my times listed but nothing about which heat and lane I swam in. This is all that pops up regarding my 100:
Men 60-64 100 Meter Freestyle Finals=========================================================================== Pl Name Age Club Seed Time Final Time Points =========================================================================== 1 Thornton, James 60 1776 1:02.68 1:01.43
