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 My own AA-rescinded swim was done at Michael Phelps's famous pool, the North Baltimore Aquatics Club, in a meet that had a USMS sanction number.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Anyhow, if you have your own examples of TT or All American or even World Record times that were rescinded after the fact, please use this thread to post them!
USA Swimming does not require a certified pool measurement for NAG (National Age Group records).
Jeff
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..
Actually, it is information that should be taken into consideration. If you can recall back to your days of practicing law, matters of common knowledge, or matters that can easily be ascertained, may be noted by the Court at any time, even on appeal! This is a similar situation. Jeff just posted that the NAG records do not require a certification, only AR's or WR's. Is it possible that w/ all the age group records set (I BELIEVE) in that pool that NBAC just assumed the pool was measured? Should we (USMS) not require measurement for Top 10 certification? Should Chris and Bob dye their hair red before it turns gray?
Maybe you will drive them to take blood pressure medication that is on USADA's banned list ...
Even if NAG records were set there, it's utterly irrelevant because the pool is short and this is not USS. I feel terrible for Jim, and mathematically his time may still be faster than Greg's. But it's not an eligible time under USMS rules. End of story.
i am sorry for Jim as well.
however, it would seem that pool is not eligible for setting *ANY* NR/WR/AR/NAGR of any kind in any governing body associated with swimming. period.
or
the pool has been measured before and was valid when those records were set.
read 2 posts above as to why.
Thanks for showing me my lane!
Event 10, 100 Meter Freestyle Heat 2 Results
Lane Name Sex/Age Club Seed Time Final Time
3 Thornton, James M60 1776 1:02.68 1:01.43
Armed with this new information, and the "longest of two" laser measurements of an empty, frigid, Michael Phelps' pool (I hope it's not an omen for the dear boy's future prospects!), as such were measured on December 7th, we can now say with some confidence that the Worst Case Scenario for my unintentional "cheating" swim was at most 3.46 inches short (Lane 3: 1.73 inches short x 2 for a full 100), and not the 10 inches short as previously stipulated in the Worst Case Scenario I wrote about in my blog.
Let us redo the math in light of this new information, shall we? (It has been an awfully long time since I have been called upon to do math more complicated than simple addition and subtraction, so please correct any errors here.)
100 LCM = 3937.01 inches.
Number of inches I actually swam (assuming the pool was not slightly longer when filled and warm) = 3937.01 - 3.46, or 3933.55.
Ratio: a time of 1:01.43 (61.43) is to 3933.55 inches as a time of X is to 3937.01
or: 61.43/3933.55 = X/3937.01
or: 61.43/3933.55 x 3937.01/1 = X
or: 61.484034, rounded off to 61.48, or 1:01.48.
Assuming that I did not absolutely lock up and fail to complete the final unswum 3.46 inches of a true 100 LCM (though anyone who has ever watched me race, as I am want to do, with my eyes mostly closed understands that I typically zig and zag and reflexively circle swim my way much further than any posted distance), the difference between my actual time and a 100 percent "pure" time would have been five-one hundredths of a second. Let me post, then, a mathematical revision with cheating corrected for:
Event 10, 100 Meter Freestyle Heat 2 Results REVISED FOR PURITY STANDARDS
Lane Name Sex/Age Club Seed Time Final Time
3 Thornton, James M60 1776 1:02.68 1:01.48
I hope I will get extra credit for showing my work here. This does give me hope that by some flukish miracle, the pool remeasured next summer and robustly swollen with gazillions of pounds of water, and the surrounding soil heated to the standard global warming misery of a Baltimore summer, might just conceivably prove that I did not cheat at all, or at the very least, less fragrantly than this new .05 second calculation would imply!
And on this note, and channeling my inner demented Humphrey Bogart Caine Mutiny-like personna, which, I fear, is intensifying the SSES Syndrome ("And I will show with precise mathematical certainty who stole the strawberries from the bridge!"), I shall say goodbye and await the insurance paperwork to enable my two-girl hot-oil therapeutic massage and drug therapy that appears to be the only hope for this de-frocked All American's restoration to normalcy!
Do they ever hold USA-S meets of any kind in that pool, then?
There are differences in USMS and USA-S measurement standards. Lots of USA-S meets are held in non-certified pools. I think the guy Anna Lea talked to said they reject a high proportion of their certification applications for whatever reason. Unfortunately they don't keep the rejects or we might have had some history of measurements at this pool. USA-S requires measurements only for national records (I'm not sure about AG national records) not their top 10 lists.
Plus my understanding is that this is a pretty old pool, the USMS person who did the measurements mentioned something about how resurfacing (or whatever, I can't quite remember) was evident. Any pool modification that potentially changes the length requires that the pool length be re-certified.
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?
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.
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
One would think that with such a difference from one lane to another, that the human eye could see a fluctuation "wall line" if you stood at the end and looked across the pool at either end. For lane 9 to be ~3 inches shorter than both 8 & 10, you'd think you could see a 1.5 inch difference at each end by some sort of bend on the edging of the deck or something.
But the measurements don't lie...
Thanks for showing me my lane!
Event 10, 100 Meter Freestyle Heat 2 Results
Lane Name Sex/Age Club Seed Time Final Time
3 Thornton, James M60 1776 1:02.68 1:01.43
Armed with this new information, and the "longest of two" laser measurements of an empty, frigid, Michael Phelps' pool (I hope it's not an omen for the dear boy's future prospects!), as such were measured on December 7th, we can now say with some confidence that the Worst Case Scenario for my unintentional "cheating" swim was at most 3.46 inches short (Lane 3: 1.73 inches short x 2 for a full 100), and not the 10 inches short as previously stipulated in the Worst Case Scenario I wrote about in my blog.
Now had the pool been 1.73 (or 1.74) inches longer and been "legal" by USMS standards...possibly your flipturn could've been thrown off drastically enough to cause a foul-up and potentially a slower time. Doubt it, but possible. :)
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?
It was sanctioning the meet in the first place without the measurements in hand.
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.
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.
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..."
