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 My own AA-rescinded swim was done at Michael Phelps's famous pool, the North Baltimore Aquatics Club, in a meet that had a USMS sanction number.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Anyhow, if you have your own examples of TT or All American or even World Record times that were rescinded after the fact, please use this thread to post them!
We need fewer rules and more commonsense. Compiling a list of the top times is not the Manhattan Project and should not be treated that way. The Canadian times were legit and Jim's time is legit too. That should be all that matters!
are you serious?
if so, i just broke all of the NR's this morning for both SCY and SCM (oh all of those are WRs as well).
dont bother measuring the pool. it's good. it may *look* to only be 20yds long, but it's legit for both 25 SCY NRs and 25 SCM WRs.
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.I probably should clarify a couple things on this:
* I am a mechanical engineer and solved simple hydrostatic problems in school but I'm mostly a software developer now.
* It's impossible to quantify how much the pool would shrink due to lack of hydrostatic pressure because I just don't know anything about the actual construction of the pool. IF (and this is a big if) the pool were EXACTLY in compliance before they emptied the pool, I would expect the hydrostatic pressure to take the pool out of compliance. Same thing with the thermal contraction.
* I've read through various tales that the pool is somewhere between 5 inches and 2/1000 inches out of compliance. If it is the former, I don't expect it to be in compliance when filled and warmed... but i could be wrong. If it is the latter, I expect warming alone will bring it back into compliance... but I could be wrong.
* I do think Jim's swim is legit and his efforts were outstanding but I'm firmly in the camp that they never should have been considered for TT in the first place. Someone did him a huge favor in going back and attempting to remeasure the pool even if the conditions were less than ideal.
* I personally wouldn't have a problem with remeasuring the pool in the spring and then reinstating Jim's time. However, if I were USMS, I'd think carefully before proceeding. It seems that this story is rife with attempts to fix mistakes that just end up making the situation worse.
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 think you may be reading the wrong rule. The rule USAS quotes is R. 104.2.3A(1) and (2), the rule that you referenced is R. 104.2 C(3) (a).
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
Seems like near the water surface in this pool there may be a very irregular pool wall with tiles or other surface protrusions and bulges that caused the leveled surface between which the measurements were taken to be offset quite a bit from what would otherwise be considered the pool wall. This would produce the variance from lane to lane. If you look at the pdf from USA-S www.usaswimming.org/DesktopDefault.aspx and the diagrams that show laser (Part 2) and Total Station (Part 3) pool certification measurements, you can see how large bulges in the pool wall would impact the measurement surfaces.
Additionally, had touch pads been used they would add an additional 5mm (3/16") or 15mm (5/8") to the difference from nominal and twice that amount if added at both ends. Not relevant for Jim, but probably used for AG compettions.
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.
Yes I heard that the NBAC pool was remeasured and I heard this tale of 2/1000 of an inch short. However even after this supposed remeasure the facilities manager did not send us the actual measurements. Even Jim wonders about the reliability of these measurements since the facilities manager has an obvious stake in the outcome. (Plus he said they would use a steel tape, and I have a hard time imagining how such a device could possibly indicate that the pool was 2/1000 of an inch short.)
But that doesn't really matter; USMS even allows *the swimmer themselves* to measure pools for their own times. But without measurements in hand it is as if they never happened.
So we have to go with the measurements we *do* have. An engineer measured each lane twice using a laser device. He reported the longest of the two measurements. Not a single one of the 16 measurements was 50m or longer, and the average was 3 inches short (and one lane was 5 inches short). These are the only measurements we have and so they are what we have to go by. I think I heard it is a concrete pool, so I doubt that filling the pool will push the walls back almost half a foot; if they did I think the pool would have much bigger problems than its length.
I personally wouldn't have a problem with remeasuring the pool in the spring and then reinstating Jim's time. However, if I were USMS, I'd think carefully before proceeding. It seems that this story is rife with attempts to fix mistakes that just end up making the situation worse.
Oh yes I thought of that too. It is one of the best arguments for "freezing" the TT lists (except for non-significant changes), and I suspect that it is an argument that the committee -- almost all of the current or past TT Recorders -- would be very receptive to. Compiling the TT lists once is hard enough without having to worry about revising them in a significant manner after publication. But I will be interested in what the most experienced members have to say about why it has been allowed in the past. Perhaps it was in response to some different crisis from 20 years ago. :-)
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.
This suggestion seems to me to get to the heart of the problem.
I appreciate the work that USMS volunteers do. It makes the experience of swimming much more enjoyable for me. However, I disagree with USMS on this issue. An important aspect of USMS competitive rules is to ensure fairness. For Top 10 times that means that the rules should disallow invalid or fraudulant times, but, those rules should also not prevent valid times from being approved. So, the rules must balance those two considerations. In my experience, the rules have unfairly been applied to strike every single Top 10 swim from the last 2 Canadian Nationals from the USMS record books. Those swims were in complete compliance with Canadian rules and the times were valid.
Jim Thornton swam the fastest 100 free LCM time of any American male 60-64 last year. He swam it as a USMS member in a sanctioned meet. I disagree with the result the Top 10 Committee reached in that case. If USMS sanctions a meet, they should stand by that sanction. If USMS publishes a Top 10 list, they should not strike a time from that list after the publication date. True, the pool was measured and found to be short, but it was measured while empty and NBAC assured Jim that when filled with water, the pool will be the proper length. 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.
We need fewer rules and more commonsense. Compiling a list of the top times is not the Manhattan Project and should not be treated that way. The Canadian times were legit and Jim's time is legit too. That should be all that matters!
1. Okay, for the record, I strongly suspect that the NBAC was short. Here are the only measurements I've seen. These were done in December in the empty pool by the engineers that USMS hired. (I have not seen the measurements that the NBAC guy claims to have also done this winter, and frankly, I am dubious they exist):
These below measurements were taken December 7, 2012, of the outdoor pool at the NBAC Meadowbrook aquatic facility in Baltimore, MD.
First, here are the converted equivalents for 50 meters:
50 meters = 164.042 feet = 1,968.50 inches
Measured values:
Lane 1: 49.856 m
Lane 2: 49.910 m
Lane 3: 49.956 m
Lane 4: 49.960 m
Lane 5: 49.910 m
Lane 6: 49.971 m
Lane 7: 49.910 m
Lane 8: 49.893 m
Lane 9: 49.956 m
Lane 10: 49.892 m
Converted to inches:
Lane 1: 1,962.83 inches
Lane 2: 1,964.96 inches
Lane 3: 1,966.77 inches
Lane 4: 1,966.93 inches
Lane 5: 1,964.96 inches
Lane 6: 1,967.36 inches
Lane 7: 1,964.96 inches
Lane 8: 1,964.29 inches
Lane 9: 1,966.77 inches
Lane 10: 1,964.25 inches
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
2. I tried to look up the heat sheets from the meet because I can't remember which lane I was in. I know it was somewhere in the middle of the pool. I am pretty sure that lanes 1 and 10 weren't ever used. Leslie, for her part, thinks I was in lane 4, but I could have just as easily been in 5, 6, or 3. So if these measurements are accurate, and measuring the pool in winter without any water in it makes zero difference, I swam anywhere from 2.28 inches short to 7.08 inches short. Those who read my blog on this will recall that I did the calculations based on the "worst case scenario"--i.e., I swam in a pool that was 5" short, or 10" short per 100 LCM free. Under this assumption, it would have made a .15 second difference in my time. Under a more realistic worst case scenario, i.e., I swam in lane 5 and did a race that was 7.08 inches too short, then it would have made a .10 or .11 difference. My 1:01.43, in other words, would have been a 1:01.54. The new winning time is 1:02.66. The meet was hand-timed, and I absolutely acknowledge there may well have been an advantage from this, too, though both my hand timers got me at exactly the same time on their watches, which I imagine is pretty hard to do. In any event, I find it hard to believe that any accumulation of unintentional "cheating" on my part would have made more than a 1.12 second difference in my final time, which was the time separating my NBAC swim from Greg's Omaha swim.
3. At this point, I simply reiterate the same plea: make what ever rules you want, but put in safeguards for us swimmers so that we don't inadvertently run afoul of them. When two of my times were yanked a year ago, for instance, when I swam in "Open" events, I specifically asked the meet director if I could do this and still qualify for TT consideration. He assured me the times would count. When Skip asked the NBAC meet director if the pool had been measured and was in compliance, he assured him it absolutely had been and was in compliance. The IRS tells the public that any information provided by IRS agents may not be accurate. Perhaps there should be something on meet information, as Rob suggested, specifically saying if the meet will or will not count and why.
4. I have decided to switch my plan of attack! Though the NBAC meet was not in compliance for TT times, this does not obviate the health insurance coverage for swimmers participating in the meet, correct? Would someone please let me know how I can file a claim for mental trauma incurred last summer in Baltimore? Granted, this trauma didn't manifest itself immediately, but it has been slowly incubating inside my admittedly frail elderly brain for months now, and exploded into full blown SSES Syndrome (Sudden Self Esteem Shock Syndrome) that has had lingering effects on my psyche and, quite frankly, ability to earn a livelihood as a writer because--as this post may illustrate--my rationality and judgement brain lobes appear to be permanently damaged. I imagine therapy will include considerable time in a subtropical sanitarium and involve hydrotherapy, two-girl, hot-oil massage of the sort pioneered at the Deepak Chopra spa in La Jolla, and quite a bit in the way of medications of the spirit-soothing, pain-killing, joie-de-vivre-augmenting variety. Fortunately, the meet was sanctioned and my membership in USMS is in good standing, so the considerable costs of getting Jim well again should not be a burden to anybody but the insurer! I am starting to feel better already (albeit not so much better as to call into any question my need for several years minimum in a Bahamian sanitarium.)
Yes I heard that the NBAC pool was remeasured and I heard this tale of 2/1000 of an inch short. However even after this supposed remeasure the facilities manager did not send us the actual measurements. Even Jim wonders about the reliability of these measurements since the facilities manager has an obvious stake in the outcome. (Plus he said they would use a steel tape, and I have a hard time imagining how such a device could possibly indicate that the pool was 2/1000 of an inch short.)Chris, “Never let the facts get in the way of a good story”
- Mark Twain:popcorn:
But I will be interested in what the most experienced members have to say about why it has been allowed in the past. Perhaps it was in response to some different crisis from 20 years ago. :-)20 years ago our LMSC top 10 recorders typed up the top 10 and mailed them to our national Top 10 recorder. As an aside it was 10 years ago that we introduced “Dimensional tolerance”, I still recall the gleam in Leo’s eye as he and other engineering and scientific types debated the issue.
