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 My own AA-rescinded swim was done at Michael Phelps's famous pool, the North Baltimore Aquatics Club, in a meet that had a USMS sanction number.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Anyhow, if you have your own examples of TT or All American or even World Record times that were rescinded after the fact, please use this thread to post them!
The Canadian times were legit and Jim's time is legit too. That should be all that.matters!
How can you say that when the pool was not measured or was measured but came up short? Sorry but not legit.
I tried to look up the heat sheets from the meet because I can't remember which lane I was in Jim the USMS event results database lists the heat and lane for your swims.
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 On the bright side all we need is the distraction of a shiny object to send your “admittedly frail elderly brain” off on to thoughts of rainbows and unicorns.
And regardless of what’s printed, you should be rightfully proud of your accomplishments. Your hard work truly paid off. Congratulations! Great swims!
:applaud::banana:
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.
Two things about adding wording to section 202- 1) what happens in a situation just like this one, where the Sanctions chair in an LMSC takes a meet director in good faith and at their word that measurements will be forthcoming (so nothing ends up being added to the meet information) and 2) is the pool length database the official compendium for pool length certifications? If it is, I think more needs to be added to your bolded text, just to make it very clear where the certification needs to be (i.e.- not just with the facility, but fully vetted and accepted by USMS).
I also think adding something to section 105 would be helpful, because it would mitigate a situation like my point 1 above. If a meet slipped through the sanctioning process without being certified, and the certification didn't make it to USMS before the top ten correction deadline, the time wouldn't count, and there would be a published rule that would be enforceable (preventing any one volunteer from being the "bad guy".)
...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.
(Emphasis is mine.)
I don't think anyone expects an unchanging list of rules or policies, just a list of current practices, so they know what to expect in unusual situations. Basically, the transparency mentioned is all any reasonable person should be looking for. I also think educating people about the current policies is a good idea, as long as everyone understands that they are fluid (just like the rules are). Typically, when people have a fuller understanding of what goes into decision making, they tend to appreciate the work that people are putting in to making everything run smoothly.
Even if Rec & Tabs isn't the appropriate place for this to be discussed, I would hope someone would take it up, just to prevent a redo of this situation in a few years. To that end, is 2013 a rules or a legislation year?
Right now we don't know enough about the actual discrepancy in length. 2/1000 of an inch 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 they would be in jeopardy if the pool is actually 5 inches short. It will be very embarrassing for NBAC if you guys are right.
In fact, there is evidence for the opposite in that the pool length has never been certified by USA-S.
Do they ever hold USA-S meets of any kind in that pool, then?
Two things about adding wording to section 202- 1) what happens in a situation just like this one, where the Sanctions chair in an LMSC takes a meet director in good faith and at their word that measurements will be forthcoming (so nothing ends up being added to the meet information) and 2) is the pool length database the official compendium for pool length certifications? If it is, I think more needs to be added to your bolded text, just to make it very clear where the certification needs to be (i.e.- not just with the facility, but fully vetted and accepted by USMS).
1) In the situation like the one that occurred, the sanction chair wouldn’t take it on faith. If the facility isn’t certified, then the meet information would need to state the pool is not compliant. I imagine this would get many meet hosts to get the certification done.
2) More could be added to the bolded text, but I believe “105.1.6 Pool Certification” clearly states the pool certification requirements. I guess we could call it Pool Certification instead of pool certification.
Note - 2013 is a Legislation year.
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.Just a couple of questions…
What is USSA?
What USSA records have been set there?
Were the records set before or after the walls were resurfaced?
I recently took the opportunity to read through the USA-S Measuring and Certifying Competition Pools July 2010 guidance. I think they did a great job of describing the process and also found their other USA-S docs on the website regarding pool measurement and certification interesting. www.usaswimming.org/DesktopDefault.aspx . Our firm does construction verification surveying for major roadways, bridges, dams etc. and our "general"opinion is that laser measurement methods with professional survey grade equipment should be accurate (how close is the measurerment to the true value) to within about .01 or .02 feet (1/8"-1/4") +. Our surveyors seem to feel that the reflectorless laser method described in Part 2 is inherently more accurate than using a Total Station(Part 3), because of the reflecting prism used with the Total Station (both methods use laser light pulses for measurement).
The quality of the measuring equipment and set-up matters for accuracy in either method. In our experience with verification survey, it is likely that two surveyors measuring the same distance will produce two slightly different results, hopefully within reasonable tolerances. So there are some precision issues (reprpduction of the measurement) in addition to accuracy as described above. Could the accuracy and precision "error" total the 1.73 inches per 50m that Jim needs, probably not.
1. Professional grade laser measuring devices cannot measure accurately to 2/1000ths ( .002)inches, which is .00017 feet. I believe there are devices that can measure that accurately (maybe at NASA or something), but I doubt such a device was used for competition pool measurement by NBAC and this may confirm that the NBAC pool director is “misguided.” If the NBAC 2/1000th is correct, Jim might have a chance, because that’s a very small distance and one could argue and an engineer/surveyor could certify ,that 2/1000th inches is within standard tolerances of accuracy. That is, a pool that is 50m + .000 inches can not reasonably be distinguished by measurement from a pool that is 50m -.002 inches and therefore the pool length and JIm's swim should be acceptable. This would require NBAC to provide the 2/1000th certification (by a professional engineer or surveyor). However, it seems unlikely they can or will do that. I do not personally believe it is possible to accurately measure to .002 inches with a steel tape and plumb bob, but maybe that is exactly their point.
2. If the pool is really short by 1” to 3” or more (as the LMSC engineer determined and as was posted on the forum) this would require a lot of expansion by hydrostatic pressure and/or temperature when the pool is refilled and warms up to compettion temperature. Even 1” of pool expansion would be a lot, but 3” to 5” would be a very large expansion movement and one would expect to see problems with all of the surrounding features like underground pipe connections, electrical, pool decks, etc. were that much expansion movement to take place when the pool is filled. Unfortunately I don't think Jim will get his 1.73 inches when they fill the pool, but who knows.
3. Peter McCoy calculated possible thermal expansion to be about .35inches, which seems about right to me. However if the pool ends are constrained by earth or steel reinforcing, the walls can’t move, and the expansion pressure then builds up in the wall without movement (unless the pressure were then to exceed the yield point, and then the concrete buckles and cracks as some roads do in the summer when it is really hot). Pools don't have expansion joints and one would assume they are constrained and don't move much from thermal expansion. And because concrete basically has no tensional strength, reinforing "temperature" steel is needed to constrain movement or it will crack from tension stress. Any movement from temperature change should be small.
4. Similarly, pool walls must be constrained to prevent expansion and tension from the additional hydrostatic pressure pushing out when the pool is filled. The reinforcing in the pool walls or frame must keep the concrete from expanding or the pool walls would crack when you fill it from tension. Typically the bigger problem is the earth and groundwater pressure pushing the walls inward and the bottom up when one empties a pool, especially with liner pools. It seems probable that expansion movement when the pool is filled will not be significant.
While I'm hopeful that the spring measurement will find Jim the 1.73 more inches, it doesn't seem too likely. However, If NBAC provides the .002 inches pool cert, I think usms should accept the meet swims including Jim's. At the time of the meet everyone relied on that cert being presented by NBAC; a 50m -.002 inches pool is not a measurable difference from 50m + .000 inches pool.
I think usms has gone out of its way to be accomodating and not too officious, first trusting that the certification would be provided by NBAC before the meet and then when they never received it, sending an engineer to measure the pool so that the swims, if the pool was proven certified, could be counted. When i first read of Jim's plight, it seemed a conspiracy against him, but after looking closely at the circumstances it seems those involved, including Jim, were and still are trying to do the right thing and that the problem is just life being imperfect. :worms:
Jim, tell us your hot oil massage and girl friends are real! I can't take anymore fiction.
Jim, tell us your hot oil massage and girl friends are real! I can't take anymore fiction.
Brilliant summation of the engineering details, Bill! As for my planned trip to the sanitarium for Sudden Self Esteem Shock Syndrome, paid for by my fully compliant USMS health insurance for any injuries suffered at a sanctioned event and/or practice, I must say that I am still awaiting advice on how to put in a claim.
Perhaps Chris could tell me who on the board is in charge of health insurance claims and/or where I can find the necessary paperwork. The longer SSES Syndrome goes untreated, alas, the more intractable it can become. If I were to leave for the Bahama sanitarium/tropical waterpark/hydrotherapy institute tomorrow, I dare say I could recover to perhaps 80 percent full function with the help of only two girl, hot oil massages as pioneered at the Deepak Chopra Center for Spiritual and Prostate Health in La Jolla, California.
However, with each passing day and health insurance delay, my problems intensify. Who knows how many additional girls and how much additional hot oil (perhaps with myrr added as an adjuvant) will be necessary to treat me if USMS, like NBAC, stonewalls me on this perfectly legitimate request for information?
