This thread is in response to Jim Thorton's thread about his AA time being disallowed.I think that if a swimmer swims in a USMS sanctioned meet and that the time gets to the "official" Top Ten list that it should count.Otherwise one could go back and check the length of ,say the Amarillo pool from the first Masters Nationals and if it was 1 cm short disallow the swims.There must be a statute of limitations and I think it should be when the official TT times are posted.
My point was that Jim's time should not be disallowed simply because we can imagine such scenarios.
It wasn't.
But the opposite applies too. I think that Kirk was correct that many people are responding solely to Jim's situation, and in one swim (100 free) at that. But the meet had lots of other swims that affected TT rankings. For example, a relay at that meet had been ranked #1 before the meet was pulled and no one knows about it (nor the relay that was "promoted").
You say "The truly fair thing to do would have been to allow the official results to stand." First of all, the results are still official. Jim wasn't DQ'd or anything. The times from the meet just aren't considered eligible for Top 10 consideration.
But more importantly I think there can be legitimate disagreement about what the fair thing to do is. You and others are thinking about this solely from Jim's perspective but his isn't the only one.
So here's a slippery slope argument. Suppose a facility manager, or meet director, or even top 10 recorder measured the pool to verify bulkhead placement and found out that it was short. Suppose that person concealed the fact and the times were submitted and accepted as Top 10 times. Then -- after the "final" lists were published -- the true measurements turned up.
What should be done? This is not a "disqualifying" offense. The results are official even if the pool is short, so it is not really analogous to Kirk's example. The times just should not have been submitted for Top 10.
Do you think this is such an unlikely scenario? Pool measurements are done on the honor system. I think most people are honorable. But I am not so naïve as to think that everyone is.
My point was that Jim's time should not be disallowed simply because we can imagine such scenarios.
It wasn't.
But the opposite applies too. I think that Kirk was correct that many people are responding solely to Jim's situation, and in one swim (100 free) at that. But the meet had lots of other swims that affected TT rankings. For example, a relay at that meet had been ranked #1 before the meet was pulled and no one knows about it (nor the relay that was "promoted").
You say "The truly fair thing to do would have been to allow the official results to stand." First of all, the results are still official. Jim wasn't DQ'd or anything. The times from the meet just aren't considered eligible for Top 10 consideration.
But more importantly I think there can be legitimate disagreement about what the fair thing to do is. You and others are thinking about this solely from Jim's perspective but his isn't the only one.
So here's a slippery slope argument. Suppose a facility manager, or meet director, or even top 10 recorder measured the pool to verify bulkhead placement and found out that it was short. Suppose that person concealed the fact and the times were submitted and accepted as Top 10 times. Then -- after the "final" lists were published -- the true measurements turned up.
What should be done? This is not a "disqualifying" offense. The results are official even if the pool is short, so it is not really analogous to Kirk's example. The times just should not have been submitted for Top 10.
Do you think this is such an unlikely scenario? Pool measurements are done on the honor system. I think most people are honorable. But I am not so naïve as to think that everyone is.
