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.
Most people possibly don't know this, but here goes. Measurements only need to accompany USMS/FINA record applications, not Top 10 submissions. The LMSC (usually the Top 10 Recorder) is supposed to keep those on file. When Mary Beth is processing results she checks the meet facility and checks if the pool length certification is in the national database. If it isn't, she asks the TTR if the pool has been certified. If the pool has a bulkhead she also asks if the bulkhead placement was verified as is required by the rules. Some TTRs send in the measurements in response to these questions but not all do, nor is it required.
Just so that I am understanding this correctly, it is possible that the TT lists are conceivably riddled with times set in pools where the measurement should have been sent in but wasn't? Maybe even where the pool was, in fact, never measured at all? Or was measured, found lacking, but the pool manager or other functionary, hoping not to have to give any of the meet fee revenue back to the injured parties, decided to remain silent?
If, say, someone who finds such possibilities abhorrent down to the youngest corpuscles of his marrow were to ferret out such a potentially fraudulent TT time set in a 50 LCM pool in, maybe, 1997, then go out on his or her own initiative and re-measure that pool today, determine that it is 1.74 inches short in a certain lane, report this finding along with all requisite documentation, would it be in keeping with the spirit and letter of the law for USMS to issue an erratum for whatever criminal mastermind it was that set a TT time in that lane and has been eluding punishment for years?
If so, perhaps USMS should consider paying a small bounty to the Purity Police among us to search out such egregiously unjust "cold cases" and make things fair for everyone and restore dignity to the victims! If the very thought that someone might have benefited by .05 seconds doesn't make your flesh crawl, can one truly call oneself a human being? How can one sleep till such violations of all things sacred are caught, the violator chastised, and the equilibrium of the universe restored?
But if retroactive TT yankings from 1997 are not routinely done, in fact, not even allowable, then are the elite members of USMS Rectitude Squad tacitly conceding that there is a statute of limitations? Or that pool conditions could have changed so much between today and 1997 that it's impossible to know if a contemporary measurement reflects a pool's length back then?
If the former, how much time must elapse before the statute of limitations kicks in?
If the latter, how much time between a swim and a pool's after-the-fact measurement (years? months? a different season of the year?) must elapse before the uncertainty factor becomes persuasive?
If some other factor accounts for this unequal application of the Hammer of God, if, indeed, the Hammer falls randomly, please do tell!
Or if I am misunderstanding what you mean, never mind!
Fodder for additional rumination:
From Wikipedia: "Rules lawyering" is the following of the letter (sometimes referred to as RaW or Rules as Written) over, or contrary to, the spirit (sometimes referred to as RaI or Rules as Intended) of the law. It is used negatively to describe the act of manipulating the rules to achieve a personal advantage. It may also mean acting in an antisocial, irritating manner while technically staying within the bounds of the rules.
No, Jim can do better. But for the sake of keeping this thread somewhat on track, I sincerely hope Jim refrains from unleashing WMD's from his literary arsenal.
Yes, Master!
Most people possibly don't know this, but here goes. Measurements only need to accompany USMS/FINA record applications, not Top 10 submissions. The LMSC (usually the Top 10 Recorder) is supposed to keep those on file. When Mary Beth is processing results she checks the meet facility and checks if the pool length certification is in the national database. If it isn't, she asks the TTR if the pool has been certified. If the pool has a bulkhead she also asks if the bulkhead placement was verified as is required by the rules. Some TTRs send in the measurements in response to these questions but not all do, nor is it required.
Just so that I am understanding this correctly, it is possible that the TT lists are conceivably riddled with times set in pools where the measurement should have been sent in but wasn't? Maybe even where the pool was, in fact, never measured at all? Or was measured, found lacking, but the pool manager or other functionary, hoping not to have to give any of the meet fee revenue back to the injured parties, decided to remain silent?
If, say, someone who finds such possibilities abhorrent down to the youngest corpuscles of his marrow were to ferret out such a potentially fraudulent TT time set in a 50 LCM pool in, maybe, 1997, then go out on his or her own initiative and re-measure that pool today, determine that it is 1.74 inches short in a certain lane, report this finding along with all requisite documentation, would it be in keeping with the spirit and letter of the law for USMS to issue an erratum for whatever criminal mastermind it was that set a TT time in that lane and has been eluding punishment for years?
If so, perhaps USMS should consider paying a small bounty to the Purity Police among us to search out such egregiously unjust "cold cases" and make things fair for everyone and restore dignity to the victims! If the very thought that someone might have benefited by .05 seconds doesn't make your flesh crawl, can one truly call oneself a human being? How can one sleep till such violations of all things sacred are caught, the violator chastised, and the equilibrium of the universe restored?
But if retroactive TT yankings from 1997 are not routinely done, in fact, not even allowable, then are the elite members of USMS Rectitude Squad tacitly conceding that there is a statute of limitations? Or that pool conditions could have changed so much between today and 1997 that it's impossible to know if a contemporary measurement reflects a pool's length back then?
If the former, how much time must elapse before the statute of limitations kicks in?
If the latter, how much time between a swim and a pool's after-the-fact measurement (years? months? a different season of the year?) must elapse before the uncertainty factor becomes persuasive?
If some other factor accounts for this unequal application of the Hammer of God, if, indeed, the Hammer falls randomly, please do tell!
Or if I am misunderstanding what you mean, never mind!
Fodder for additional rumination:
From Wikipedia: "Rules lawyering" is the following of the letter (sometimes referred to as RaW or Rules as Written) over, or contrary to, the spirit (sometimes referred to as RaI or Rules as Intended) of the law. It is used negatively to describe the act of manipulating the rules to achieve a personal advantage. It may also mean acting in an antisocial, irritating manner while technically staying within the bounds of the rules.
No, Jim can do better. But for the sake of keeping this thread somewhat on track, I sincerely hope Jim refrains from unleashing WMD's from his literary arsenal.
Yes, Master!
