When is it OK to disallow swims

RE: When is it OK to disallow swims

knelson — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 10:22:53 GMT

Thanks Chris. I sent a note to Walt and he told me he'll look into it. Actually I checked and the 35-39 winner (Bo Simpson) is in the rankings. You sure you were looking at SC rather than LC? edit: just got an email from Walt and it's fixed! He said he also added the other swimmers from that meet.

RE: When is it OK to disallow swims

Chris Stevenson — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 06:26:16 GMT

Bumping this for a FINA rankings question. Last year I swam Canadian Nationals and knew my times most likely would not count for USMS Top Ten due to the pool measurement requirements, but I did NOT know I'd also get omitted from the world rankings, yet that seems to be the case. My 1500 time of 17:42.67 should have ranked me 7th, but it doesn't show up. What gives? Is Walt Reid the person to contact about FINA Top Ten? Canada should have submitted the results of this meet but it doesn't look like they did; I checked the (Canadian) winners of the 1500m free in two other age groups (35-39 and 45-49) and they didn't appear in the world rankings either. Walt is in charge of FINA Top 10, you can reach him at usmsrecords AT usms DOT org.

RE: When is it OK to disallow swims

knelson — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 12:35:43 GMT

RE: When is it OK to disallow swims

Michael Heather — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 08:21:29 GMT

I thank you for the compliments, but must make one correction in the event my fellow competitors think I am on supplemental hormones. As much as my belly might look like it, I am not now nor have I ever been carrying young and/or unhatched eggs internally (the suckling and scrambled variety, however, are a different story). Say what you want about Jim Thornton, but he is not gravid. Jim Thornton is no gravida. Perhaps fecund would have been more appropriate? Maybe you have more of those 1:01s available at some time in the future?

RE: When is it OK to disallow swims

rodent — Sat, 16 Feb 2013 02:06:40 GMT

Just when you think this thread is dead it springs back to life! www.youtube.com/watch Actually Chris, I think the thread is more like Freddy Kruger, who invades your dreams while you are sleeping and even if you kill him he keeps coming back every time you fall asleep until he gets you. SwimAvsFan, If the pool was 7 inches short Jim's swim still should count. I am certain he can swim 7 inches in a second. However, I think he figured out what lane he was in and he was in a lane measured short by less than 7 inches. In the circumstances present here, the swim should count. Bob, It looks like Jim is winning the poll 25-9. You can not assume that the USMS members who did not vote disagree with the majority. And, there is still the possibility that NBAC will measure the pool this spring and find that it is the correct length, as they have maintained from the beginning.:canada:

RE: When is it OK to disallow swims

swimmieAvsFan — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 11:27:40 GMT

swimmieAvsFan, I think we agree on principal on most issues. Hopefully, there will be some beneficial change in the rules as a result of this dialogue. By a valid time I mean that USMS can reasonably rely on that time as accurate w/i a margin of reasonable error. In other words, the time, 61 seconds, was reasonably accurate and the course, 100LCM, was also reasonably accurate. Although the pool may have been @ 2 inches short (which NBAC denies), that would not have made a significant difference in this case, due to the fact that the time was the fastest of the year by over a second. By "valid" I mean accurate enough to be relied upon. It was in fact the fastest time, which in my opinion is the most important consideration. Okay, so what if the course really was the 7 inches short that the professional measurement says some lanes were? Would that still be "reasonably accurate" enough to keep declaring that Jim's swim was valid? What if the lane had been 10 inches short? 20 inches short? Where does it end in your world? Basically, if the pool is short, it's short, and it doesn't matter by how much. Times have been thrown out for the pool being 0.25 inches short, which is much closer to "reasonably accurate" than 7 inches, or even 2 inches. And it doesn't matter that he was a second faster than the next fastest swim- Jim's swim was in a pool that wasn't long enough by the way our rules read. End of story, time doesn't count. P.S.- I also fixed my screen name up there, since SwimFan is a different user...

RE: When is it OK to disallow swims

Rob Copeland — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 11:11:14 GMT

Pitchforks and flaming torches rarely implement meaningful change to code.Tell that to King Louis XVI according to the poll most members feel it should not be stricken. And let’s break this down… It = Jim’s outstanding swim Most members = 0.0417% of USMS members Stricken = 1 afflicted or overwhelmed by or as if by disease, misfortune, or sorrow; 2 hit or wounded by or as if by a missile Therefore “according to the poll 0.0417% of USMS members members feel Jim’s outstanding swim should not be afflicted by disease.” Well if you ask me, I’d say shame on the 99.9583% of you want to see Jim’s swim hit by a missile.

RE: When is it OK to disallow swims

Michael Heather — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 10:30:06 GMT

according to the poll most members feel it should not be stricken. Forum members certainly have an opinion, but in order to make change, you must all participate in the process upon which USMS has agreed and set forth. The forums are a social gathering, sometimes closer akin to a mob than a town hall. Pitchforks and flaming torches rarely implement meaningful change to code.

RE: When is it OK to disallow swims

Chris Stevenson — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 06:00:27 GMT

Just when you think this thread is dead it springs back to life! www.youtube.com/watch

RE: When is it OK to disallow swims

jim thornton — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 01:52:47 GMT

Therefore “according to the poll 0.0417% of USMS members members feel Jim’s outstanding swim should not be afflicted by disease.” Well if you ask me, I’d say shame on the 99.9583% of you want to see Jim’s swim hit by a missile. Rob, correct me if I am wrong here, but you are talking about warheads filled with pathogenic agents capable of inflicting me with diseases, right? WMDs, in other words. Much as I hate to suggest it, but I don't see any other alternative but to go to War against the overwhelming majority of USMS members. I'll tell Rummy and *** to start drawing up plans. God darn those magnificent bastards! They were right after all!

RE: When is it OK to disallow swims

jim thornton — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 01:38:12 GMT

I can understand why Jim is upset at losing his AA, but it is definitely not because of a byzantine or nefarious system rigged to thwart his sublime and gravid greatness. I thank you for the compliments, but must make one correction in the event my fellow competitors think I am on supplemental hormones. As much as my belly might look like it, I am not now nor have I ever been carrying young and/or unhatched eggs internally (the suckling and scrambled variety, however, are a different story). Say what you want about Jim Thornton, but he is not gravid. Jim Thornton is no gravida.

RE: When is it OK to disallow swims

swimmieAvsFan — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 12:44:03 GMT

...Jim's time is valid and according to the poll most members feel it should not be stricken.:canada: The bolded part of this sentence is what you are continually missing- Jim's time swum at the UMBC meet, as dictated by USMS rules on the books at the time of his swim, is not valid. I hate saying that, because the situation all around sucks, to be frank, but rules are rules (and policies are policies), and since they weren't followed in this case, his time doesn't make the cut to be a valid, submittable time. I voted in your poll, and while I don't think it should be stricken (from a strictly personal standpoint), I can't argue with the rules and policies in place that have made it an invalid time. What I can do, and what you could do as well, is come up with a proposal that would prevent something like this from happening again, and go through the proper channels to get any applicable rules modified, via a vote in the HOD at the next rules-year convention. Continually claiming Jim's time is valid isn't going to do any good.

RE: When is it OK to disallow swims

rodent — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 11:38:08 GMT

First, you are mistaken to equate FINA and USMS. FINA is a worldwide governing organization for all aquatic sports, USMS is only a national governing body, not directly recognized by FINA. USMS, as well as all other American aquatic sports, is represented by United States Aquatic Sports, the only national body that represents USA to FINA. Second, USMS believes that there is no difference in importance or value to records or top ten times, and further believes it would be disingenuous to allow faulty records for either. USMS pool measurement records are more stringent than USA Swimming because we want them that way and can afford to demand it of ourselves. No other reason. The reason we got that way is a funny observation, but not germane to this issue. I can understand why Jim is upset at losing his AA, but it is definitely not because of a byzantine or nefarious system rigged to thwart his sublime and gravid greatness. It is a system designed by his peers to assiduously and sometimes eventually exact all of the records of USMS. The point is that since swimming is an international sport, USMS should be on the same page as the other governing bodies which it is not currently. You wrote that USMS does not "believe" that WR's are of greater importance to swimming than a single Top 10 time; that is your opinion, not the "belief" of the USMS membership, or for that matter the belief of USMS, which as an organization has rules, not "beliefs". Jim's time is valid and according to the poll most members feel it should not be stricken.:canada:

RE: When is it OK to disallow swims

rodent — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 04:48:54 GMT

SwimFan, I think we agree on principal on most issues. Hopefully, there will be some beneficial change in the rules as a result of this dialogue. By a valid time I mean that USMS can reasonably rely on that time as accurate w/i a margin of reasonable error. In other words, the time, 61 seconds, was reasonably accurate and the course, 100LCM, was also reasonably accurate. Although the pool may have been @ 2 inches short (which NBAC denies), that would not have made a significant difference in this case, due to the fact that the time was the fastest of the year by over a second. By "valid" I mean accurate enough to be relied upon. It was in fact the fastest time, which in my opinion is the most important consideration.

RE: When is it OK to disallow swims

Michael Heather — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 12:56:50 GMT

I think that solution would be easy and less expensive. I also like a system that is universally applied throughout USMS, FINA and all federations. An AR or NR is a big deal, the Top 10 is 3 times a year every year. I don't see the need for routinely measuring pools for all those swims. First, you are mistaken to equate FINA and USMS. FINA is a worldwide governing organization for all aquatic sports, USMS is only a national governing body, not directly recognized by FINA. USMS, as well as all other American aquatic sports, is represented by United States Aquatic Sports, the only national body that represents USA to FINA. Second, USMS believes that there is no difference in importance or value to records or top ten times, and further believes it would be disingenuous to allow faulty records for either. USMS pool measurement records are more stringent than USA Swimming because we want them that way and can afford to demand it of ourselves. No other reason. The reason we got that way is a funny observation, but not germane to this issue. I can understand why Jim is upset at losing his AA, but it is definitely not because of a byzantine or nefarious system rigged to thwart his sublime and gravid greatness. It is a system designed by his peers to assiduously and sometimes eventually exact all of the records of USMS.

RE: When is it OK to disallow swims

Chris Stevenson — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 12:08:59 GMT

Chris, I don't agree with requiring measurements of pools for the Top 10 I can only say that it appears that a majority of USMS members disagree with you on that score. I honestly don't quite know what to make of the double standard here. Many of the same people who say that USMS takes TT too seriously also routinely raise a huge stink about it. Which is it? Obviously I don't get a fair sampling because people email me about problems with TT a lot, but all the evidence I see is that many people take TT very seriously indeed, and insist on standards. Those who don't possibly shouldn't get their tails twisted in a knot about it. That's not to say that people don't have a right to get frustrated with snafus. I just think the argument that TTs aren't important enough to bother with measurements is invalid based on the evidence I'm seeing. So what am I missing with that logic? Bottom line, a WR or AR from the meet should be stricken a Top 10 should not. One problem though: there are MANY records that are not discovered until well after the meet, for whatever reason. This happens pretty much every season. If you don't measure at the meet then you'll lose those records. As bad as Jim feels about losing an AA ranking, imagine how much worse it would be to lose an AR/WR. For this reason, I can't see how you can have different measurement standards for TT and records. I think either you don't require measurements for either or you require for both. USA-S and FINA do just that, though. But from what I can see every single solution to this measurement issue has flaws: USMS, USA-S and FINA, probably others too. If it were an easy problem it would have been solved by now. But I will tell you: if the House of Delegates decide that measurements aren't needed for TT then Records & Tabulation will certainly adhere to the "will of the people." What we're not going to do is ignore rules that we don't like or that are difficult to implement.

RE: When is it OK to disallow swims

Chris Stevenson — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 07:00:54 GMT

I can only say that it appears that a majority of USMS members disagree with you on that score. ... But I will tell you: if the House of Delegates decide that measurements aren't needed for TT then Records & Tabulation will certainly adhere to the "will of the people." What we're not going to do is ignore rules that we don't like or that are difficult to implement. As a quick follow-up. USMS could always decide to go the route of FINA: pool certification is required for records but not TT, and no bulkhead measurements are ever required. Strictly from an implementation standpoint this is a pretty workable system. It also solves my concern about missing records because it turns out that certification can happen after the fact. I wasn't involved when the HOD decided to adopt the current system so I don't know what discussions/debates took place. Like I said, my personal experiences are that our current rules reflect the "will of the people" but I also don't necessarily get a representative sampling of our membership. Maybe people are willing to revisit the issue after years of implementation. I know that Records and Tabulation is happy with our current rules because I asked last year, so any different proposal will have to come from another source. But if people here want something else then propose a concrete alternative. Like I said, one of R&T's jobs is to try to manage the system to best implement the current rules and if you think the HOD wants something else then "campaign" for it. Healthy discussion on the subject is good. As a footnote: I know that USMS has submitted a proposal that FINA adopt USMS' standards, not the other way around in which case those standards would apply internationally as well as domestically. Of course FINA might not agree to adopt them, it wouldn't be the first time that FINA didn't listen to a USMS proposal (USMS' proposal on tech suits was less strict than the one FINA eventually adopted for masters).

RE: When is it OK to disallow swims

rodent — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 02:46:39 GMT

RE: When is it OK to disallow swims

Former Member — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 12:53:34 GMT

Why all the hostility? Your panties are really in a twist, buttercup. Someone step on your happy meal? Couldn't be me, you don't even know me. Sweet cheeks, you must have forgotten all the spiteful comments that you directed at me. I haven't forgotten them.

RE: When is it OK to disallow swims

rodent — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 11:07:14 GMT

Chris, I don't agree with requiring measurements of pools for the Top 10, unless the circumstances warrant it. If Jim was swimming 1:05 and went 1:01 and other swimmers had significant drops in time then a measurement is necessary because the time might be the result of a short pool. But it doesn't make sense to measure pools and to repeatedly measure bulkheads. I am glad you changed the rule on foreign meets, but the bulkhead measurement rule needs to be re-evaluated and there should be some discretion. In Jim's case the length of the pool was not why he had the fastest time. He swam faster than anyone else. Also, I do not either believe or disbelieve NBAC. They might be wrong but I don't know all the facts. NBAC was not the only group that blew it w/ the pool. The swimmers were not negligent. Bottom line, a WR or AR from the meet should be stricken a Top 10 should not.

RE: When is it OK to disallow swims

Chris Stevenson — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 09:15:48 GMT

a very badly thought out rule Which rule is that?

RE: When is it OK to disallow swims

rodent — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 07:52:34 GMT

Don't lose sight of the issue here, was Jim's time in fact the fastest 100 free time in his age group last year. In other words did Jim swim 100M (w/i) a reasonable margin of error, faster than any other US male 60-64. The answer is yes. Although the pool may have been 1 or 2 inches short Jim's time was over a second faster than the 2nd fastest time. So as a result of the unduly strict Top 10 pool measurement rules, a valid time (the fastest in the US) is being stricken. This is an unfortunate and unintended result of a very badly thought out rule and a poorly considered approach to applying the rule. USMS says that they are aware of the problem and will try to fix it. But, that doesn't help Jim.

RE: When is it OK to disallow swims

jim thornton — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 02:08:05 GMT

www.youtube.com/watch I think this is a great sentiment. Honestly, I did not mean any offense; on the other hand, I will defend to the death Wookie's right to defend me to the death! And on this note, can't we just all get along for the old people and the kids? In my mind, I am the (good) people's (vanity) champion! That is more than enough for me, and much more than I deserve! Perhaps magic and reality are the same, after all.

RE: When is it OK to disallow swims

Former Member — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 17:54:39 GMT

I'm new here, but that seems kind of harsh. Also not anywhere near the topic. That's not as harsh as the person really deserved. Calling Jim "petty" for expressing his frustration over the TT process wasn't on topic either. Granted, I knew my post was off topic, but I was sticking up for a friend. The person that my post was directed toward is about as charming as roadkill.

RE: When is it OK to disallow swims

Former Member — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 16:16:22 GMT

How is Jim being petty? Attention Jim Thornton, to paraphrase an 80's ceral commerical, "little mikey doesn't like it" I'm new here, but that seems kind of harsh. Also not anywhere near the topic. On topic, could USMS leave the top ten listings after some amount of time, and just erase the official times if the pool is the wrong length (or whatever other parameter they use)? Top ten seems like just a vanity listing anyway.