When is it OK to disallow swims

From what I have heard through the rumor mill, USMS has recently discovered a number of cases where people have changed their ages so as to do better in the TT rankings. This became possible after collating all the TT in a single data base, which made it easy to determine that if swimmer X, who made the TT at age, say, 27, makes it again 30 years later at age 60, something fishy is going on. Jim you may appreciate this: there is a flip side to this phenomenon and possibly it is more common (Anna Lea can say for sure): vanity aging. That's when (usually middle-aged) swimmers enter a younger age than their actual years. It puts them at a competitive disadvantage with respect to swimming achievements but perhaps they are interested in something other than TT rankings...

This involved riding in the back seat of a motor vehicle for a big part of the run. Seattle To Portland is an annual 204 mile weekend bike ride. It is a *ride*, not a race. Most participants take 2 days to complete it but some do it in one day. On Saturday afternoon in Portland, on the side streets in the last couple miles before the finish area, you can see cyclists climbing out of cars and getting back on their bikes so they can ride across the finish line and get a "One Day Rider" patch. I earned my patch...

In regard to pool measurement and the sanction. For USMS meets, the sanction should not be issued until the pool measurement has been filed. At least, that is how it is supposed to work. Unfortunately, USA-S requirements are different. I believe they only require measurement for championship events. I "heard" that is because so many older pools are used an if the measurement was required, there would be very few meets for all those swimmers. (I can't verify that statement, but it makes sense to me).

The pool should be legal BEFORE the meet is sanctioned !!!!! That's nice, in theory, but isn't really possible for bulkhead pools. You have to measure them before and after the meet. As Chris pointed out (in different words), our American aversion to the metric system probably contributed to the mistake. Chris, I looked at the measurement form. I think the boxed notice at the bottom probably belongs at the top if it's meant to be seen and acted on. It could be extended with the English equivalents of the metric distances as well.

Jim you may appreciate this: there is a flip side to this phenomenon and possibly it is more common (Anna Lea can say for sure): vanity aging. That's when (usually middle-aged) swimmers enter a younger age than their actual years. Imagine what we would see if we had to list our weight.

Chris, I looked at the measurement form. I think the boxed notice at the bottom probably belongs at the top if it's meant to be seen and acted on. It could be extended with the English equivalents of the metric distances as well. Seems reasonable, I'll suggest that change. A bigger problem IMO is that the whole second page was omitted from the Rules Book for some reason. If all people do is go by the Rule Book -- particularly if there isn't good wireless connectivity at the meet -- then they aren't going to go the USMS website to look up those procedures.

The pool should be legal BEFORE the meet is sanctioned !!!!!

The problem I have always had with the "slippery slope" argument In this case I don't think there's a slippery slope. The poll is stated as "Should the Top Ten list be altered after it is official." And the options were "No,that is what official means" or "Yes,if there is a problem there should be no statute of limitations ." No slippery slope. Yes, Allen was thinking of Jim's situation, but the poll is very specific: should top ten be altered after it's official? There was no mention of what reasons would or would not be valid for altering it. So, it seems to me, if you believe that there are reasons for altering Top Ten after it is official then you should vote "Yes..." It shouldn't really matter what you think about Jim's particular situation.

If this makes it a "slippery slope" then so be it. I can imagine scenarios where a time should be disallowed after results or Top Ten listings are "final" and because of this I felt like I should vote "Yes" on the poll.

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.