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.
Well that is already the rule, it is just how you interpret "on file with USMS," which is the phrase used in the rule book for both records and TT. Our current practice is basically: for records it means it must be in the central database, for non-record TTs it means on file with the LMSC (which are of course part of USMS).
So, specifically in the case of the NBAC meet, it sounds like rule 105.1.6 wasn't followed (even allowing for current practices of non-record TT measurements being on file with the LMSC), as the rule states the times "shall not be accepted unless certification of course length accompanies them or is on file with USMS or FINA". This is where people are having issues with accepting the whole situation. A major rule wasn't followed, in admittedly good faith, but it doesn't change the fact that a rule wasn't followed. This is why I had said a while back that Jim wouldn't have been nearly as upset if his times hadn't made it into the preliminary TT- it would have been easy enough to say that rule 105.1.6 wasn't followed and therefore his time wasn't able to be included.
...And just this year we also changed the policy and the Guide To Operations for TTRs so that all new pool certifications, not just for pools that had records set, should be sent into Walt so that he can add them to the database. Walt tells me that these two changes have resulted in a surge of submissions of measurements to him; it's a start.
Maybe full implementation in E2EEM is not needed but it would help a lot. At the very least having the certification info in a real database, accessed thru a web form, would be a vast improvement over what we have now: an Excel spreadsheet that some people have trouble reading. The reason E2EEM implementation would be helpful is, among other things, it would standardize LMSC practices and (hopefully) force everybody to input measurements...
Although I feel bad that Walt has lots of extra work, I'm glad the policy is now to have people send in measurements to a centralized place. I've never really understood why it's taken this long to implement a change in policy for something that is this important. And I agree that the implementation of E2EEM will help immensely, but I'm curious how people have trouble reading the spreadsheet. It's not really that complicated, is it? I think possibly the most confusing part (which shouldn't be that confusing in actuality), is that each course has its own tab, so pools are listed multiple times.
...Realize also that currently the single most common "violation" of the LMSC Standards (ie, USMS' "best practices" document) is the timely uploading of meet results. I may be misremembering, but someone at Convention told me that compliance with the results standard (S8 on the standards document) is something like 50-60% by LMSC. Adding additional measurement requirements to the process thru E2EEM (ie, measurements must be included with the results) would make things worse.
Oh trust me- on this one, I know. I've heard parts of many a LMSC Development conference call talking about this. Although, I think at this point, the compliance rate isn't quite that bad. I think it was that low at implementation, but it's gotten better as the standards have been in place longer.
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!
I'm curious how people have trouble reading the spreadsheet. It's not really that complicated, is it? I think possibly the most confusing part (which shouldn't be that confusing in actuality), is that each course has its own tab, so pools are listed multiple times.
Yes that's it: people miss the tabs. The fact that you even know that Excel workbooks can have multiple worksheets probably puts you in a minority. :-)
There is ample opportunity to check the preliminary list for inaccuracies prior to the publication of the final results.
You believe that? This is an honest question, because I hear from some people who don't live on the forums that this isn't the case at all. There is something like two weeks between publication of the TT lists and the deadline for corrections. Sure we can lengthen that time but there is already something like 3 months between season end and the publication of the TT lists.
Just so that I am understanding this correctly...
It will take a smarter man than me to figure out which of your questions are serious... :-)
But I think you are asking me to affirm that there is an element of "the honor system" to the measurements associated with TTs, and whether unscrupulous people can game the system. The answer is yes. I mean heck: if I set a USMS record at a USA-S meet I can take the measurements in support of submitting my own record application. Maybe there is a teensy conflict there?
The way I see it: there will always be an honor system component to TT and Record measurements unless USMS contracts with a surveyor to do all measurements and that person submits the results to a disinterested third party. I don't think even the most ardent pro-measurement person advocates that.
So yes: your problem is basically that you didn't find the right bribe for the Maryland TT Recorder... :bolt:
Yes that's it: people miss the tabs. The fact that you even know that Excel workbooks can have multiple worksheets probably puts you in a minority. :-)
Ouch. That's seriously basic functionality in Excel. I guess using multiple spreadsheets nearly all day, every day in every job I've had since college makes me an Excel wizard ;)
Really? That is the best you could do? I am not going to bother pointing out the obvious parallels, but that last part was just petty. I guess I should expect nothing more.
How is Jim being petty? Attention Jim Thornton, to paraphrase an 80's ceral commerical, "little mikey doesn't like it"
I would propose that the "final" top ten list can only be changed if it is determined that a swim was fraudulent (e.g. a swimmer falsified his or her age). There is ample opportunity to check the preliminary list for inaccuracies prior to the publication of the final results.
In my experience, there has always been enough time for me to see my swims drop out of the top ten. On the other hand, if the consensus is that there is insufficient time, then allow more time to correct the preliminary list prior to publication of the final one. Or don't call it final.
How about if it was the Daily Double and you wagered all of it for $8,000 or so, and got it right but forgot to phrase it as a question?
Moot point because I'd never forget to phrase it as a question! :)
