When is it OK to disallow swims

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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:

...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.

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.

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!

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