When is it OK to disallow swims

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.

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.

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...

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:

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?

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?

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.

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.