There's a story on swimswam (swimswam.com/.../) about Anthony Ervin swimming at USMS Nationals and the first comment states:
There is nothing better than going to a USMS meet and seeing swimmers like Anthony Ervin compete. It makes you feel like a 12 year old fan again!
In the same breath I will ask; what is the point of letting their times count as USMS records? They are professional two-a-day swimmers in the same age group categories as young professionals who might make a few practices per week. There is no way real Masters swimmers are able to train to be able to beat them. The professional swimmers wouldn’t be able to beat themselves with the same schedule afforded to the a real Masters swimmer. Thoughts?
My thoughts are that this is ridiculous. Anyone who is registered in USMS has as much right to set a record as anyone else. Who exactly is the arbiter of what a "real masters swimmer" is?
It doesn't matter if it's Biondi or Gaines or Adrian. If they swim according to the rules and break a record, they get the record. That is the only thing that's fair - anything else is rigging the game. Cycling and triathlon have it wrong. There should be no distinction between "elites" and Masters. Some masters swimmers are good enough for Olympic competition, some aren't. Some are young, some are old. Some people can train more or better than others. We should appreciate and include all of them.
Frankly, it doesn't affect anybody except for those who come in second. The records should count. Otherwise, it's more of the mamby pamby BS of "we don't keep score because it might hurt someone's feelings." And in that case, the records would then mean absolutely nothing.1,000% YES. Let's give everyone a trophy too while we're at it.
My thoughts are that this is ridiculous. Anyone who is registered in USMS has as much right to set a record as anyone else. Who exactly is the arbiter of what a "real masters swimmer" is?
I am pretty confident in saying that usa cycling has a rule that of you held a pro license, then you need to sit out a year before competing in one of the amateur categories. Possibly two years.
That seems like a reasonable accommodation I could see being used.
The idea is that there is a difference between professional and amateur competition - for the most part. It obviously is fuzzy in some cases.
USA triathlon doesn't have a similar rule. However in both of those federations, you hold a "pro" or "elite" license and if you don't have that license aren't eligible for pro competitions; by the same token someone holding a pro or elite license doesn't race in the same division as amateurs. That isn't exactly the same for swimming, in swimming anyone can join usa swimming and if you are fast enough you can go to nationals or world championships.
Nevertheless I'd like to see the usa cycling type idea adopted. This would keep people from going right from elite competition to masters competition.
So they could still compete, but no less than a year after their last elite competition. We'd have to come up with some definition for "elite" competition, but it could be done.
Is one of the differences in pro vs. am in cycling that the pros are drug tested and the amateurs are not? If so, this would be a difference from USMS where there is no drug testing.
Cycling for sure, and I believe in triathlon, there are monetary prizes for winners. My brother rode pro. Even in their masters competitions winners get $$$. I'm sure that's a reason for the separation.
I really don't see the relevance to the question, but all members of usa cycling and usa triathlon are subject to in-competition and out of competition tests. In the past two years both organization have issued suspensions of amateurs for testing positive for performance enhancing drugs.
If special rules were made to stop "so and so" from setting USMS records, how would someone like Dara Torres be handled?
She was doing USMS in 2006 and 2007, before she decided to take another shot at the 2008 Olympics.
Why a USMS meet and not a USS meet? That is the question.
Perhaps because these swimmers are already swimming plenty of high-level USAS or FINA meets here and abroad. Masters is a change of pace for them. There's also the opportunity to swim events they might not normally get to swim. To me a good enough reason is because they want to.
I am going to go ahead and play devil's advocate. I do not have a problem with a retired world class swimmer breaking records at a master's meet, but a professional swimmer training for world class competition is unfair in all levels. Why is a world class swimmer midway through his prime swimming at a master's meet? Is he/she using the meet as a trial run before a bigger meet? In that case why not swim at short course/long course regions, or another sponsored United States Swimming meet?
Why a USMS meet and not a USS meet? That is the question.
Of course it's fair. Everyone's definition of world-class is different, and people hit their primes at different times. The unfair thing is to exclude people for being too good or working too hard.
Look at it from a different perspective: say some 30-something masters swimmer who never swam in high school or college works his or her butt off for eight years and qualifies for an Ultraswim or the Trials or something equally impressive. Is this newly-elite swimmer suddenly ineligible to set Masters records?
Excluding "elites" serves no purpose other than to punish people who are faster than other people. There's no good reason (or method) to do it.
