Aside from the affected meet hosts, the real losers of this dilemma are the swimmers from the two affected SCM meets who stand to lose their placing in the USMS Top Ten. In short order, R&T will release the 2001 SCM Top Ten and we’ll discover who was denied placement on the list because their worthy performances were conducted in pools they believed were legitimate for sanctioned competition.
I do not yet know if I will be one of those people, but I expect to be. You might remember the story of my 1500m Freestyle that turned into the 1550m Freestyle (or rather the 1498.7m Freestyle that was the 1548.68m Freestyle) at the NWZ meet. My time was 19:04.76, a 50-second improvement from my previous lifetime best. (The 19:55 swim as well as a 20:05 swim both put me into the SCM Top Ten in those years)
Many folks in the discussion forums have sounded off about how important they view the Top-Ten rankings. I’ll simply say that in my case, if I had been told by the meet director before my 1500m Freestyle that the pool was less than 25m long, I probably would not have swam the event. There was no other swimmer in my age group at the NWZ meet. My “competition” was the other 30-34-year-olds nationwide.
The impending ruling by the EC could very likely demand that I and other swimmers at the affected SCM meets make a sacrifice for the betterment of USMS. Honestly, I do not know what greater good is supposed to result from locking out certain swimmers from the Top Ten. I do not even know if this sacrifice is even necessary.
The EC certainly is considering the relationship between USMS and its swimmers in making its judgment. It is inevitable that some swimmers will be affected negatively by whatever “final” decision the EC renders. My contention through all of this has been that (1) deserving swimmers ought to be appropriately recognized for there outstanding achievements, and (2) that if we must do harm to swimmers and strain the USMS-to-swimmer relationship, we affect the least amount of harm upon the least number of swimmers. I’m glad that we are soon to be bringing this matter to a close, but I do think that this decision does harm to more people than necessary, as well as to the wrong people.
If it turns out that the 10th place 30-34 swimmer went slower than 19:04.76, I will be happy to congratulate him publicly and acknowledge that he earned his position. If there is any kind of positive outcome from all of this that I can guarantee, this is it.
It seems to me that for an event as long as the 1500 meters that your overall pace is not going to be materially altered much, one way or the other, by the addition or subtraction of a handful of meters. This would not be the case, obviously, for much shorter races like the 50 or 100 or even the 200. But for 1500s and above, it's ludicrous to think this will make a big difference on your pace.
Why not simply compute your average pace over the course of the race, calculate your rate of speed per meter, then make a mathematical adjustment to compute your "exact" time for a 1500. If you swam a few meters short, and your pace was, say, .66 seconds per meter, simply multiply it out and add it to your time. If you swam a few meters extra, do the same but subtract this.
Perhaps such simple mathematical modeling to get an extremely precise estimate runs against the grain of swimming purists. But it seems a reasonable solution to me given that you swam this in good faith, and the "model" truly would make up for any minor discrepancies in distance swum.
It seems to me that for an event as long as the 1500 meters that your overall pace is not going to be materially altered much, one way or the other, by the addition or subtraction of a handful of meters. This would not be the case, obviously, for much shorter races like the 50 or 100 or even the 200. But for 1500s and above, it's ludicrous to think this will make a big difference on your pace.
Why not simply compute your average pace over the course of the race, calculate your rate of speed per meter, then make a mathematical adjustment to compute your "exact" time for a 1500. If you swam a few meters short, and your pace was, say, .66 seconds per meter, simply multiply it out and add it to your time. If you swam a few meters extra, do the same but subtract this.
Perhaps such simple mathematical modeling to get an extremely precise estimate runs against the grain of swimming purists. But it seems a reasonable solution to me given that you swam this in good faith, and the "model" truly would make up for any minor discrepancies in distance swum.
