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.
Sorry to be the lone dissenting voice in this thread so far, but I feel it necessary to voice my opinion. It's unfortunate that the meet was conducted in a facitily that did not meet the criteria required in our sport to recognize times, I can understand Dan's (and the other swimmers) frustration.
The more important point however is that our "sport" when participated in during a "competition" is defined by one factor alone: time. We can go round and round about what Masters stands for but I think its far more "harmful" to the sport of swimming to drop the rules that govern its meets than it is for everyone to move on (and swim the next meet, with a vengenence).
When I hear that we will "do harm to swimmers" and "strain the USMS-swimmer relationships" if we don't break the rules to accomadate those who swam this meet it concerns me greatly.
No one is asking for "perfection", no one is saying that these folks didn't get screwed, what we are saying is don't sacrafice the basic underlying principles that apply to our sport when recording Top 10s, National, State, Local, etc. "records". In my humble opinion, going down that road opens a far bigger can of worms (where do we stop, short pools, mis-set flags, "Ts" to far from the wall, poor weather, how about different size athletes? a weight division? Altitude adjustments?)
Sorry to be the lone dissenting voice in this thread so far, but I feel it necessary to voice my opinion. It's unfortunate that the meet was conducted in a facitily that did not meet the criteria required in our sport to recognize times, I can understand Dan's (and the other swimmers) frustration.
The more important point however is that our "sport" when participated in during a "competition" is defined by one factor alone: time. We can go round and round about what Masters stands for but I think its far more "harmful" to the sport of swimming to drop the rules that govern its meets than it is for everyone to move on (and swim the next meet, with a vengenence).
When I hear that we will "do harm to swimmers" and "strain the USMS-swimmer relationships" if we don't break the rules to accomadate those who swam this meet it concerns me greatly.
No one is asking for "perfection", no one is saying that these folks didn't get screwed, what we are saying is don't sacrafice the basic underlying principles that apply to our sport when recording Top 10s, National, State, Local, etc. "records". In my humble opinion, going down that road opens a far bigger can of worms (where do we stop, short pools, mis-set flags, "Ts" to far from the wall, poor weather, how about different size athletes? a weight division? Altitude adjustments?)
