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.
Parents
Former Member
That's the whole point Paul, where do we stop? Do we stop at invalidating results because of a small length discrepancy, or do we continue, and invalidate results because of mis-set flags, or invalidate results because of the temperature of the pool not being as required, or because the S&T judge was not paying attention? In fact, I am so confused by your comment in the last paragraph that I am sure I do not understand the logic of it, it went way over my head, even after reading it several times. This is not an argument for time adjustment to adapt to different conditions, but whether results at a sanctioned meet should be accepted.
I disagree that I am arguing to break or drop any rules. As I read it, and I know that this will be a controversial statement, what is proposed by some is the creation of new regulations to inforce some kind of idealized conception of how the sport should be. Not only that, but the regulations will be enforced retroactively, on meets that have already taken place.
No one here is arguing that meets should be run in pools that are *known* to be too short (or that procedures to insure proper length not be inacted.) Organizers of meets that are desired to be sanctioned should perform the actions as required by the rules and regulations. The meet is sanctioned and run according to the rules and regulations. The results should count.
Life is unfair. Yes, if the pool is short the swimmers in that meet will have slightly better times. But unfairness happens a lot. If I one-hand my fly turn, but the judge does not see it, my time will still count for records and top ten. Tough, all you people who did it right will have to accept it.
As for the basis of our sport, I do not agree that it is 'times.' Instead, it is a meet where I compete against other swimmers. I do not let times in a top ten list determine if I am faster than someone else. I save that evaluation for when we are in the same pool, in the same heat. That is why the olympic champion gets more respect and fame than the world record holder.
That's the whole point Paul, where do we stop? Do we stop at invalidating results because of a small length discrepancy, or do we continue, and invalidate results because of mis-set flags, or invalidate results because of the temperature of the pool not being as required, or because the S&T judge was not paying attention? In fact, I am so confused by your comment in the last paragraph that I am sure I do not understand the logic of it, it went way over my head, even after reading it several times. This is not an argument for time adjustment to adapt to different conditions, but whether results at a sanctioned meet should be accepted.
I disagree that I am arguing to break or drop any rules. As I read it, and I know that this will be a controversial statement, what is proposed by some is the creation of new regulations to inforce some kind of idealized conception of how the sport should be. Not only that, but the regulations will be enforced retroactively, on meets that have already taken place.
No one here is arguing that meets should be run in pools that are *known* to be too short (or that procedures to insure proper length not be inacted.) Organizers of meets that are desired to be sanctioned should perform the actions as required by the rules and regulations. The meet is sanctioned and run according to the rules and regulations. The results should count.
Life is unfair. Yes, if the pool is short the swimmers in that meet will have slightly better times. But unfairness happens a lot. If I one-hand my fly turn, but the judge does not see it, my time will still count for records and top ten. Tough, all you people who did it right will have to accept it.
As for the basis of our sport, I do not agree that it is 'times.' Instead, it is a meet where I compete against other swimmers. I do not let times in a top ten list determine if I am faster than someone else. I save that evaluation for when we are in the same pool, in the same heat. That is why the olympic champion gets more respect and fame than the world record holder.
