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
I was really hoping that my first comment in the Forums would not have to be on this thread. This is a tired one at best. I read every comment from the original thread up to the last two from Phil and Paul. I guess my two cents are up: There is a reason that FINA and USMS recognizes courses as 25 meter and 50 meter (and USMS only 25 yard) and not 22, 37, 62 or any number a builder chooses: a "level playing field" is desired for competition, records, etc. The NW Zone didn't purposefully run a meet in a "short" pool; it just ended up that way. That doesn't mean that we can turn our heads and allow the results in. I'll guarantee they won't make the mistake again. We have rules in this sport that inherently must be followed. They don't take away from the fun and enjoyment but they are parameters to make the competition fair. If the flags, pool distances, lane lines, starts are all equal, it comes down to what these are designed to: individual performance. If one of these variables is altered, where is the old standard "fair play?" What about the swimmers who competed and earned their top ten swims in "legitimate pools?" If NW times are included, a number of the legitimate swims likely get bumped. There are no clear winners here. There have been no correct answers on the Forums either. Records will likely exclude the times and we will all have to move onto SCY. It is unfortunate, but just (in my opinion, of course).
I was really hoping that my first comment in the Forums would not have to be on this thread. This is a tired one at best. I read every comment from the original thread up to the last two from Phil and Paul. I guess my two cents are up: There is a reason that FINA and USMS recognizes courses as 25 meter and 50 meter (and USMS only 25 yard) and not 22, 37, 62 or any number a builder chooses: a "level playing field" is desired for competition, records, etc. The NW Zone didn't purposefully run a meet in a "short" pool; it just ended up that way. That doesn't mean that we can turn our heads and allow the results in. I'll guarantee they won't make the mistake again. We have rules in this sport that inherently must be followed. They don't take away from the fun and enjoyment but they are parameters to make the competition fair. If the flags, pool distances, lane lines, starts are all equal, it comes down to what these are designed to: individual performance. If one of these variables is altered, where is the old standard "fair play?" What about the swimmers who competed and earned their top ten swims in "legitimate pools?" If NW times are included, a number of the legitimate swims likely get bumped. There are no clear winners here. There have been no correct answers on the Forums either. Records will likely exclude the times and we will all have to move onto SCY. It is unfortunate, but just (in my opinion, of course).
