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
This issue may be tired to some, but it is yet to be decided. Also, Dan introduced several new twists and arguments that should be addressed. Here are the arguments, as I see them:
1) The NW zone and meet organizers followed all of the rules and regulations in getting sanctioned. The national organization agreed with that and sanctioned the meet. Top ten times are collected from all sanctioned meets, which are sanctioned iff all of the rules and regulations are followed, to the best knowledge of the organizers and the national office. To those who say "but the rules specify a specific pool length" I say, a rule without a procedure of enforcement is not enforcible. As an analogy, if the rules say the speed limit is 60, there needs to be a mechanism of enforcement. If the police, or automatic radar system, or whatever, does not catch the speeder, a ticket can not be issued.
2) Punishment for rules broken, but not caught by the procedure, are not retroactivly applied. I would not get a ticket if I went to the police and said "I sped yesterday on I-101." Nor will I get disqualified if I told the referee that I one-touched my butterfly turn.
3) the removal of sanction after the meet is completed is a very dangerous precedent. As said by both sides, just *where* do we draw the line? I say we draw the line at following the rules and regulations that lead to sanctioning a meet.
4) We are not talking about running future meets in a short pool. We are talking about meets that have already happened. So the *where do we draw the line* argument is not relevent. Obviously, we make sure our future meets are in a pool of the proper length.
5) This particular discrepancy of length leads to insignificant time differences, so the whole issue of 'fairness' to other swimmers who did not swim in the meet is moot. Other factors, such as altitude, pool depth, . . . have much more significant effects on the times in the top ten. I say with confidence that *no one* will be kept off the top ten because of the small difference in pool length.
6) Given all of the environmental variables, anyone that takes the times in the top ten to hundreths of seconds seriousness is a fool. The whole list is for fun, and the process of getting into it should be inclusive - that is, it can be a goal for everyone, and technicalities should not prevent a legitimate effort from getting on it.
7) Given all of the above, I think the swimmers in the NW zone have a good chance of getting shafted. It *would* be unfair. No procedures were violated, regulations should not be retroactive, the efforts are legitimate, and no one gets hurt if the times are allowed to count.
There. The final answer, and on this thread, too.:)
This issue may be tired to some, but it is yet to be decided. Also, Dan introduced several new twists and arguments that should be addressed. Here are the arguments, as I see them:
1) The NW zone and meet organizers followed all of the rules and regulations in getting sanctioned. The national organization agreed with that and sanctioned the meet. Top ten times are collected from all sanctioned meets, which are sanctioned iff all of the rules and regulations are followed, to the best knowledge of the organizers and the national office. To those who say "but the rules specify a specific pool length" I say, a rule without a procedure of enforcement is not enforcible. As an analogy, if the rules say the speed limit is 60, there needs to be a mechanism of enforcement. If the police, or automatic radar system, or whatever, does not catch the speeder, a ticket can not be issued.
2) Punishment for rules broken, but not caught by the procedure, are not retroactivly applied. I would not get a ticket if I went to the police and said "I sped yesterday on I-101." Nor will I get disqualified if I told the referee that I one-touched my butterfly turn.
3) the removal of sanction after the meet is completed is a very dangerous precedent. As said by both sides, just *where* do we draw the line? I say we draw the line at following the rules and regulations that lead to sanctioning a meet.
4) We are not talking about running future meets in a short pool. We are talking about meets that have already happened. So the *where do we draw the line* argument is not relevent. Obviously, we make sure our future meets are in a pool of the proper length.
5) This particular discrepancy of length leads to insignificant time differences, so the whole issue of 'fairness' to other swimmers who did not swim in the meet is moot. Other factors, such as altitude, pool depth, . . . have much more significant effects on the times in the top ten. I say with confidence that *no one* will be kept off the top ten because of the small difference in pool length.
6) Given all of the environmental variables, anyone that takes the times in the top ten to hundreths of seconds seriousness is a fool. The whole list is for fun, and the process of getting into it should be inclusive - that is, it can be a goal for everyone, and technicalities should not prevent a legitimate effort from getting on it.
7) Given all of the above, I think the swimmers in the NW zone have a good chance of getting shafted. It *would* be unfair. No procedures were violated, regulations should not be retroactive, the efforts are legitimate, and no one gets hurt if the times are allowed to count.
There. The final answer, and on this thread, too.:)
