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.
Phil
There are a couple of statements I wish to comment on:
"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. "The USMS national body does not sanction meets. All the meets are sanctioned by the the Local Masters Swim Committee. The NW Zone meet would have been sanctioned by Oregon Masters. The 2001 USMS Short Course Nationals at Santa Clara was sanctioned by the Pacific Masters Swimming Committee.
To be sanctioned by Pacific Masters and I would guess by many of the other LMSC's, the meet director has to fill out sanctioning meet request forms. One of the forms asks for the length of the course. As the Oregon/Virginia short pool problem has brought out holes in how we look at pool length, Pacific Masters at the last monthly meeting voted to measure all the competition pools.
"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. " There is no ex post facto rule here, the pool length is specific proscribed in the rules. When the pools were measured, the pools were found short.
"the removal of sanction after the meet is completed is a very dangerous precedent. " I have not read where the sanction is being pulled, the pools were measured and found short. There still was a meet and the meet was still covered by USMS insurance. If what Dan said is true, then it appears that the times will not be recognized for records and top ten.
michael
Phil
There are a couple of statements I wish to comment on:
"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. "The USMS national body does not sanction meets. All the meets are sanctioned by the the Local Masters Swim Committee. The NW Zone meet would have been sanctioned by Oregon Masters. The 2001 USMS Short Course Nationals at Santa Clara was sanctioned by the Pacific Masters Swimming Committee.
To be sanctioned by Pacific Masters and I would guess by many of the other LMSC's, the meet director has to fill out sanctioning meet request forms. One of the forms asks for the length of the course. As the Oregon/Virginia short pool problem has brought out holes in how we look at pool length, Pacific Masters at the last monthly meeting voted to measure all the competition pools.
"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. " There is no ex post facto rule here, the pool length is specific proscribed in the rules. When the pools were measured, the pools were found short.
"the removal of sanction after the meet is completed is a very dangerous precedent. " I have not read where the sanction is being pulled, the pools were measured and found short. There still was a meet and the meet was still covered by USMS insurance. If what Dan said is true, then it appears that the times will not be recognized for records and top ten.
michael
