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 have to disagree with Philip Arcuni on his post with seven arguments.
The pool in question had tile work done on it, the sanction should not have been given until the pool was re-measured. The pool should be measured before the meet and after the meet. This just shows that even experienced meet hosts can't remember everything. You cannot believe how hard it is to run a meet, even a small one. There is a line in the ASCA Coaches certification pages, "if you have run a national Championship meet, you deserve a place in heaven, you have already been through hell."
None of your analogies apply at all to the situation, the pool was too short. The North West Zone people have been honest and above reproach. Yes a mistake was made, you can conduct all the polls you want. But the pool was too short. They are not removing the meet sanction, they are not accepting the times for consideration.
You are trying to make a black and white rule into a grey area. There is no grey area on pool lengths, it had to be greater than 25.00 meters with touch pads attached.
And with meters meets, we are not alone in the world. If you allow Top 10 times for this meet, what will the rest of the world think of us. The rest of the world has a Top 10 list, our credibility would be damaged if we submitted a meet that was too short. I have swum in Australia, Paris and Scotland. The Masters are very professional, all timers are qualified after years of experience. The pools are measured, the times double checked. If a friend in Scotland swims a faster time than me, I am happy for him and certain he would have beat me in a race, because the rules were followed. What you consider as unfair would be considered cheating to the rest of the world. To your comment on qualifyers for olympic time trials, yes there would be a slam dunk, the swimmers would loose in any court of arbitration, because issues like these have come up before. FINA is black and white. If a time was swum in a pool too short, it simply never happened.
Bert Petersen had the luxury of having another meet, down in Long Beach. That meet started late because the pool length was measured and the bulkhead had to be moved to the correct position. He has moved on, we all should do the same and make sure USMS follows through with modifications to the Rules to preclude this from happening again.
Jim Thornton, the rules require a steel or fiberglass tape measurement, as of now laser-measurements are not official. The LMSC Top ten recorder is supposed to keep a record of all pool measurements in an LMSC. You talk about wriggle room for judgment, in fact FINA does allow for wriggle room, the pool must have been greater than 25.00 meters with touch pads attached, with a slight length extra distance allowed of 0.02 meters.
Wayne McCauley
I have to disagree with Philip Arcuni on his post with seven arguments.
The pool in question had tile work done on it, the sanction should not have been given until the pool was re-measured. The pool should be measured before the meet and after the meet. This just shows that even experienced meet hosts can't remember everything. You cannot believe how hard it is to run a meet, even a small one. There is a line in the ASCA Coaches certification pages, "if you have run a national Championship meet, you deserve a place in heaven, you have already been through hell."
None of your analogies apply at all to the situation, the pool was too short. The North West Zone people have been honest and above reproach. Yes a mistake was made, you can conduct all the polls you want. But the pool was too short. They are not removing the meet sanction, they are not accepting the times for consideration.
You are trying to make a black and white rule into a grey area. There is no grey area on pool lengths, it had to be greater than 25.00 meters with touch pads attached.
And with meters meets, we are not alone in the world. If you allow Top 10 times for this meet, what will the rest of the world think of us. The rest of the world has a Top 10 list, our credibility would be damaged if we submitted a meet that was too short. I have swum in Australia, Paris and Scotland. The Masters are very professional, all timers are qualified after years of experience. The pools are measured, the times double checked. If a friend in Scotland swims a faster time than me, I am happy for him and certain he would have beat me in a race, because the rules were followed. What you consider as unfair would be considered cheating to the rest of the world. To your comment on qualifyers for olympic time trials, yes there would be a slam dunk, the swimmers would loose in any court of arbitration, because issues like these have come up before. FINA is black and white. If a time was swum in a pool too short, it simply never happened.
Bert Petersen had the luxury of having another meet, down in Long Beach. That meet started late because the pool length was measured and the bulkhead had to be moved to the correct position. He has moved on, we all should do the same and make sure USMS follows through with modifications to the Rules to preclude this from happening again.
Jim Thornton, the rules require a steel or fiberglass tape measurement, as of now laser-measurements are not official. The LMSC Top ten recorder is supposed to keep a record of all pool measurements in an LMSC. You talk about wriggle room for judgment, in fact FINA does allow for wriggle room, the pool must have been greater than 25.00 meters with touch pads attached, with a slight length extra distance allowed of 0.02 meters.
Wayne McCauley
