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.
Originally posted by Philip Arcuni
Finally, I am curious as to the enforcement differences between a length discrepancy from the required length, and a discrepancy with other requirements for a competition pool, such as height of flags or the location of the lane crosses. Dan, the rest of you, and I have succeeded in demonstrating that three of the top four SCM meets west of the Mississippi were in non-regulation pools (NW zone (pool length), Pacific Championship (flag height), and SW zone (lane crosses)). (Representing well over 1/4 of all USMS membership) Why not throw all those times out?
Article 107 of the rule book deals with facilities standards. The requirements are pretty detailed, even including the proper lighting for an indoor meet (in case you're interested, it's supposed to be 100 foot-candles!). But all standards are not treated the same. The people who wrote the rule book (and I was not one of them) recognized that there are some things beyond the meet director's control, and so these standards are not as rigidly enforced as others. So there are three levels of "mandatory." There's --"mandatory requirement for all competition" (article 107.1.1). Then there's --"predicated upon facility availability, LMSCs may waive strict compliance with these requirements when sanctioning local competition" (article 107.1.2). Finally there's --"mandatory requirement for national championship meets and international competition" (article 107.1.3).
The standard for lane crosses (article 107.4) is designated . If I found out after the meet I am in charge of that the lane crosses at Lancaster Aquatic Center at the University of Kentucky are 2.1 meters from the wall instead of 2.0 meters (as specified in article 107.4.1), then I would try to do better next year, but I would still turn times from the meet in for records and Top Ten. But pool length is designated . If I found out after the meet that the pool is only 24.99 yards long, then I was not in compliance with article 107.2.1C, and therefore would probably not turn the times in. I would do the same thing as the Oregon meet director did, and bring it to the attention of my LMSC, and let the LMSC decide.
All of the requirements for backstroke flags (article 107.13) are designated . No exceptions to the rules. So the level of enforcement SHOULD be the same as for pool length. Following the same logic as used in the decision to reject the times from the NW Zone meet, times from the meet at which the flags were not at the proper height should not have been submitted, because all of the relevant rules were not followed.
Now here's my usual caveat that I'm not interpreting the rules, or saying whether I think those who have interpreted have done so properly. I'm just answering Phil's question about what the rule book says about the level of enforcement.
The only thing I will admit to agreeing wholeheartedly with is Wayne's statement that being a meet director is HARD!
Meg Smath
Editor, USMS Rule Book
Originally posted by Philip Arcuni
Finally, I am curious as to the enforcement differences between a length discrepancy from the required length, and a discrepancy with other requirements for a competition pool, such as height of flags or the location of the lane crosses. Dan, the rest of you, and I have succeeded in demonstrating that three of the top four SCM meets west of the Mississippi were in non-regulation pools (NW zone (pool length), Pacific Championship (flag height), and SW zone (lane crosses)). (Representing well over 1/4 of all USMS membership) Why not throw all those times out?
Article 107 of the rule book deals with facilities standards. The requirements are pretty detailed, even including the proper lighting for an indoor meet (in case you're interested, it's supposed to be 100 foot-candles!). But all standards are not treated the same. The people who wrote the rule book (and I was not one of them) recognized that there are some things beyond the meet director's control, and so these standards are not as rigidly enforced as others. So there are three levels of "mandatory." There's --"mandatory requirement for all competition" (article 107.1.1). Then there's --"predicated upon facility availability, LMSCs may waive strict compliance with these requirements when sanctioning local competition" (article 107.1.2). Finally there's --"mandatory requirement for national championship meets and international competition" (article 107.1.3).
The standard for lane crosses (article 107.4) is designated . If I found out after the meet I am in charge of that the lane crosses at Lancaster Aquatic Center at the University of Kentucky are 2.1 meters from the wall instead of 2.0 meters (as specified in article 107.4.1), then I would try to do better next year, but I would still turn times from the meet in for records and Top Ten. But pool length is designated . If I found out after the meet that the pool is only 24.99 yards long, then I was not in compliance with article 107.2.1C, and therefore would probably not turn the times in. I would do the same thing as the Oregon meet director did, and bring it to the attention of my LMSC, and let the LMSC decide.
All of the requirements for backstroke flags (article 107.13) are designated . No exceptions to the rules. So the level of enforcement SHOULD be the same as for pool length. Following the same logic as used in the decision to reject the times from the NW Zone meet, times from the meet at which the flags were not at the proper height should not have been submitted, because all of the relevant rules were not followed.
Now here's my usual caveat that I'm not interpreting the rules, or saying whether I think those who have interpreted have done so properly. I'm just answering Phil's question about what the rule book says about the level of enforcement.
The only thing I will admit to agreeing wholeheartedly with is Wayne's statement that being a meet director is HARD!
Meg Smath
Editor, USMS Rule Book
