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
Thanks Jeff. The concepts of measurement, uncertainty, and how to specify them are beaten into the heads of every engineer. Otherwise, things won't fit together.
I am not trying to find 'wriggle room' but trying to clarify the rules, so we are all on the same page.
I am a little annoyed at the people that consider it a 'black and white' issue; these people are oversimplifying it. I have pointed out how the rules are vague and open to interpretation. I have even pointed out how the specification of a pool length, or even the measurement of a pool length (see another thread) can be uncertain. I have pointed out how the consequences of a decision may not be what was desired. We can disagree about the interpretation of the rules, and even agree to disagree about them (at least I have), but lets not pretend it is simple. The desire to reduce the complexity of an issue so that the answer (whether correct or not) seems obvious is human nature, but intellectually careless.
I *do* think that there is an honest argument for the decision as it came out relating to the top ten. I also think that all people in this discussion were concerned with fairness, following the rules and regulations, and regretted what happened to the people in the NW zone and Virginia meet. No hard feelings here.
My final comment: Man! those top ten times are fast!
Thanks Jeff. The concepts of measurement, uncertainty, and how to specify them are beaten into the heads of every engineer. Otherwise, things won't fit together.
I am not trying to find 'wriggle room' but trying to clarify the rules, so we are all on the same page.
I am a little annoyed at the people that consider it a 'black and white' issue; these people are oversimplifying it. I have pointed out how the rules are vague and open to interpretation. I have even pointed out how the specification of a pool length, or even the measurement of a pool length (see another thread) can be uncertain. I have pointed out how the consequences of a decision may not be what was desired. We can disagree about the interpretation of the rules, and even agree to disagree about them (at least I have), but lets not pretend it is simple. The desire to reduce the complexity of an issue so that the answer (whether correct or not) seems obvious is human nature, but intellectually careless.
I *do* think that there is an honest argument for the decision as it came out relating to the top ten. I also think that all people in this discussion were concerned with fairness, following the rules and regulations, and regretted what happened to the people in the NW zone and Virginia meet. No hard feelings here.
My final comment: Man! those top ten times are fast!
