The Losers

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
    Former Member
    Phillip, Building the pools is black and white. It has to be larger than 25.02 meters because it must accomodate the touch pads. I am sure the specs must read something like 25.02 to 25.05 to follow the FINA "a tolerance of plus 0.03 metre in each lane minus 0.00 metre on both end walls at all points from 0.3 metre above to 0.8 metre below the surface of the water is allowed. " this must include the touch pads. The touch pads are all about the same thickness, but there needs to be a fraction of leeway there too. FINA says "These measurements should be certified by a surveyor or other qualified official, appointed or approved by the Member in the country, in which the pool is situated. Tolerances cannot be exceeded when touch panels are installed." So with FINA if a surveyor uses a laser it would be OK, but USMS states steel or fiberglass tape measurement. So lets go on to what we need for rule changes: 1) A change to allow a surveyor or other qualified official to measure a pool with steel or fiberglass tape or laser. This for most pools is a one time measurement, unless changes to the pool are made, or if there is a moveable bulkhead. 2) Have all pool lengths recorded in a database. Right now it is the Top 10 recorder in each LMSC that is responsible. Include yards, and all meters pools so Top 10 results are covered, not just World Records. USMS keeps a data base for meters pools, we need to include yards. 3) Make sure the meet certification forms let the meet host know the pool measurement is a requirement, esp. if the pool has changed or has a moveable bulkhead. 4) Adopt FINA tolerances for pool lengths and change the pool length certification form on Appendix B to state pool length tolerances, right now it states "no tolerances have been established." Lets make some good rules changes this year. Wayne McCauley
Reply
  • Former Member
    Former Member
    Phillip, Building the pools is black and white. It has to be larger than 25.02 meters because it must accomodate the touch pads. I am sure the specs must read something like 25.02 to 25.05 to follow the FINA "a tolerance of plus 0.03 metre in each lane minus 0.00 metre on both end walls at all points from 0.3 metre above to 0.8 metre below the surface of the water is allowed. " this must include the touch pads. The touch pads are all about the same thickness, but there needs to be a fraction of leeway there too. FINA says "These measurements should be certified by a surveyor or other qualified official, appointed or approved by the Member in the country, in which the pool is situated. Tolerances cannot be exceeded when touch panels are installed." So with FINA if a surveyor uses a laser it would be OK, but USMS states steel or fiberglass tape measurement. So lets go on to what we need for rule changes: 1) A change to allow a surveyor or other qualified official to measure a pool with steel or fiberglass tape or laser. This for most pools is a one time measurement, unless changes to the pool are made, or if there is a moveable bulkhead. 2) Have all pool lengths recorded in a database. Right now it is the Top 10 recorder in each LMSC that is responsible. Include yards, and all meters pools so Top 10 results are covered, not just World Records. USMS keeps a data base for meters pools, we need to include yards. 3) Make sure the meet certification forms let the meet host know the pool measurement is a requirement, esp. if the pool has changed or has a moveable bulkhead. 4) Adopt FINA tolerances for pool lengths and change the pool length certification form on Appendix B to state pool length tolerances, right now it states "no tolerances have been established." Lets make some good rules changes this year. Wayne McCauley
Children
No Data