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
Emmett: On an 8 lane, 8 foot deep pool, lowering the water level by .8 meters would change the load on the end wall by about 42 tons. (1.13 lbs/in^2 times the number of square inches of the wall. The loss of pressure would be subtractive for all of the wall below 0.8 meters). Of course, it depends on the construction of the pool how much the walls will move. I can imagine much more sophisticated calculations, using moments of load (or whatever it is called). We are not talking about compression of concrete, but flex. If the earth behind the wall has settled, or been washed away by rain in spots, things could move more - anyway, one should be check it out. (Is it *really* true that once a pool is built, its length does not change?)
I think you're right, the walls, if they move, would bow in. Maybe the side lanes would even get shorter, as the side walls should bow in, also, pulling the end walls together, so I am not sure the differential check you suggest would work.
The .8 meters, and the qualified surveyor commment, came from the FINA rules, as laid out by Wayne. I understand the USMS rules are different, though there seems to be a move toward convergence (see Wayne's latest post.)
Construction of the pool could be black and white, if everyone agreed on what it meant. For example, specifying a length without a tolerance is not specifying a length at all. You will not get a civil engineer to agree that a length and tolerance specification like 25.00 (-0.00 +0.02) means that a pool can't *really* be 24.998 meters long (if you could measure it to that precision). The long established definitions of tolerances are how civil engineers avoid losing lots of legal suits.
Wayne: some record of the type and thicknesses of touch pads used at each pool should be maintained also, as changing the make may change the pool length, or is it totally standardized?
Is cost of establishing pool length, and who pays for it, an issue? And like Emmett, I fear we will lose lots of pools by these more stringent rules.
Emmett: On an 8 lane, 8 foot deep pool, lowering the water level by .8 meters would change the load on the end wall by about 42 tons. (1.13 lbs/in^2 times the number of square inches of the wall. The loss of pressure would be subtractive for all of the wall below 0.8 meters). Of course, it depends on the construction of the pool how much the walls will move. I can imagine much more sophisticated calculations, using moments of load (or whatever it is called). We are not talking about compression of concrete, but flex. If the earth behind the wall has settled, or been washed away by rain in spots, things could move more - anyway, one should be check it out. (Is it *really* true that once a pool is built, its length does not change?)
I think you're right, the walls, if they move, would bow in. Maybe the side lanes would even get shorter, as the side walls should bow in, also, pulling the end walls together, so I am not sure the differential check you suggest would work.
The .8 meters, and the qualified surveyor commment, came from the FINA rules, as laid out by Wayne. I understand the USMS rules are different, though there seems to be a move toward convergence (see Wayne's latest post.)
Construction of the pool could be black and white, if everyone agreed on what it meant. For example, specifying a length without a tolerance is not specifying a length at all. You will not get a civil engineer to agree that a length and tolerance specification like 25.00 (-0.00 +0.02) means that a pool can't *really* be 24.998 meters long (if you could measure it to that precision). The long established definitions of tolerances are how civil engineers avoid losing lots of legal suits.
Wayne: some record of the type and thicknesses of touch pads used at each pool should be maintained also, as changing the make may change the pool length, or is it totally standardized?
Is cost of establishing pool length, and who pays for it, an issue? And like Emmett, I fear we will lose lots of pools by these more stringent rules.
