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.
It had to be engineers (or liberals) that wanted to give away what wasn't theirs (or there) to give. I have spent 25 years dealing with (and sometimes enlightening) engineers, and with all respect, this has gotten far from the issue.
If the pool is short, you don't report.
By the way, steel tapes are just fine, thank you, if you use the proper tensioner in the proper manner while measuring. The stretch is accounted for in the sag (or vice versa), and everyone is happy.
And I doubt that FINA would be happy accepting times from a pool that was 4MM short (that's 5/32 of an inch), even if the resolution was explained to them.
Resolution be damned, I would rather swim in a pool that was 6 inches long (and I have, on occasion) than one that was one angstrom short. The latter would just seem wrong.
It had to be engineers (or liberals) that wanted to give away what wasn't theirs (or there) to give. I have spent 25 years dealing with (and sometimes enlightening) engineers, and with all respect, this has gotten far from the issue.
If the pool is short, you don't report.
By the way, steel tapes are just fine, thank you, if you use the proper tensioner in the proper manner while measuring. The stretch is accounted for in the sag (or vice versa), and everyone is happy.
And I doubt that FINA would be happy accepting times from a pool that was 4MM short (that's 5/32 of an inch), even if the resolution was explained to them.
Resolution be damned, I would rather swim in a pool that was 6 inches long (and I have, on occasion) than one that was one angstrom short. The latter would just seem wrong.
