The Losers

I've already established my position on this issue; I am entirely in sympathy with Dan. To keep deserving people off a fun list because of a technicality (and the length discrepancy is a technicality - way small) is meanspirited and does not follow the spirit of Masters. The regulatory aspects that Dan discusses in other threads are scary. I swam recently at a SCM championship where the backstroke flags were a non-regulation height. It certainly messed up a few of my turns, and made a lot more difference than a couple of centimeters in length. Is the entire meet to be desanctioned because it was not completely perfect? We are opening up a terrible can of worms here. Perfection is too much to ask an already overburdened meet host. Jim - Dan can certainly calculate his pace and his corrected time. The question is whether his time for the 154x.xx distance can be in the top ten list, even with the extra almost-50 meters. Here is one discussion where I won't miss the anonymous posters.

It seems to me that for an event as long as the 1500 meters that your overall pace is not going to be materially altered much, one way or the other, by the addition or subtraction of a handful of meters. This would not be the case, obviously, for much shorter races like the 50 or 100 or even the 200. But for 1500s and above, it's ludicrous to think this will make a big difference on your pace. Why not simply compute your average pace over the course of the race, calculate your rate of speed per meter, then make a mathematical adjustment to compute your "exact" time for a 1500. If you swam a few meters short, and your pace was, say, .66 seconds per meter, simply multiply it out and add it to your time. If you swam a few meters extra, do the same but subtract this. Perhaps such simple mathematical modeling to get an extremely precise estimate runs against the grain of swimming purists. But it seems a reasonable solution to me given that you swam this in good faith, and the "model" truly would make up for any minor discrepancies in distance swum.

Sorry to be the lone dissenting voice in this thread so far, but I feel it necessary to voice my opinion. It's unfortunate that the meet was conducted in a facitily that did not meet the criteria required in our sport to recognize times, I can understand Dan's (and the other swimmers) frustration. The more important point however is that our "sport" when participated in during a "competition" is defined by one factor alone: time. We can go round and round about what Masters stands for but I think its far more "harmful" to the sport of swimming to drop the rules that govern its meets than it is for everyone to move on (and swim the next meet, with a vengenence). When I hear that we will "do harm to swimmers" and "strain the USMS-swimmer relationships" if we don't break the rules to accomadate those who swam this meet it concerns me greatly. No one is asking for "perfection", no one is saying that these folks didn't get screwed, what we are saying is don't sacrafice the basic underlying principles that apply to our sport when recording Top 10s, National, State, Local, etc. "records". In my humble opinion, going down that road opens a far bigger can of worms (where do we stop, short pools, mis-set flags, "Ts" to far from the wall, poor weather, how about different size athletes? a weight division? Altitude adjustments?)

Since I don't swim too many USMS sanctioned meets--most of the competition around here in Western PA is YMCA Masters--I'm not sure about how different times either qualify or not for USMS Top 10 times. I'm assuming these do not need to be swum in national championship meets but rather in any local or regional competition that's sanctioned by USMS. (If this is NOT the case, ignore the rest of this.) Anyhow, I know that in our YMCA masters league, some of the meets are electronically timed, and some are hand-timed. Depending on the luck of the hand timer "draw", you can sometimes get a highly beneficial time. The reason is the person's reaction time is slow, so they start the watch a split second after the starting horn sounds, then they anticipate your finish and help you out by stopping the watch prematurely on the back end. Net result: you get a significantly better time than you truly deserve. I've been at meets where two hand timers were a full second apart on my time. They split the difference to compute my "final" time, but even so, I feel like I was getting a significant break. My question is this: are all USMS sanctioned meets electronically timed? Have they always been? If not, there are almost certainly Top 10 times that have benefitted from precisely the human error described above. Other questions: are all pools laser-measured down to the hundredth of an inch? What if there's been some geological settling over the years, and a pool has either slightly contracted or elongated? Obviously no one is arguing about nanometers, but if you allow tiny reasonable discrepanices to be considered acceptable, you are, in fact, acknowledging there's some wriggle room for judgment. George Bernard Shaw (I think it was him) once asked a society matron if she would have sex with him for a million dollars. She blushed but ultimately said yes. They he asked her if she would do it for a quarter. "Absolutely not!" she replied. "What kind of a woman do you think I am!?!" "We've already established that," retorted George. "Now we're just haggling over the price." When it comes to this decision about whether to count times for TOP 10 in a slightly off-distance pool, I think this is what it boils down to here in this forum: we're just haggling over the price. "Purists" argue that only the most demanding standards of exactitude can protect our sport from subjectivity. "Relativists" like me argue that some humane pragmatism should be given consideration. I think everyone would agree that A) you shouldn't be able to swim 4 lengths of a 23 yard pool and claim a new record for the 100 yard freestyle, and B) you shouldn't have to require Caltech physicists, armed with laser-guided measurement devices, to assess every pool for exact length before each individual race (in case settling has occurred during a previous swim.) Between these ludicrous extremes exists, one would hope, some middle ground. But where this middle ground lurks is the nature of our spirited haggling.

That's the whole point Paul, where do we stop? Do we stop at invalidating results because of a small length discrepancy, or do we continue, and invalidate results because of mis-set flags, or invalidate results because of the temperature of the pool not being as required, or because the S&T judge was not paying attention? In fact, I am so confused by your comment in the last paragraph that I am sure I do not understand the logic of it, it went way over my head, even after reading it several times. This is not an argument for time adjustment to adapt to different conditions, but whether results at a sanctioned meet should be accepted. I disagree that I am arguing to break or drop any rules. As I read it, and I know that this will be a controversial statement, what is proposed by some is the creation of new regulations to inforce some kind of idealized conception of how the sport should be. Not only that, but the regulations will be enforced retroactively, on meets that have already taken place. No one here is arguing that meets should be run in pools that are *known* to be too short (or that procedures to insure proper length not be inacted.) Organizers of meets that are desired to be sanctioned should perform the actions as required by the rules and regulations. The meet is sanctioned and run according to the rules and regulations. The results should count. Life is unfair. Yes, if the pool is short the swimmers in that meet will have slightly better times. But unfairness happens a lot. If I one-hand my fly turn, but the judge does not see it, my time will still count for records and top ten. Tough, all you people who did it right will have to accept it. As for the basis of our sport, I do not agree that it is 'times.' Instead, it is a meet where I compete against other swimmers. I do not let times in a top ten list determine if I am faster than someone else. I save that evaluation for when we are in the same pool, in the same heat. That is why the olympic champion gets more respect and fame than the world record holder.

I was really hoping that my first comment in the Forums would not have to be on this thread. This is a tired one at best. I read every comment from the original thread up to the last two from Phil and Paul. I guess my two cents are up: There is a reason that FINA and USMS recognizes courses as 25 meter and 50 meter (and USMS only 25 yard) and not 22, 37, 62 or any number a builder chooses: a "level playing field" is desired for competition, records, etc. The NW Zone didn't purposefully run a meet in a "short" pool; it just ended up that way. That doesn't mean that we can turn our heads and allow the results in. I'll guarantee they won't make the mistake again. We have rules in this sport that inherently must be followed. They don't take away from the fun and enjoyment but they are parameters to make the competition fair. If the flags, pool distances, lane lines, starts are all equal, it comes down to what these are designed to: individual performance. If one of these variables is altered, where is the old standard "fair play?" What about the swimmers who competed and earned their top ten swims in "legitimate pools?" If NW times are included, a number of the legitimate swims likely get bumped. There are no clear winners here. There have been no correct answers on the Forums either. Records will likely exclude the times and we will all have to move onto SCY. It is unfortunate, but just (in my opinion, of course).

I for one, though a little tired of the subject, am happy to add my two bits in an atmosphere markedly different from two weeks ago. I understand your frustration, Dan, in that you swam considerably longer than needed to get your time; however, I don't think the times should stand in any official capacity other than in the one immediate one: who won the race? If this were the Olympics that would be the most important question, even over and above a world record. I realize that most of the time we masters adopt a "aw shucks, I don't care who won, but what was my exact time?" attitude, but in this case I feel that only the placings can stand (even if there was no direct competition in one's age group). Yes, one could cite inattentive stroke judges (they always catch me though!), flags, lane ropes, water level (nobody thought of that one, but there was a Cdn Natls where that was a factor) etc., but they are only germane when officially noted. NWZone Champs results & length issue have been officially noted & should not stand for time rankings. NWZone officials in all ways acted honorably & in an open manner.

The pool at this meet was found to be to short, period! The results under the current rules are invalidated, period! If USMS wants to change the rules and alow a variance in pool distances for meets great I'll support it. Congratulations to the swimmers who competed and swam well (or just enjoyed themselves). To those who had times that would have been recognized in the pool had met standards I applaud your efforts and wish you a great SC season. Time to move on for me!

This issue may be tired to some, but it is yet to be decided. Also, Dan introduced several new twists and arguments that should be addressed. Here are the arguments, as I see them: 1) The NW zone and meet organizers followed all of the rules and regulations in getting sanctioned. The national organization agreed with that and sanctioned the meet. Top ten times are collected from all sanctioned meets, which are sanctioned iff all of the rules and regulations are followed, to the best knowledge of the organizers and the national office. To those who say "but the rules specify a specific pool length" I say, a rule without a procedure of enforcement is not enforcible. As an analogy, if the rules say the speed limit is 60, there needs to be a mechanism of enforcement. If the police, or automatic radar system, or whatever, does not catch the speeder, a ticket can not be issued. 2) Punishment for rules broken, but not caught by the procedure, are not retroactivly applied. I would not get a ticket if I went to the police and said "I sped yesterday on I-101." Nor will I get disqualified if I told the referee that I one-touched my butterfly turn. 3) the removal of sanction after the meet is completed is a very dangerous precedent. As said by both sides, just *where* do we draw the line? I say we draw the line at following the rules and regulations that lead to sanctioning a meet. 4) We are not talking about running future meets in a short pool. We are talking about meets that have already happened. So the *where do we draw the line* argument is not relevent. Obviously, we make sure our future meets are in a pool of the proper length. 5) This particular discrepancy of length leads to insignificant time differences, so the whole issue of 'fairness' to other swimmers who did not swim in the meet is moot. Other factors, such as altitude, pool depth, . . . have much more significant effects on the times in the top ten. I say with confidence that *no one* will be kept off the top ten because of the small difference in pool length. 6) Given all of the environmental variables, anyone that takes the times in the top ten to hundreths of seconds seriousness is a fool. The whole list is for fun, and the process of getting into it should be inclusive - that is, it can be a goal for everyone, and technicalities should not prevent a legitimate effort from getting on it. 7) Given all of the above, I think the swimmers in the NW zone have a good chance of getting shafted. It *would* be unfair. No procedures were violated, regulations should not be retroactive, the efforts are legitimate, and no one gets hurt if the times are allowed to count. There. The final answer, and on this thread, too.:)

Gonna make a REAL interesting Convention next year !! I know this has all been said before, but for those who were not privy to the last Forum, I can speak as one who's times are now disallowed. My 100 fly @ 1:12 would have been a National Record. I was one of the first people told that the pool was not the full 25 meters. I was asked for my opinion and, without hesitation, I asked that my time not be submitted. Now I was fortunate indeed to have another 25 meter shot at it the next month, at which time I went a 1:11 and buried the matter. ( for me ). I understand the angst that was created. Time is an arrow - it only goes one way. To try to undo the problem in the interests of " fairness " only creates more problems. Let us agree to fix this problem in the future - AS WELL AS OTHERS, that will undoubtedly crop up, to the best of our abilities. This is an inexact science as was noted. I once drove 12 hours just to get a hand-held time !!