Times Invalidated because of Pool Measturements Part 2

I thought that submitting the pool certification was part of the process in getting a meet sanction. I know it's always included in the meet letter for USA Swimming meets. In a similar vein, I saw some times thrown out last year due the mis-calibration of the timing system. Shouldn't that be part of the pool verification process also? Hi Mark, Not quite. Although it is recommended, a pool measurement certificate is NOT required to get a meet sanction. The meet info should have language about the pool length - one of 4 different statements that is outlined in USMS 202.1 - Sanctions should be included in the meet info. I cannot speak to what USA Swimming because, in my opinion, they are not as strict as USMS is about pool measurement confirmation. The devil is in the details in this. Can't speak to timing system mis-calibration

Force DJ, Touch pad timing systems started in the late 60s with Omega Timing. I remember them during college meets in the mid-70s. In general, competition pools are built to accommodate touchpads. The problem starts with the age of the pool. If the pool was built in the 60s, it might have been built with stop watches in mind. By the late 80s, they were built to accommodate maybe one touchpad, but not two. Two pads is the norm these days. The issue is generally not with pools without bulkheads (but not always). The problem is with pools with moveable bulkheads so the pool can be 50 mtrs long, or split into two pools. These bulkheads are held in place a number of different ways (usually by pins or friction or simply placed on the bottom) and none are immune to slight changes. This is why measurement before and after sessions is important - to verify that the length after the bulkhead has been moved. Because pools are expensive to build, they build them to absolute minimum lengths including the bulkhead. Allowing for spacers just adds one more variable to the equation. I suppose that keeping the pool measurement in public view might be a good thing.

I really don't swim in USMS meets, but this topic is kind of interesting to me. A couple of questions I have is...1) How long have those touch pad timing systems been in use? And, 2) why aren't competition pools designed and built to accommodate them and still make the pool length regulation...even though the pool owner may not currently be interested in having them? I'd think that a spacer could be used to fill the space where the pad would go. Seems like it'd be easy enough to create space during the construction, and then have a removable spacer mounted there until the pads are needed. Also, WRT pool length certification...why aren't the certifications on display during meets? It's something that ever single participate is concerned with. Individual swimmers should not have to go seeking the certification out. FINA/USAS/USMS should mandate that to meet organizers have the certification on display during meets. Dan I thought that submitting the pool certification was part of the process in getting a meet sanction. I know it's always included in the meet letter for USA Swimming meets. In a similar vein, I saw some times thrown out last year due the mis-calibration of the timing system. Shouldn't that be part of the pool verification process also?

Windrath, Thanks for the explanation. I'm beginning to see that like in the USATF (USA Track and Field), there is similar confusion in USAS/USMS between the term "sanction" and "certification." In USATF, a road race event might very well be "sanctioned" by them. That does not necessarily mean that they've "certified" the course (and vice versa). Dan

I was at the same LSU meet as Bob in which the times were invalidated, having traveled over 270 miles to compete. Like Bob, I was told that the course would be measured for certification. There is not much more that an individual swimmer can do. It is not feasible to boycott bulkhead pools or questionable LMSCs. If I chose to do that, I would almost never compete. I'm in concurrance with Paul that USMS should employ a fudge factor. Calculate what the time would be if the pool was the correct length, add some extra time to that, and let the swim count. Not for world or national records, but for rankings and top ten. Even in a 1,500 meter race, we're probably not talking about more than a few seconds. That would be preferrable to putting in all of the training, executing on race day, and then having the swims totally wiped out.

Hi Karlene, Sadly, you and others have been burned by the lack of knowledge and due diligence. It has never happened to me - thankfully. BUT, if it did ever happen to me, from that point forward, I would insist on seeing the actual measurements - especially at a pool where the track record is NOT good. And, look at every lane that is measured (for a bulkhead pool, they need to measure, at a minimum, the outside lanes and the middle lanes) immediately before the meet begins and after each session. Even one lane that is too short can lead to throwing all of the times for Top ten and records. This is what I suggest you do in the future - don't accept a tacit "we are certified" because that should not cut it. The Meet Referee is who you should approach and do it early - don't wait until they clear the pool and are calling for the first heat to step on the blocks. Good Luck!

Will anyone swim at this pool next meet?

I don't think it's the pool's fault. This is a pool at a major university, LSU, which has numerous NCAA sanctioned meets and some USA Swimming meets. Both of these governing bodies require that the pool be 50 meters long with zero tolerance for under measurement. The only fudge factor is a plus factor and that doesn't come into play here. The problem, as I see it, is that the pool has not been used for a USMS meet in a long time and for that reason, has never been certified. If it had been certified, only the outer two lanes and a middle lane would have had to been measured and, although I have not seen the measurement certificate, if lane 2,3,4,6 & 7 were the short lanes, the certificate would have passed muster and our times counted. Last year's LCM meet was at the University of New Orleans pool which has been used by the LMSC for decades to hold meets, both USMS, USA Swimming and NCAA. The people from the LMSC who measured the pool had been doing it for a bunch of years and had never had a pool come up short until the 2017 meet. In fact, one of the guys who measured the course is a member of my club and he said there were no short measurements that he knew of. He seems to think that someone transcribed the numbers wrong. From last year's discussion, Paul Windrath said the LMSC officials were given every benefit of the doubt but could not come up with a good enough explanation as to whether or not there was an actual short lane. This is what I would like for USMS to consider, either have the measurement certificate emailed to the top 10 administrator so it can be verified before the meet or national USMS require the LMSC to post the certificate in a conspicuous spot prior to the start of the meet and at the end of the day for all to see. If this cannot be done, USMS ought to come up with a fudge factor as we are not talking about people that .01 seconds is going to be extremely relevant. In my case, in a 50 meter swim with only one touchpad, you are talking in the 1,000th of a second differential. I am still communicating with m LMSC as to why and how this happened and I will post more when I find out. Bob Sigerson

Good Morning Bob, Pool measurements do get sent to the Top 10 administrator - after the meet. There is no reason to email the certificates to the Top 10 administrator before the meet because there need to be before and after measurements. This would be asking the Top 10 administrator to be available 24/7 to read numbers that the local meet personnel should be able to read and respond to. Understanding the numbers is NOT rocket science. Measuring a pool does require some skill though. For the specific meet in question, I am looking at the pool measurement certificate(s) that were submitted. The one with raw data is illegible and incorrectly filled in. The re-submitted certificate shows the following issues: a) All 8 lanes were measured before the meet. lane 8 is recorded as 164' 5/8" - too short. Lanes 1-7 are ok b) Premeet recordings: Lane 8 is still short. AND, all of a sudden Lane 4 is 1" shorter than when all 8 lanes were measured earlier. Is this a transcription error or did they tighten the lane lines? c) Post Session 1 measurement: Lane 4 is still short. Interestingly, Lane 1 and 8 got longer by 5/8" and 3/8" respectively. d) Post Session 2: Lane 4 is still short. Even more interesting, Lane 1 and 8 got even longer (now almost 1" longer than the start of the meet). So, this suggests a bulkhead that is not secure or inconsistent measuring technique or transcription errors at multiple times across multiple lanes. Regardless, it is obvious that the person doing the measurement did not analyze the measurement because that should have prompted a review with the meet referee and pool personnel. USMS does not have to require the meet host to post the measurement - the swimmers can always ask to see them. While I support the fudge factor concept for pools that are short, this case does not rise to that level. Besides, if you do a fudge factor for lanes that are short, should you do a reverse fudge factor for the lanes that are too long? And, further, at what point do you invoke the fudge factor when it has changed during the meet? Unfortunately, in this case, although the times are official, they cannot count towards Top 10/national records because of lack-of-due-diligence while measuring the pool. It is unfortunate.... Hope this helps a little.