Split Requests

Fort, What, in your mind is fair play, and what constitutes a pro-swimmer rule? Personally, as I interpret these two terms, I think you have your sandbags in the wrong place, as I think this rule is incredibly pro-swimmer. It gives all swimmers absolutely every opportunity to achieve a record and/or top 10 time within the confines of the schedule of a meet. Mostly everyone knows about it, a few meet entry forms have alluded to this rule, and in fact, some meet directors have gone so far as to include the split request forms in their meet program (you may see this again locally soon). I see your point, Peg. It definitely creates opportunity. I was just suggesting that it might be "unfair" to those in your heat as much as sandbagging is deemed "unfair." I'm not sure everyone knows about split requests though. You're a meet director -- you're an educated consumer. It had never occurred to me, for example, to do one until my last meet or so. And actually I never have submitted a split request. I think it would be a good idea to include a form in the meet entry packet. That would be pro-swimmer. It does give a new meaning to picking events though. It multiplies the number of events and gives you a "two for the price of one" if you're so inclined. Theoretically, you could travel to or attend fewer meets and still have the same number of times.

People are doing this already. I heard quite a college teams had their swimmers don two suits. I also heard none of these times will be allowed, though. If it is legal at the time of the swim, how can it be disallowed later? Did the officials make note of who swam with multiple suits? How would they even have known? I bet that multiple suits will be disallowed in the future, sure, but I don't see what they can do about it retroactively.

Freestylers can just get more splits in more events. As for freestylers getting more splits, yes, sigh, freestylers have more opportunities. But it is just like percentage-based tax cuts - if you earn $100k, yes, your 1% tax cut is going to be greater in $ that someone who is getting a 1% tax cut on their $40k. There are more freestyle events, so more opportunities. But if USMS added 400s of the strokes and an 800 IM, I'm not entirely confident that the same people swimming these will be going after any 50 fly records. I see your point, Peg. I was just suggesting that it might be "unfair" to those in your heat as much as sandbagging is deemed "unfair." I really don't think it is unfair if all of you have access to the same thing. In this case, it is good practice to notify your neighbors of your intentions. People like to race their neighbors. Especially in a distance event (let's say the 1000 free), if your neighbor is going after the first 200 and sprinting his *** off, you'll die like a pig if you try to keep up with them on the first part of your race when you've got 80% of your race to go with no gas in the tank. Plus, there are further benefits to those swimming the prescribed race. Hypothetical example - Paul Smith's 1000 at nationals, with me in the lane next to him (I didn't swim that event). Paul goes out like a bat out of hell in the first 100, gets his :46.whatever national record, the loafs it home the rest of the way. I swim my swim and finish 3 seconds ahead of him. "oh, well he didn't even try for 90% of the race" say the naysayers. my response: "yes, but the clock does not lie - my time is faster. I beat Paul Smith." :banana: (For the record, my 1000 from zones three weeks prior was 5 and change seconds faster than Paul's nationals time, but I am fully aware that I'd get lapped in a head to head 1000).

yes, sigh, freestylers have more opportunities. chuckle ...

I am curious to know if USATF (track and field) allows this type of thing. Is somebody allowed to use a 400 or 800 split on the 1500? This summer, a non-swimmer type made the argument that swimmers have more opportunities for medals. Does swimming allow for more opportunites to set records than any other sport? I will never be in the position to ask for a split as I am simply not a fast enough swimmer to be setting any records. Perhaps it is easier for me to take the position that other than leading off relay events and the actual event, splits should not allowed to be used for records. Fort makes a good argument that using longer events to get a record is akin to sandbagging. If somebody wants to get a record and doesn't get it on the actual event or a lead-off on the relay, then he/she just needs to do a time-trial.

If it is legal at the time of the swim, how can it be disallowed later? Did the officials make note of who swam with multiple suits? How would they even have known? I don't really know. I admit it seems dubious, but that's what I heard. The reason given was the rules talk about "A swimsuit," thus wearing more than one is illegal. However, I'm sure there have been many cases of teams wearing drag suits for meets they knew they'd win and I'm sure no one ever thought to DQ them for wearing more than one suit.

I was responding to a post that apparently disappeared.

I will never be in the position to ask for a split as I am simply not a fast enough swimmer to be setting any records. Now, see, this type of thinking gives me pause. I don't think only record breakers and TT types should be getting split requests. Everyone should feel free, as it's perfectly legal and they may just want to improve their time or may be going for a team record or something. But, I'm just not so sure it would occur to many swimmers. It's not THAT widespread a practice yet.

Yes. HOWEVER, in order for it to be accepted, it would have to have all the official timing protocalls in place at the intermediate marks. So, for example, you would need to have FAT (fully automatic timing) and not manual timing, etc. It would also be made quite clear to all competitors what was happening before the race. That said, it is rare to do this in the running events. There have been instances where people have used, say, a mile run to get a 1500 meter record, but fewer cases where it is done for other distances for record purposes. In racewalking it is VERY common to use a longer race to go for a fast time at a shorter distance, usually for purposes of qualifying for another competition, like the Olympic Trials. It is also common in racewalking to extend a race distance to allow someone to qualify for something. This is mostly due to a scarcity of races with the correct level of judging and/or competitors. However, racewalk timing is generally accepted as being like road racing timing, so you don't need the fancy automatic timing unless it's a world record attempt. Edited: I forgot to add that the running/walking race management can, at their discretion, decline to do this. -LBJ Thanks for the info! I was curious. I really like the fact that it is made clear to all competitors before the race that a split request has been made. This is pro-athlete and fair. This type of thing needs to be done in swimming.

Jeff, in your hypothetical 1000 with Paul Smith, what would happen if he, in course of hell-bat-out-of swimming the first 100, he so exhausted himself that he was unable to continue on after setting the world record in his split? If Paul does not finish the 1000, the event he entered, he would be disqualified from the 1000. But would his WR split still count? If yes, then what is to keep people from swimming the split portion then just getting out prematurely? If no, I would advise Leslie against trying to set a world record in the 50 fly during the first 50 of a 200 fly. Actually, something almost like this scenario almost happened at Rutgers LCM Nationals 6 years ago. Todd Spieker was trying to set NR records for both the 800 and the 1500 frees. He went out really fast and just missed the 800 record by something like .01 seconds. He then continued onwards, tripping his heart into A-fib near the conclusion of the 1500. He very nearly did not finish. He was on a stretcher being cared for by paramedics for 45 minutes after the race concluded. (Note: some of the exact details here may be a little off, but the gist of it is basically correct.) As far as the double suit business goes, especially with B70s, that really seems like cheating to me. Even though claims have been made that the suits don't float, they are made out of some sort of closed cell material that is not of an entirely different species than neoprene. Having two of them on has to be somewhere along the calculus curve that leads incrementally in the direction of a true wetsuit. I thus humby offer this question: How many B70s must be piled one on top of the other before you have a functional wet suit? One way to answer this may be to ask yourself how many B70s would the average surfer need to wear before he or she would go surfing in New Jersey this time of the year? I daresay 2 might be enough, but 3 or 4 almost certainly would!