The anti-sandbag law:
"if a swimmer enters an event with a time significantly slower or faster than that swimmer's recorded time in the past two years, the meet director may, after a discussion with the swimmer, change the seeded time to a realistic time" (104.5.5.A(10)).
Concerning my Auburn nationals entry, I confess, when faced with a 7 hour 2 stop flight and 3:45 nonstop at an earlier time, I did what any warm-blooded middle-aged American swimmer with low self-esteem would do--sandbag my entry so I could catch the earlier flight, thus diminishing the possible time spent sitting next to a 400 pound Alabama slammer with sleep apnea wearing nothing but overalls and body odor. Of course, I was caught in my bold fabrication and my time was "fixed."
USMS seems to have an identity problem. Are we hard core with rigid qualifying times? It would seem not as 2 of my not-so-speedy family members were allowed to swim four events last year in Puerto Rico. If we are not hard core, why does anybody care that I sandbag? More to the point, why can one person enter a crappy time and another cannot? Just wondering.:)
It invalidates that category of accusations for non-nationals meets, that's how. How can it be "cheating" or "illegal" or "immoral" if it's not against the rules? (I recall in a different thread you equated morality with rule compliance.) I don't prefer "tragedy of the commons" (your prior phrase) -- as I hardly think "tragedy" is an apt word.
Have you ever seen sandbagging create a "mess" at a meet? I haven't.
Is it a tragedy if you can't swim against Bobby P. or some other speedster in the same heat? Cry me a river ...
It invalidates "rule breaker," true. But not the lying, selfish part: sandbaggers misrepresent their time for personal gain in a way that inconveniences others.
"Tragedy" is not my term, that's what situations like this are called. "Degradation of common-pool resources," if you prefer. And yes, it lessens the nationals experience slightly. The term doesn't mean what you think it means here; (re-)read Hardin's paper if you like.
The essence of dramatic tragedy is not unhappiness. It resides in the solemnity of the remorseless working of things.
Look, it is clear that you sandbaggers dismiss any inconvenience that your actions cause as inconsequential. I don't. We are not going to agree on that point.
This whole thread (sorry, Kurt) is basically a rant by someone who tried to break the sandbagging rule but got caught, making the following points:
-- the rule is selectively applied
-- sandbagging doesn't inconvenience anyone
-- it is justified in this case
-- it is payback for years of being surrounded by slower swimmers.
I am not sympathetic to these arguments, you and other sandbaggers are.
The only one of these points that concerns me at all is the first, which Kurt didn't support with real data. I suspect that, of the people here, only Jeff and Michael might possibly know enough to address whether the rule is indeed selectively applied.
But heck, I got more speeding tickets when I drove a sporty red car than I do now. Doesn't mean I think the speed limit is a bad law and should be abolished.
It invalidates that category of accusations for non-nationals meets, that's how. How can it be "cheating" or "illegal" or "immoral" if it's not against the rules? (I recall in a different thread you equated morality with rule compliance.) I don't prefer "tragedy of the commons" (your prior phrase) -- as I hardly think "tragedy" is an apt word.
Have you ever seen sandbagging create a "mess" at a meet? I haven't.
Is it a tragedy if you can't swim against Bobby P. or some other speedster in the same heat? Cry me a river ...
It invalidates "rule breaker," true. But not the lying, selfish part: sandbaggers misrepresent their time for personal gain in a way that inconveniences others.
"Tragedy" is not my term, that's what situations like this are called. "Degradation of common-pool resources," if you prefer. And yes, it lessens the nationals experience slightly. The term doesn't mean what you think it means here; (re-)read Hardin's paper if you like.
The essence of dramatic tragedy is not unhappiness. It resides in the solemnity of the remorseless working of things.
Look, it is clear that you sandbaggers dismiss any inconvenience that your actions cause as inconsequential. I don't. We are not going to agree on that point.
This whole thread (sorry, Kurt) is basically a rant by someone who tried to break the sandbagging rule but got caught, making the following points:
-- the rule is selectively applied
-- sandbagging doesn't inconvenience anyone
-- it is justified in this case
-- it is payback for years of being surrounded by slower swimmers.
I am not sympathetic to these arguments, you and other sandbaggers are.
The only one of these points that concerns me at all is the first, which Kurt didn't support with real data. I suspect that, of the people here, only Jeff and Michael might possibly know enough to address whether the rule is indeed selectively applied.
But heck, I got more speeding tickets when I drove a sporty red car than I do now. Doesn't mean I think the speed limit is a bad law and should be abolished.
