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.:)
Well, one would think with my accumulated years of wisdom in the sport, I could do so, but I can pull up some great data on spectacular fails and surprises.
....
This rule is very judgmental, getting into these grey areas of
"how much is too much?"
how does that vary by person?
exactly how much prying into the lives and minds of our swimmers should the meet directors be doing?
Well, I would agree that, for myself anyway, prediction of "in-season" times are probably less accurate than tapered times. I still submit that if Kurt were to reveal his entered time and compare it to his best recent time, there would be little doubt in anyone's mind that it was deliberate (he admitted as much) and not just being conservative with an entry time because he wasn't sure how he would swim (many do this at nationals and don't get called to the carpet for it).
Yes, it is a judgment call. I believe the rule specifies that the meet director won't do anything until he confers with the swimmer, possibly to get an explanation of any discrepancy. Again, I doubt that the MD would bother to do this unless the difference is pretty significant; s/he has better things to do.
I can't say for certain. But I bet if (a) I entered a 500 free with a seed time of 30 sec slower than my best time last year and (b) when called by the MD, I explained that I've been injured and am just now getting back in the water, I doubt that the time would be changed.
But I think what likely happened is that Kurt entered a very slow time, was called on it, was honest to the MD as to why he did it, and the MD wouldn't allow it. "Uncertainty" had no role here. This thread does not exist because Kurt was unable to make a reasonable prediction of his time.
One could argue that very little harm with one swimmer doing that, right? But imagine when word got out about this kind of behavior. I might think, "I don't want to swim at 10pm at night at a west-coast nationals -- as happened to Dave Holland when he entered the 1500 at Portland. Heck, for that matter, I'm a morning person, I do better the earlier I swim. I'm going to enter a time of exactly the NQ standard. No harm done." But others will almost certainly have the same thought. It will be an arms race to mediocrity.
Well, one would think with my accumulated years of wisdom in the sport, I could do so, but I can pull up some great data on spectacular fails and surprises.
....
This rule is very judgmental, getting into these grey areas of
"how much is too much?"
how does that vary by person?
exactly how much prying into the lives and minds of our swimmers should the meet directors be doing?
Well, I would agree that, for myself anyway, prediction of "in-season" times are probably less accurate than tapered times. I still submit that if Kurt were to reveal his entered time and compare it to his best recent time, there would be little doubt in anyone's mind that it was deliberate (he admitted as much) and not just being conservative with an entry time because he wasn't sure how he would swim (many do this at nationals and don't get called to the carpet for it).
Yes, it is a judgment call. I believe the rule specifies that the meet director won't do anything until he confers with the swimmer, possibly to get an explanation of any discrepancy. Again, I doubt that the MD would bother to do this unless the difference is pretty significant; s/he has better things to do.
I can't say for certain. But I bet if (a) I entered a 500 free with a seed time of 30 sec slower than my best time last year and (b) when called by the MD, I explained that I've been injured and am just now getting back in the water, I doubt that the time would be changed.
But I think what likely happened is that Kurt entered a very slow time, was called on it, was honest to the MD as to why he did it, and the MD wouldn't allow it. "Uncertainty" had no role here. This thread does not exist because Kurt was unable to make a reasonable prediction of his time.
One could argue that very little harm with one swimmer doing that, right? But imagine when word got out about this kind of behavior. I might think, "I don't want to swim at 10pm at night at a west-coast nationals -- as happened to Dave Holland when he entered the 1500 at Portland. Heck, for that matter, I'm a morning person, I do better the earlier I swim. I'm going to enter a time of exactly the NQ standard. No harm done." But others will almost certainly have the same thought. It will be an arms race to mediocrity.
