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.:)
In terms of the morality of all this, and the use of the word "tragedy," I do think a case can be made that sandbagging has at least a few ethical tendrils into the so-called "tragedy of the commons" (albeit perhaps not perfectly so).
As Wikipedia defines this:
The tragedy of the commons is a dilemma arising from the situation in which multiple individuals, acting independently and rationally consulting their own self-interest, will ultimately deplete a shared limited resource, even when it is clear that it is not in anyone's long-term interest for this to happen. This dilemma was first described in an influential article titled "The Tragedy of the Commons," written by Garrett Hardin and first published in the journal Science in 1968...
Basically, a moral philosopher could make the case that individual aspirations are fine, but only up to the point where personal advantage does not encroach on other peoples' right to compete under fair circumstances.
There are at least three common reasons for sandbagging, at least as far as I can see:
1. You don't want to be swamped by being stuck in an end lane in a heat with multiple lummoxes
2. You want to optimize recovery time between events--thus if two sprints are back to back, you'd prefer to swim early in the first event and late in the second to maximize the rest interval between these two all out exertions
3. You would like to take as many "bites of the apple" as possible--i.e., swim the actual 50 of a given stroke, then get split requests on the 200s, relay lead offs, etc.
All the above make clear sense for some out to get their best shot at top times.
The question becomes, to what extent does this quest for personal advantage encroach on other people's right to have a fair race?
I would argue that in the vast majority of cases, sandbagging of this sort doesn't really hurt most other swimmers, especially if the sandbagger tells those in adjacent lanes what he or she is up to so they won't be absolutely bamboozled.
Where there is more significant harm to other swimmers, I would argue, is--in descending order of importance:
1. When your attempt to avoid being swamped by lummoxes leads you to swamp somebody else who doesn't deserve it, something that is particularly unfair when NT swimmers compete against octagenerians
2. The notion that sandbagging can, in fact, hold up lengthy meets, causing others to miss their connecting flights or spend more time at the pool than they really want to
3. The notion (again, remedied by informing your immediate competitors what you are up to) that you can throw off somebody's race when they think you are going to swim X time, and after 25 yards, you have practically lapped them
4. And finally, robbing those who are inspired by head to head competition of the opportunity to raced you head to head (this, in my hierarchy, at least, is the lowest priority.)
I suppose in the final analysis, the best way to look at the Tragedy of the Commons Dilemma with regards to swimming meets is to ask yourself, What if everyone did it?
I think if this were the case, the meet would degenerate into scheming rancour and become more about gaming the system than actually swimming your best.
Like gluttonous termites on a wooden boat, each one out to get more than his fair share of the limited sustenance, well...I think we know the fate of such termites!
None of this is meant as a condemnation of sandbagging. But I do think you can look at the issue in moral terms, and it is not completely jejune to do so!
In terms of the morality of all this, and the use of the word "tragedy," I do think a case can be made that sandbagging has at least a few ethical tendrils into the so-called "tragedy of the commons" (albeit perhaps not perfectly so).
As Wikipedia defines this:
The tragedy of the commons is a dilemma arising from the situation in which multiple individuals, acting independently and rationally consulting their own self-interest, will ultimately deplete a shared limited resource, even when it is clear that it is not in anyone's long-term interest for this to happen. This dilemma was first described in an influential article titled "The Tragedy of the Commons," written by Garrett Hardin and first published in the journal Science in 1968...
Basically, a moral philosopher could make the case that individual aspirations are fine, but only up to the point where personal advantage does not encroach on other peoples' right to compete under fair circumstances.
There are at least three common reasons for sandbagging, at least as far as I can see:
1. You don't want to be swamped by being stuck in an end lane in a heat with multiple lummoxes
2. You want to optimize recovery time between events--thus if two sprints are back to back, you'd prefer to swim early in the first event and late in the second to maximize the rest interval between these two all out exertions
3. You would like to take as many "bites of the apple" as possible--i.e., swim the actual 50 of a given stroke, then get split requests on the 200s, relay lead offs, etc.
All the above make clear sense for some out to get their best shot at top times.
The question becomes, to what extent does this quest for personal advantage encroach on other people's right to have a fair race?
I would argue that in the vast majority of cases, sandbagging of this sort doesn't really hurt most other swimmers, especially if the sandbagger tells those in adjacent lanes what he or she is up to so they won't be absolutely bamboozled.
Where there is more significant harm to other swimmers, I would argue, is--in descending order of importance:
1. When your attempt to avoid being swamped by lummoxes leads you to swamp somebody else who doesn't deserve it, something that is particularly unfair when NT swimmers compete against octagenerians
2. The notion that sandbagging can, in fact, hold up lengthy meets, causing others to miss their connecting flights or spend more time at the pool than they really want to
3. The notion (again, remedied by informing your immediate competitors what you are up to) that you can throw off somebody's race when they think you are going to swim X time, and after 25 yards, you have practically lapped them
4. And finally, robbing those who are inspired by head to head competition of the opportunity to raced you head to head (this, in my hierarchy, at least, is the lowest priority.)
I suppose in the final analysis, the best way to look at the Tragedy of the Commons Dilemma with regards to swimming meets is to ask yourself, What if everyone did it?
I think if this were the case, the meet would degenerate into scheming rancour and become more about gaming the system than actually swimming your best.
Like gluttonous termites on a wooden boat, each one out to get more than his fair share of the limited sustenance, well...I think we know the fate of such termites!
None of this is meant as a condemnation of sandbagging. But I do think you can look at the issue in moral terms, and it is not completely jejune to do so!
