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.:)
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.
The Tragedy of the Commons (ToC) is basically a model to predict the effects of collective behavior on a shared resource of a specific type. It is often used to explain the degradation of natural resources like clean air (thence my analogy of second-hand smoke), fisheries, and the like, but it can be applied to many other things as well. I have seen the model used to describe the proliferation of PEDs in competitive sports, for example. It would also (accurately from what I could see) predict the proliferation of tech suits before they were regulated.
Qbrain (I think it was he) mentioned game theory, and he is correct. The ToC is commonly connected to the famous Prisoner's Dilemma. Both the ToC and the PD are often used as examples to counter the assertion that free markets lead to a maximization of wealth/happiness. Economists have been dealing with these issues (ie, negative externalities) for a long time.
I don't believe there is anything inherently ethical about the ToC. I think that for the Tragedy of the Commons to have moral implications requires something additional. For example: you can assert that we have a moral obligation to maximize the aggregate satisfaction of all the participants of the meet (in other words, you subscribe to utilitarianism). But there are certainly philosophical schools of thought that can be argued to counter this (tyranny of the majority, Kantian ethics).
(A minor quibble: Garrett Hardin was not the first to describe the situation -- it was well known to economists (not by the same name) long before Hardin's article. But it was true that Hardin's article stimulated a lot of interest in the ToC.)
Your "in the final analysis" argument further assumes that everyone would, in fact, sandbag. Yet we know this can't be right because so many people are opposed to it and conditioned (perhaps from years of age group/college competition) to enter an approximation of what they think they will swim. Floodgates arguments are often factually incorrect.
I agree with you. The ToC would predict that, in the absence of some disincentive to sandbag (eg, an anti-sandbagging rule), hypothetical meet A that is perfectly seeded (shortest timeline, maximum competition) would degrade to randomly-seeded meet B because each participant would, acting "rationally" (ie, in their own self-interest) seek to get clear water and control when s/he swims.
I think this is incorrect. You mention some reasons, but another is that there is some significant benefit to entering a seed time that accurately predicts your performance: you get competition. Some people value swimming in a heat of similar-fast individuals. They might even "reverse-sandbag" to be in a heat that is a little faster than they might typically go, in an attempt to push themselves to go faster.
So the cynic in me does not believe non-sandbaggers enter accurate seed times because they are more pure of heart. They do it because they value competition over clear water or manipulating the timing of their swims.
Heck, I do it partly as a memory aid: I'll often enter the time I did at the same particular meet one year prior, so I can compare my results to the heat sheet and at a glance see how I compare.
Just because the ToC is wrong in predicting a complete degradation to meet B doesn't mean it is a valueless model. It is correct in predicting a non-optimal result due to the fact that some sandbagging will occur. And more sophisticated game theory can be used (presumably; I am no expert, though my brother-in-law is) to craft better predictions under various scenarios.
Now...I happen to think that the main purpose of USMS meets is to provide a venue for competition between its members, not to provide a perfect time-trialing experience for everyone. Maybe a discussion couched in those terms is less likely to inflame people (eg, dirty, rotten sandbaggers) who think they are being accused of being morally bankrupt.
(Disclaimer: the "dirty rotten" part was a joke. Don't shoot.)
Look up the definition of "sole" sometime, but moving on to even less important matters. No one knew Kurt was sandbagging until he admitted it, true statement?
I bet that if Kurt gave his entry time, everyone here would know that it was an outrageous sandbag. What would be the point of adding 30 seconds to what he thinks he will go? That would gain him 1-2 heats at best. To really swim significantly earlier he'd have to add many minutes to his time.
So perhaps some of the defenders of sandbagging would have no problem to the sight of Kurt lapping 70- and 80-year-olds multiple times in an 8-lap race at nationals. I don't really agree with them, sorry.
As far as solutions to the sandbagging "problem," to the extent that you believe there is one, we could simply do what USA-S does: at nationals you have to enter your best time in (say) the past 2 years. Maybe it wouldn't be the best predictor of your performance, but I bet it would do at least a good job of seeding people of similar speed together as our current system. And there wouldn't be a subjective component to sandbag identification.
I believe that within a couple years, the vast majority of our meets will be in the national results database (similar to SWIMS), so it will be possible to do.
As far as only applying to nationals: well, it is true that the only anti-sandbagging rule in the Rule Book applies to nationals. But I believe there is nothing in the Rule Book that prevents a specific Meet Director from having an anti-sandbagging policy at his/her sanctioned meet, if s/he wishes. It would be up to the sanctioning body (ie, the host LMSC) to decide if it would be appropriate, but it doesn't break any existing rules that I can see (as long as provisions were made for the gender thing that Leslie keeps bringing up). One justification for this would be if you have to make your timeline as efficient as possible due to pool rental restrictions.
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.
The Tragedy of the Commons (ToC) is basically a model to predict the effects of collective behavior on a shared resource of a specific type. It is often used to explain the degradation of natural resources like clean air (thence my analogy of second-hand smoke), fisheries, and the like, but it can be applied to many other things as well. I have seen the model used to describe the proliferation of PEDs in competitive sports, for example. It would also (accurately from what I could see) predict the proliferation of tech suits before they were regulated.
Qbrain (I think it was he) mentioned game theory, and he is correct. The ToC is commonly connected to the famous Prisoner's Dilemma. Both the ToC and the PD are often used as examples to counter the assertion that free markets lead to a maximization of wealth/happiness. Economists have been dealing with these issues (ie, negative externalities) for a long time.
I don't believe there is anything inherently ethical about the ToC. I think that for the Tragedy of the Commons to have moral implications requires something additional. For example: you can assert that we have a moral obligation to maximize the aggregate satisfaction of all the participants of the meet (in other words, you subscribe to utilitarianism). But there are certainly philosophical schools of thought that can be argued to counter this (tyranny of the majority, Kantian ethics).
(A minor quibble: Garrett Hardin was not the first to describe the situation -- it was well known to economists (not by the same name) long before Hardin's article. But it was true that Hardin's article stimulated a lot of interest in the ToC.)
Your "in the final analysis" argument further assumes that everyone would, in fact, sandbag. Yet we know this can't be right because so many people are opposed to it and conditioned (perhaps from years of age group/college competition) to enter an approximation of what they think they will swim. Floodgates arguments are often factually incorrect.
I agree with you. The ToC would predict that, in the absence of some disincentive to sandbag (eg, an anti-sandbagging rule), hypothetical meet A that is perfectly seeded (shortest timeline, maximum competition) would degrade to randomly-seeded meet B because each participant would, acting "rationally" (ie, in their own self-interest) seek to get clear water and control when s/he swims.
I think this is incorrect. You mention some reasons, but another is that there is some significant benefit to entering a seed time that accurately predicts your performance: you get competition. Some people value swimming in a heat of similar-fast individuals. They might even "reverse-sandbag" to be in a heat that is a little faster than they might typically go, in an attempt to push themselves to go faster.
So the cynic in me does not believe non-sandbaggers enter accurate seed times because they are more pure of heart. They do it because they value competition over clear water or manipulating the timing of their swims.
Heck, I do it partly as a memory aid: I'll often enter the time I did at the same particular meet one year prior, so I can compare my results to the heat sheet and at a glance see how I compare.
Just because the ToC is wrong in predicting a complete degradation to meet B doesn't mean it is a valueless model. It is correct in predicting a non-optimal result due to the fact that some sandbagging will occur. And more sophisticated game theory can be used (presumably; I am no expert, though my brother-in-law is) to craft better predictions under various scenarios.
Now...I happen to think that the main purpose of USMS meets is to provide a venue for competition between its members, not to provide a perfect time-trialing experience for everyone. Maybe a discussion couched in those terms is less likely to inflame people (eg, dirty, rotten sandbaggers) who think they are being accused of being morally bankrupt.
(Disclaimer: the "dirty rotten" part was a joke. Don't shoot.)
Look up the definition of "sole" sometime, but moving on to even less important matters. No one knew Kurt was sandbagging until he admitted it, true statement?
I bet that if Kurt gave his entry time, everyone here would know that it was an outrageous sandbag. What would be the point of adding 30 seconds to what he thinks he will go? That would gain him 1-2 heats at best. To really swim significantly earlier he'd have to add many minutes to his time.
So perhaps some of the defenders of sandbagging would have no problem to the sight of Kurt lapping 70- and 80-year-olds multiple times in an 8-lap race at nationals. I don't really agree with them, sorry.
As far as solutions to the sandbagging "problem," to the extent that you believe there is one, we could simply do what USA-S does: at nationals you have to enter your best time in (say) the past 2 years. Maybe it wouldn't be the best predictor of your performance, but I bet it would do at least a good job of seeding people of similar speed together as our current system. And there wouldn't be a subjective component to sandbag identification.
I believe that within a couple years, the vast majority of our meets will be in the national results database (similar to SWIMS), so it will be possible to do.
As far as only applying to nationals: well, it is true that the only anti-sandbagging rule in the Rule Book applies to nationals. But I believe there is nothing in the Rule Book that prevents a specific Meet Director from having an anti-sandbagging policy at his/her sanctioned meet, if s/he wishes. It would be up to the sanctioning body (ie, the host LMSC) to decide if it would be appropriate, but it doesn't break any existing rules that I can see (as long as provisions were made for the gender thing that Leslie keeps bringing up). One justification for this would be if you have to make your timeline as efficient as possible due to pool rental restrictions.
