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.:)
Parents
Former Member
The thread seems to be turning more towards rules and meets instead of the damnation of inidividuals and sandbaggers.
For those that are in favor of intentional misrepresentation of seed times, go run a meet where you have a set time to complete the meet and see the true affect of sandbagging.
I don't care if people manipulate their seed times for whatever reason. Does that make me "in favor of intentional misrepresentation of seed times"? I say no, anti-sandbaggers may post rebuttals to my no, and anyone who shares my opinion and has remained silent so far will probably decide they made the right choice. At this point, I agree with the third group and wish I was still a member.
If a meet is being run where the timeline is of great concern will damning sandbaggers solve the problem?
I have looked at the meet info sheet and read everything Rick has written about NE Champs, and I am at a loss why a meet director wouldn't take similar steps in requiring seed times, capping entries, reviewing the submitted seeds and publishing that all this will happen in the meet info. I think his grading system is a step too far but it seems the meet is still popular and maybe publishing these grades really does improve future seed times.
I don't understand why someone would use the glossary of the rule book as justification for something you know you are going to do, when it would be straight forward to add two sentences to meet info. I do not know if it was funny or sad that something is technically in the rule book while technically not a rule.
Anti-sandbaggers who don't run your own meet, either start you own meet or petition for the rule to be added to the rule book.
I am concerned that all this focus on "sandbaggers delay meets" leads to "slow people delay meets." Someone I know (who isn't all that slow) was told "Oh you are the reason meets take so long" when they entered a local meet. Recently. That is appalling. I want to see more people competing, not less. The anti-sandbagger vitrol BS is a step beyond a pet-peeve of mine.
The thread seems to be turning more towards rules and meets instead of the damnation of inidividuals and sandbaggers.
For those that are in favor of intentional misrepresentation of seed times, go run a meet where you have a set time to complete the meet and see the true affect of sandbagging.
I don't care if people manipulate their seed times for whatever reason. Does that make me "in favor of intentional misrepresentation of seed times"? I say no, anti-sandbaggers may post rebuttals to my no, and anyone who shares my opinion and has remained silent so far will probably decide they made the right choice. At this point, I agree with the third group and wish I was still a member.
If a meet is being run where the timeline is of great concern will damning sandbaggers solve the problem?
I have looked at the meet info sheet and read everything Rick has written about NE Champs, and I am at a loss why a meet director wouldn't take similar steps in requiring seed times, capping entries, reviewing the submitted seeds and publishing that all this will happen in the meet info. I think his grading system is a step too far but it seems the meet is still popular and maybe publishing these grades really does improve future seed times.
I don't understand why someone would use the glossary of the rule book as justification for something you know you are going to do, when it would be straight forward to add two sentences to meet info. I do not know if it was funny or sad that something is technically in the rule book while technically not a rule.
Anti-sandbaggers who don't run your own meet, either start you own meet or petition for the rule to be added to the rule book.
I am concerned that all this focus on "sandbaggers delay meets" leads to "slow people delay meets." Someone I know (who isn't all that slow) was told "Oh you are the reason meets take so long" when they entered a local meet. Recently. That is appalling. I want to see more people competing, not less. The anti-sandbagger vitrol BS is a step beyond a pet-peeve of mine.
