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 summary, you bring up two pieces of information: Patten enters slow time and Erwin always enters slow but this is not raised to make a point and is just data...and you are completely neutral about it.
The fact that you hammered me for the last month may argue against this. Our views are clear; I'm just not convinced you are in touch with your inner feelings.
Pay attention. There was indeed a point to the data: sandbagging decreases competition. What I am neutral about is the whole ethics component. I can dislike the effect without saying that the people who caused it are bad people. I used the Patton/Erwin examples only because they were fresh in my mind after Mesa nationals.
Gosh it is nice that you know me better than I do. In generalizing my responses, perhaps you might want to consider the fact that my reactions to your posts in this thread go well beyond the mere fact of your original sandbag. Some examples off the top of my head:
-- a one-sided criticism of USMS volunteers for their decisions (which by itself often raises my ire) without being forthcoming about the details of exactly what happened, though I admire that you were up-front about your intentions in sandbagging;
-- the chip on your shoulder about the inconvenience of waiting for slower people at nationals;
-- the general "woe is me, I'm being judged" attitude.
When a police officer writes you a ticket for speeding, do you think he is being judgmental about your ethics? Speeding is, after all, almost always a selfish act that increases risk to others (even if only by a little bit, depending on the degree). Or do you just man up and accept the ticket without the wailing and gnashing of teeth?
In summary, you bring up two pieces of information: Patten enters slow time and Erwin always enters slow but this is not raised to make a point and is just data...and you are completely neutral about it.
The fact that you hammered me for the last month may argue against this. Our views are clear; I'm just not convinced you are in touch with your inner feelings.
Pay attention. There was indeed a point to the data: sandbagging decreases competition. What I am neutral about is the whole ethics component. I can dislike the effect without saying that the people who caused it are bad people. I used the Patton/Erwin examples only because they were fresh in my mind after Mesa nationals.
Gosh it is nice that you know me better than I do. In generalizing my responses, perhaps you might want to consider the fact that my reactions to your posts in this thread go well beyond the mere fact of your original sandbag. Some examples off the top of my head:
-- a one-sided criticism of USMS volunteers for their decisions (which by itself often raises my ire) without being forthcoming about the details of exactly what happened, though I admire that you were up-front about your intentions in sandbagging;
-- the chip on your shoulder about the inconvenience of waiting for slower people at nationals;
-- the general "woe is me, I'm being judged" attitude.
When a police officer writes you a ticket for speeding, do you think he is being judgmental about your ethics? Speeding is, after all, almost always a selfish act that increases risk to others (even if only by a little bit, depending on the degree). Or do you just man up and accept the ticket without the wailing and gnashing of teeth?
