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.:)
And I wonder if, for example, Jeff Erwin dodges Chris because he can/likes to swim his own race and doesn't want Chris to swim faster because of increased competition?
Please don't read into motivations. I doubt very much that Erwin "dodges" anyone and I don't know him well enough to ask why he generally under-predicts his time. I was just using him as one example and was not trying to point fingers.
q brain you are indeed Yoda-like. I agree with all your sentiments except the cancer part. It was a small sample, nonrandomized and an overwhelming number of the cancer patients lived next to power-lines.:)
As for the unsportmanship argument, I certainly can see that. But entering 60 minutes for a mile, actually doing that time, and forcing everybody else to watch it may be just as wrong. My point: I agree sandbagging is a crime, but sucking may be a bigger crime.
Triathlon is an inviting sport as evidenced by their meteoric rise in participation, but they don't invite everybody to their championships. Don't get me wrong, I like the inviting nature of our sport and championships, but which are we? Serious or inviting.
Please don't read into motivations. I doubt very much that Erwin "dodges" anyone and I don't know him well enough to ask why he generally under-predicts his time. I was just using him as one example and was not trying to point fingers.I don't know Jeff at all, but he's as consistent with his pace as with his entry times -- both are faster than you'd like when you're racing him:)
From what I have seen, when someone enters the 500 intending to swim a fast 50, the entry time is not "legitimate", meaning that he or she can actually swim the 500 significantly faster. No rule against doing so. I just don't like the practice. But it doesn't keep me awake at night.
If I had to guess: from a timeline perspective, the meet director would prefer that you try to predict what you would actually DO with the split request event. If one defines sandbagging as "entering a time much different than you actually perform," then this wouldn't be sandbagging.
It would probably be courteous to tell others in your heat what you plan to do, and I know some who do just that. Richie Hughey did this in Atlanta when we were next to each other in the 100 back: informed others in the heat (at least, those near him) that he was actually going for a 50 split.
I guess the problem I see is that the "selfish" people wanting perfect competitive seeding do not view themselves as "selfish" because their position is enshrined in a rule.
I think it is simply that most sandbaggers view it as a victimless "crime" that is nobody else's business.
I think I'd summarize my position with regard to sandbagging like this: it's OK to sandbag, but it's also OK for the meet director to call you out on it. If the meet director thinks your sandbagged time could adversely affect the flow of the meet then they should at least contact you and ask why you entered with this time.
Perhaps. But there seems to be some inconsistency in previously claiming that the effects of sandbagging are "small but not zero" and now saying that there is an actual "victim." Call me crazy and selfish, but victim does not seem to be the right word here.
I am not claiming anything in that post about how *I* view it, just how I think most sandbaggers view it or justify the practice. "Victimless crime" seems a pretty standard phrase and rolls off the tongue more easily than "victimless violation of the rules of competition."
For the events that are below a 400, do a timeline analysis of a random seed compared to circle seeding, throw in the actual seeding and timeline for good measure. I would love to see it published how many minutes could be saved.
I did this with the 2011 Auburn SCY meet because I'm curious about stuff like this. I started with the 1650 which is outside the parameters of your initial problem. But that's ok becasue I was educated in Alabama (which is slighly worse than being educated in Arizona) and ignoring problem parameters is something that should be expected of me. I did the 500 free and 50 free next and then realized that an entire meet was going to take a long time. I did heats by last name to simulate randomization.
For the 1650:
31 entrants, 4 heats, there were a couple no shows and scratches but those were weeded out. No real sandbaggers for this event.
Total swimming time: 1:49:09
Optimized heats: 1:47:26
Sandbagging waste: 1:43
"Randomized" heats: 2:05:38
Seeding efficiency: 16:29
For the 500:
70 Entrants, 9 Heats, there were a couple sandbaggers in this one but none that should have been in the final heat.
Total swimming time: 1:15:04
Optimized heats: 1:09:30
Sandbagging waste: 5:33
"Randomized" heats: 1:18:59
Seeding efficiency: 3:55
Bonus - there were a bunch of "no starts" in this event
Optimized heats (no NS): 1:02:41
NS Waste + Sandbag waste: 12:22
For the 50 Free
144 entrants, 18 heats, some deliberate sandbagging going on here but there were enough that most of the sandbaggers all had their own heat.
Total swimming time: 646s
Optimized heats: 597s
Sandbagging waste: 48s
"Randomized" heats: 883s
Seeding efficiency: 237s
Optimized heats (no NS): 564s
NS Waste + Sandbag waste: 81s
I imagine that with more people, sandbagging will have a bigger impact. It also appears that sandbagging and inaccurate seeds have a larger impact on longer events. It should be pretty obvious from this as to why we aren't seeded randomly.
If you want to see a real meet timewaster, take a look at this idiot: http://youtu.be/_AkjaVpw7do
The real lesson here is that if we make it easier on the nice people that put together the meets (by not sandbagging, using inaccurate seeds, or only signing up for events were are actually goign to swim), we all get to go socialize and drink beer sooner. :chug:
Here is my question. If we are swimming in masters for ourselves, for our personal reasons(fun, health, friends, etc) why should it matter if someone sandbags an entry time in the first place?
From reading the discussions, it seems as though people are getting too serious about this topic. If we are each doing this for ourselves, why does it matter what time someone else puts down?
