No sandbagging: It's the law

Like most people,I only care about sandbagging when it affects me.I have a good friend who routinely enters times slower than I expect him to swim.He always has a good reason(sore knee,recent illness,etc.)Then he almost always swims the time I predicted.One year in the 200 BR SCM he had the fastest time in the nation and I was .03 sec slower.We swam at the same meet,but he swam 2 heats earlier.(I'm not saying I'd have gone faster head to head,I probably would have taken it out too hard or not hard enough.) I think there does need to be more emphasis on following the guideline about not putting the fastest people in an age group/gender in outside lanes.As I get older this becomes more important to me.

It's not all black and white. Actually, part of it is black and white. There is no arguing that when you sandbag you are asking everyone else in your event to swim by your wishes. You cannot control how others feel about it, nor whether they are ok with it. If I get in a heat where the person next to me sandbags, for whatever legit or illegit reason, I am annoyed because that means I won't be racing the person that should have been beside me. And, if I'm in lane 1 or 8 (where I seem to reside these days) I get no racing at all.

I have to admit I have reverse sandbagged a few times and been wise to do so as I've gone out and got that time. The sandbag arms race is funny...I'm not that bad but I have noted a couple of zones swimmers who seem to always be seeded slower yet beat me...so next Zones I will be gathering my War Cabinet to devise the perfect entry time to outfox them...and if they still beat me I'll give up lol

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. Because the 2010 Puerto Rico meet was anticipated to be smaller than a normal USMS Nationals, all competitors were allowed to swim four events without meeting the national qualifying times. I pulled out the entry information from the May, 2010 magazine and it states: "Competitors may enter up to four events without meeting the national qualifying time (NQT), or a maximum of six events if they meet the NQTs..."

'cuz you're so smart I suppose. Coach says I'm pretty smart though. Maybe while you are patting my head, you could enlighten me. I do like Michael's sandbagging technique. I look forward to both patting you on the head and enlightening you, but no need to wait on the enlightenment. The key points from this most excellent discussion you started Sandbagging causes cancer Sandbagging causes drastic delays in the meet Sandbagging has no impact on the meet timelines A sandbagger is immoral Sandbagging is a divine right Sandbaggers cause Chris to double park AND cut in line in front of malnourished orphans to get the last piece of bread at the soup kitchen 15 year old boys are more mature when it comes to the sandbagging topic than the entire USMS community combined Sandbaggers are dishonest Sandbagging can be easily justified The sandbagging rule is easily circumvented Not competing for a couple decades is no excuse for not entering with an accurate seed time Auburn students and recruits abuse cows Swimming faster than the heat makes the swimmer cheap and is rude to the rest of the heat Strategic time submission is immoral Consistent enforcement is impossible The rule itself is illegitimate All USMS meets should be prelims finals Kurt Dickson is superior to Alabamians and Texans Daisy Duke is more important than swimming Kids parents would make great Masters swimmers, since they already obsess about seed times The main reason to sandbag is to whip up on 83yo ladies Future meets will be seeded randomly Kurt doesn't understand the time submission process for USMS vs the time submission requirement of USAS Geek is jealous of my Strawberry Shortcake lunchbox. Your coach would shed a tear if they saw the idiocy you spawned by starting this thread.

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? Way to strike to the heart of the problem. If you look at it from a purely selfish perspective, you are driven to create the ideal environment for you at the expense of others selfish reasons. This would only work if all people had compatible selfish reasons. It is selfish for people to feel entitled to an ideal competitive seeding and selfish for people to sandbag for whatever reason. On the flip side, approaching the problem from a completely selfless perspective would eliminate the desire to compete.

Sportsmanship: conduct (as fairness, respect for one's opponent, and graciousness in winning or losing) becoming to one participating in a sport. When you sandbag your entry times, arguably you are disrespecting your fellow swimmers, both those in your heat (who entered with legitimate times but will lose by a substantial margin) and those in the faster heats (who will not have the opportunity to compete head to head with you). Is it sinful? Of course not. Does it make you an evil person? Don't be ridiculous. But it is unsportsmanlike. Nothing more, nothing less. Not enough rest between your events? Then enter different events. Not enough time to make it to the airport? Choose a different flight. Wanting to go for a PB in the 50? Enter a 50 and not the 500. The argument that "it's only Masters swimming" begs the question: Then why are individuals sandbagging in the first place?

WWARD? Who is John Galt? I am not an expert on objectivism, but here is my take. You have two groups, the sandbaggers and the competitors, both benefit from a new time, competitors benefit from increased competition, sandbaggers benefit from an unknown and create a cost of increased timeline and decreased competition. The competitors will continue to compete as long as the benefit of the new time and the benefit of the competition is greater than the timeline cost, as long as there isn't an offer of better competition with the same or better timeline somewhere else. The sandbaggers would regulate that sandbagging was legal while the competitors would let the desire to compete motivate accurate seed times. Objectivism is anti-entitlement, anti-regulation, pro-capitalism, so it wouldn't match my purely selfish example.

C'mon q ... the idiocy spawned by this thread has been fun and amusing and way better than re-hashing tech suits (which, of course, we all know were handed down directly from the Creator and were banned by an evil cabal of satanists), AND this is a dumb rule that Kurt highlighted (I'm serious on this one). I am pretty sure I am participating in the idiocy and a manner to perpetuate it, not to try to bring light to the truth of either side. My approach must be more stealthy than I thought if you are calling me out for taking it too seriously. Serious: I disagree that the rule is dumb if it is used to help the swimmer when a obvious mistake was made or improve the meet timeline when it would otherwise be drastically affected. This is what I would guess the rule was intended to do. I have already stated that I don't believe meets with qualifying times would drastically be affected by random seeding, I agree Kurt was singled out because he is Kurt Dickson. That's what happens when you face is plastered all over a nationally distributed publication, you get special attention.

And I thought doing a 50 in a 500 was perfectly legit with the use of split requests? You're now saying that violates the anti-sandbagging rule? 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.