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.:)
For the humanitarians and religious studies crowd who specialize in such things, where exactly does does sandbagging rank in relation to judgement of others? Just thought I would get some clarification since some people view the issue as a moral one.
There will always be uncertainty, but I can predict with some pretty decent accuracy (generally within a second) what my time in a 100 will be in a given meet.Well, one would think with my accumulated years of wisdom in the sport, I could do so, but I can pull up some great data on spectacular fails and surprises.
Are you saying now that you have NO earthly idea at all what you will do in a given meet?At times it seems like that. I had two experiences in the same finals session last week where my final times bore little resemblance to what I thought I would go based upon either my entry times or my times in the prelims swim. I thought I had cruised both morning swims, but then, in the evening, the 1st swim of the night was dramatically slower (~3 seconds) than my prelims cruise and my 2nd swim much later in the evening was faster (~1 second) than the prelims swim. All swims, however, were slower than my original entry times and expectations. On the flip side, my 200 fly, the event I expected to tank the most, got better each time I dove in and, in hindsight, my entry time looks like a sandbag time. My 50 fly, however, was a full second slower than a time I thought was an 'easy' time to hit. Go figure.
Sandbagging isn't a failure to nail your time exactly (or coming "reasonably" close). It is entering a time that you know is slower than you will be so that you can control the time of your swim or get more clear water or both.I know, Chris, and I'm also not judging here on the forum, but this rule is very judgmental, getting into these grey areas of
"how much is too much?"
how does that vary by person?
exactly how much prying into the lives and minds of our swimmers should the meet directors be doing?
I also think the rule that started this whole post will penalize guys like Kurt (or you!) who have such a robust set of historical time data.
... makes his the best blog for meet results, IMO.Thanks for the support ... I think ...
No, he's really screwed up some swims. ... I can handle the truth :agree:
If you ever want to hear about truly screwing up some swims, though, we gotta go back to the 80's. My Masters' bad performances don't a candle to a few of the "epic fails" at more Nationals than I care to remember. I've still resisted going to masters meets at Long Beach and Fort Lauderdale because the scars are still there from the early 80s.
Laundry is done. Perhaps if you didn't want to come across as moralizing, you could have stopped at "distaste" instead of adding on "lying," "dishonest," "tragedy" and "selfish."
You are confusing descriptions with judgments. Sandbagging is by its definition dishonest: one is purposefully misrepresenting a time. And presumably you are sandbagging for some gain, as you have admitted. Hence the selfish.
A wife who fakes a headache when her husband is "in the mood" is both dishonest and selfish. Just because I use those terms to describe the act doesn't mean I think she is a bad person, or even that she shouldn't do it (the husband might be even more selfish). Everyone is dishonest or selfish in some way.
What is it with you and "tragedy?" it doesn't mean what you think it means here, and there is no ethical component to the term in this context. Let it go.
(Puppies still doing fine here.)
Well, one would think with my accumulated years of wisdom in the sport, I could do so, but I can pull up some great data on spectacular fails and surprises.
....
This rule is very judgmental, getting into these grey areas of
"how much is too much?"
how does that vary by person?
exactly how much prying into the lives and minds of our swimmers should the meet directors be doing?
Well, I would agree that, for myself anyway, prediction of "in-season" times are probably less accurate than tapered times. I still submit that if Kurt were to reveal his entered time and compare it to his best recent time, there would be little doubt in anyone's mind that it was deliberate (he admitted as much) and not just being conservative with an entry time because he wasn't sure how he would swim (many do this at nationals and don't get called to the carpet for it).
Yes, it is a judgment call. I believe the rule specifies that the meet director won't do anything until he confers with the swimmer, possibly to get an explanation of any discrepancy. Again, I doubt that the MD would bother to do this unless the difference is pretty significant; s/he has better things to do.
I can't say for certain. But I bet if (a) I entered a 500 free with a seed time of 30 sec slower than my best time last year and (b) when called by the MD, I explained that I've been injured and am just now getting back in the water, I doubt that the time would be changed.
But I think what likely happened is that Kurt entered a very slow time, was called on it, was honest to the MD as to why he did it, and the MD wouldn't allow it. "Uncertainty" had no role here. This thread does not exist because Kurt was unable to make a reasonable prediction of his time.
One could argue that very little harm with one swimmer doing that, right? But imagine when word got out about this kind of behavior. I might think, "I don't want to swim at 10pm at night at a west-coast nationals -- as happened to Dave Holland when he entered the 1500 at Portland. Heck, for that matter, I'm a morning person, I do better the earlier I swim. I'm going to enter a time of exactly the NQ standard. No harm done." But others will almost certainly have the same thought. It will be an arms race to mediocrity.
Which time is it that a sandbagger is misrepresenting.
It is MY definition, but I would say: the time you think you'll go in a meet.
What is the purpose of an entry time in a meet? Putting aside circle-seeding, to put you in a heat of similar times. This provides the most competition and the shortest timeline.
Just because completely accurate predictions are impossible doesn't mean you do away with the idea of entry times, as Patrick seems to be indirectly arguing. Most science would stop today if this were a valid argument.
