No sandbagging: It's the law

Whatever definition, interpretation, judgment … have and will sign up for competitions with slower entry times than the best ones per age group. :):D

I do think a case can be made that sandbagging has at least a few ethical tendrils into the so-called "tragedy of the commons" (albeit perhaps not perfectly so). As Wikipedia defines this: The tragedy of the commons is a dilemma arising from the situation in which multiple individuals, acting independently and rationally consulting their own self-interest, will ultimately deplete a shared limited resource, even when it is clear that it is not in anyone's long-term interest for this to happen. This dilemma was first described in an influential article titled "The Tragedy of the Commons," written by Garrett Hardin and first published in the journal Science in 1968... Basically, a moral philosopher could make the case that individual aspirations are fine, but only up to the point where personal advantage does not encroach on other peoples' right to compete under fair circumstances. The Tragedy of the Commons (ToC) is basically a model to predict the effects of collective behavior on a shared resource of a specific type. It is often used to explain the degradation of natural resources like clean air (thence my analogy of second-hand smoke), fisheries, and the like, but it can be applied to many other things as well. I have seen the model used to describe the proliferation of PEDs in competitive sports, for example. It would also (accurately from what I could see) predict the proliferation of tech suits before they were regulated. Qbrain (I think it was he) mentioned game theory, and he is correct. The ToC is commonly connected to the famous Prisoner's Dilemma. Both the ToC and the PD are often used as examples to counter the assertion that free markets lead to a maximization of wealth/happiness. Economists have been dealing with these issues (ie, negative externalities) for a long time. I don't believe there is anything inherently ethical about the ToC. I think that for the Tragedy of the Commons to have moral implications requires something additional. For example: you can assert that we have a moral obligation to maximize the aggregate satisfaction of all the participants of the meet (in other words, you subscribe to utilitarianism). But there are certainly philosophical schools of thought that can be argued to counter this (tyranny of the majority, Kantian ethics). (A minor quibble: Garrett Hardin was not the first to describe the situation -- it was well known to economists (not by the same name) long before Hardin's article. But it was true that Hardin's article stimulated a lot of interest in the ToC.) Your "in the final analysis" argument further assumes that everyone would, in fact, sandbag. Yet we know this can't be right because so many people are opposed to it and conditioned (perhaps from years of age group/college competition) to enter an approximation of what they think they will swim. Floodgates arguments are often factually incorrect. I agree with you. The ToC would predict that, in the absence of some disincentive to sandbag (eg, an anti-sandbagging rule), hypothetical meet A that is perfectly seeded (shortest timeline, maximum competition) would degrade to randomly-seeded meet B because each participant would, acting "rationally" (ie, in their own self-interest) seek to get clear water and control when s/he swims. I think this is incorrect. You mention some reasons, but another is that there is some significant benefit to entering a seed time that accurately predicts your performance: you get competition. Some people value swimming in a heat of similar-fast individuals. They might even "reverse-sandbag" to be in a heat that is a little faster than they might typically go, in an attempt to push themselves to go faster. So the cynic in me does not believe non-sandbaggers enter accurate seed times because they are more pure of heart. They do it because they value competition over clear water or manipulating the timing of their swims. Heck, I do it partly as a memory aid: I'll often enter the time I did at the same particular meet one year prior, so I can compare my results to the heat sheet and at a glance see how I compare. Just because the ToC is wrong in predicting a complete degradation to meet B doesn't mean it is a valueless model. It is correct in predicting a non-optimal result due to the fact that some sandbagging will occur. And more sophisticated game theory can be used (presumably; I am no expert, though my brother-in-law is) to craft better predictions under various scenarios. Now...I happen to think that the main purpose of USMS meets is to provide a venue for competition between its members, not to provide a perfect time-trialing experience for everyone. Maybe a discussion couched in those terms is less likely to inflame people (eg, dirty, rotten sandbaggers) who think they are being accused of being morally bankrupt. (Disclaimer: the "dirty rotten" part was a joke. Don't shoot.) Look up the definition of "sole" sometime, but moving on to even less important matters. No one knew Kurt was sandbagging until he admitted it, true statement? I bet that if Kurt gave his entry time, everyone here would know that it was an outrageous sandbag. What would be the point of adding 30 seconds to what he thinks he will go? That would gain him 1-2 heats at best. To really swim significantly earlier he'd have to add many minutes to his time. So perhaps some of the defenders of sandbagging would have no problem to the sight of Kurt lapping 70- and 80-year-olds multiple times in an 8-lap race at nationals. I don't really agree with them, sorry. As far as solutions to the sandbagging "problem," to the extent that you believe there is one, we could simply do what USA-S does: at nationals you have to enter your best time in (say) the past 2 years. Maybe it wouldn't be the best predictor of your performance, but I bet it would do at least a good job of seeding people of similar speed together as our current system. And there wouldn't be a subjective component to sandbag identification. I believe that within a couple years, the vast majority of our meets will be in the national results database (similar to SWIMS), so it will be possible to do. As far as only applying to nationals: well, it is true that the only anti-sandbagging rule in the Rule Book applies to nationals. But I believe there is nothing in the Rule Book that prevents a specific Meet Director from having an anti-sandbagging policy at his/her sanctioned meet, if s/he wishes. It would be up to the sanctioning body (ie, the host LMSC) to decide if it would be appropriate, but it doesn't break any existing rules that I can see (as long as provisions were made for the gender thing that Leslie keeps bringing up). One justification for this would be if you have to make your timeline as efficient as possible due to pool rental restrictions.

Just saw this old thread on sandbagging, kind of interesting to read and compare to this one: Sandbagging? TP + Banana Thread - U.S. Masters Swimming Discussion Forums Two things stuck out (just having fun): Fort saying that "I think sandbagging is very prevalent and many masters swimmers do it" which seems a little different from her current stance. (Though generally her posts in that thread are pretty consistent, though less heated, with posts in this thread.) And Kirk's defense of sandbagging ("Sandbagging in swimming is small potatoes, really") which is different than this thread. In the electronic ether, nothing disappears!! More seriously, the other thread adds another dimension ("practice sandbagging") and has some good posts by meet director extraordinaire Rick Osterberg.

Chris, you are not only the role model swimmer for many of us, but the role model of logical argument, as well. As far as the morality of ToC-related arguments, perhaps I am speaking of utilitarianism of a sort, but more couched in evolutionary biology principles, which in my humble opinion is the true backdrop for all human moral concerns. In this, your willingness to provide a dollop of "altruistic punishment"--going to some personal risk of reputation to sanction those whose personal ambitions step on the toes of the group welfare--is itself yet another intriguing dimension, though perhaps not one which would lend itself to a Between the Lanes argument. Indulge two excerpts from a recent article of mine (excerpts that, for space reasons, failed to survive the editorial red pen): The game is deceptively simple: bring together a group of guys and give everybody a small sum of cash. Explain that each man can "invest" all, some, or none of his money in a common pool. As a powerful incentive for everyone to contribute, the moderator agrees to double the pot after each round of investing, at which point the total will be divided and redistributed equally. The benefits of "all for one, one for all" cooperation seem at first glance so obvious that during intial rounds, everyone typically maxes out their contribution. Alas, eventually somebody discovers the loophole: if you don't invest, not only do you get to keep the money you've already accumulated, but you still get an equal share of the common pot. Being a deadbeat, in other words, helps you prosper more than everybody else. Once deadbeating catches on, of course, even the most idealistic men begin to feel like suckers. Very quickly, cooperation disintegrates into mutual mistrust and "every man for himself" mentality. The scientific name for a deadbeat is a "free rider," and social psychologists have long used games like the "Commons Dilemma" and the "Unscrupulous Diner's Dilemma" to better understand how people balance their short-term self-interest with long-term group interest. Such tensions, of course, are ubiquitous within and between all human groups, and understanding how to juggle them have practical repercussions on everything from tax and social welfare policy, to military drafts and the hope for solutions to climate change..... Just as Commons Dilemma players can increase their personal wealth by taking advantage of cooperative suckers, so will genetically "selfish" humans outreproduce (and contribute more of their selftish genes to the next generation) than any altruists willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of their group. In the evolutionary sweepstakes, computer models seemed to show that nice guys do, indeed, finish last. Until quite recently, the only forms of "altruism" that researchers believed were truly rewarded by evolution were selfish ones: so-called "genetic altruism" --such as nepotism-- whereby we unconciously help our relatives in proportion to the percentage of genes we share; and "reciprocal altruism," AKA, the ***-for-tat approach where you scratch a friend's back only when you are convinced the favor will be returned. Such scenarios, however, failed to explain what we all know to be true: lots of people do, in fact, help total strangers, even when there is no chance the beneficiary will or even can reciprocate. In recent years, Darwin's notion of human group selection has reemerged, in part to explain seemingly unselfish altruism, and in part, because research has begun showing people do have ways of solving, or at least attenuating, the Free Rider problem. For championship teams and armies alike, a carrot-and-stick approach works effectively: rewarding "selfless" players with a reputation for being standup--while ostracizing, or even dumping, ball hogs, cowards, and assorted other deadbeats before bad apples have a chance to spoil the bunch. Human groups, it turns out, do this, too, regularly bestowing upon those who help their fellow members the most with a great reputation. But punishment for deadbeats, it turns out, might be even more effective--a point forcefully brought to home by an ingenious variation on the Commons Dilemma game. In a highly influential paper published in 2002 in the journal Nature, Swiss economics researchers Ernst Fehr and Simon Gächter had volunteers go through six rounds of the game during which cooperation predictably declined to almost nothing. On the seventh round, however, they added a new twist: people could now target some of their own money--albeit at personal expense and with no short-term material gain--to punish free riders. "As soon as people learned about the punishment option," says Haidt, "cooperation shoots up and keeps on going." Fehr and Gächter dubbed the phenomenon "altruistic punishment" because those who did the punishing were actually sacrificing personal gain, at least over the short term, so that the group itself could prosper. The study showed experimentally that as long as thus option is allowed, cooperation levels rise to nearly 100 percent. When punishment is ruled out, cooperation breaks down entirely. In the wake of this and related findings, evolutionary and social psychologists have identified a host of ways in which different human social behaviors--from religious rites and fraternity hazing, to town gossip to public philanthropy--help curb free riders and balance out the competing interests of individuals and the groups upon whom they depend. It is against this backdrop of selfish genes and group selection that I think our discussion of sandbagging must be considered if we are, indeed, to reach the next level of enlightenment to which we all aspire!

My 2 cents worth... I am a meet director for a relatively small, one day meet. We offer all events from 50 to 1650. I have no problem with someone entering NT in order to swim in the first heat of one event in order to get some rest for back to back events. I'd rather have them do that then constant complaining about the order of events. For distance events seeded slow to fast, I have a different view. To enter NT in order to swim back to back events is okay with me. But in a distant event at the end of the meet, to enter NT just so you don't have to sit around a little longer is not okay with me. I feel that is selfish. It seems to be saying that your convenience is more important than anyone else's. Nationals is a different matter because the time line is so tight. Swimmers should always enter a time at least close to their expectations, but it doesn't have to be the best time for the last 2 years. It's a fine line.

Fortress(s), You lie about your time so you don't have to swim in lane eight. Your actions have now placed another of your fellow competitors in the same situation you "bent" the rules to avoid. Is that fair? Is that a moral way to treat your fellow competitors?

I define sandbagging as deliberately entering a time that is substantially slower than you are planning to swim for the purpose of swimming in an earlier heat, grabbing more rest between events, and/or taking advantage of clear water. Now go ahead and parse that statement so you can rationalize sandbagging and convince yourself that it isn't unsportsmanlike.

I define sandbagging as deliberately entering a time that is substantially slower than you are planning to swim If you can come up with a means to determine "deliberately" without the participation of deliberator and quantify "substantially" I will accept your definition as well defined. for the sole purpose of swimming in an earlier heat, grabbing more rest between events, and/or taking advantage of clear water. You do seem to understand the concept of "well defined" because this half of the definition is quite tangible. So you think Kurt should have been allowed to sandbag and it would have been sportsmanly? I find that surprising, but Kurt did have a sole purpose to catch a specific flight, which he will still do, and as a precaution entered a time that would put him in an earlier heat, but his purpose is well defined and unchanged and out side of your well defined restrictions on what qualifies as sandbagging.

No. He entered a slower time for the sole purpose of swimming in an earlier heat. Note the "and/or" in my definition. He admitted that it was deliberate. And the time was substantially slower than what he was both planning to swim and capable of swimming, to the extent that it was obvious to the meet director.

You have your rules mixed up Most of the time it's my metaphors. Also, if a fellow swimmer were tapering for a non-nationals meet and I wasn't, I would give up a good lane for her or him. I knew there was good in you. I will remove the (s). Anyway, it's all spilt milk under the bridge now.