Ok, so the more they email me, the more I get nervous about the water temp. Last year it was 69 which stung to get in, but it made for a nice swimming temp. By the end, though, my fingers and toes felt a little numb, but that could have been tired (??).
But this year, it could be up to 10 degrees colder?! What to do when the coolest water I can find here in Cincinnati is 80?
If anything, this controversy proves that there are substantial flaws in the way some in not many open water races are organized and officiated.
...the greater question is what can be done to mitigate the chances that we'll be having similar discussions in years to come? In other words, something has to be done to ensure that swimmers are following the rules set forth (i.e. staying on course and rounding ALL of the marks).
In addition to pkerch's suggestions, any race consisting of more than one lap, should have a means for verifying that all laps have been completed, even if this requires a brief exit from the water to pass over a timing mat.
As the current controversy proves, if you can't verify the course was completed, including wave, laps and boundaries, the timing data will be inconclusive.
I'm an outsider to USMS but as a lifelong member of the swimming community I'd like to think that controversies such as this help us to better organize future events and promote the sport.
Well said. That should be the goal here. It would be nice if we knew everyone's times were legit when a race concludes. I think big Shoulders is a great event, but that doesn't mean it can't be improved upon!
You're right, all of us, ALL OF US, are dweebs and online haters. In fact knelson and I have been posting here for 7+ years for the opportunity to spring this on someone. We have been diligent about posting for this single opportunity! Sucks for you Andy, but you are the target of our master plan!!!
High 5 knelson, we pulled it off!
Gee, and I thought the discussion forum WAS for all us on line haters ... God forbid we discuss issues of controversy ...
I agree with pkerch, OW has to clean up its act. OW swimmers can't be allowed performance enhancing suits and a pass on the rules. If people like Chris get DQ'd for going past 15 meters in a race, then OW swimmers should be DQ'd for missing buoys. (Not saying that happened here, but it sure sounds suspicious.)
You're right, all of us, ALL OF US, are dweebs and online haters. In fact knelson and I have been posting here for 7+ years for the opportunity to spring this on someone. We have been diligent about posting for this single opportunity! Sucks for you Andy, but you are the target of our master plan!!!
High 5 knelson, we pulled it off!
On the other hand, after watching the race I felt obliged to purposely place myself into the conversation in large part because I felt that it was in the best interest of the sport. If anything, this controversy proves that there are substantial flaws in the way some in not many open water races are organized and officiated. Which, quite frankly, isn't all that surprising given the relative age and increased interest of this sport in the US- we could all attribute this as a necessary growing pain associated w/ OW swimming. I'm an outsider to USMS but as a lifelong member of the swimming community I'd like to think that controversies such as this help us to better organize future events and promote the sport. While I find a particular swimmer's time highly suspicious, there appears to be little that can be done about it at this time... the race ended long ago, but the greater question is what can be done to mitigate the chances that we'll be having similar discussions in years to come? In other words, something has to be done to ensure that swimmers are following the rules set forth (i.e. staying on course and rounding ALL of the marks). Secondly, I'd recommend that some system be put into place to ensure that swimmers are better matched in terms of ability/pace to provide a more realistic open water experience... particularly for those races in which multiple heats are deemed necessary. In terms of how this relates to OW and USMS championship races, I propose that swimmers have the option of choosing whether or not they'd like to chase after the overall championship or race against those in their so-called age bracket. In my mind, this type of arrangement (while divergent from other USMS championship policies/structures) appears to be the best and perhaps the only way to determine an OW champion. Better yet, it encourages a more authentic OW race environment.
In addition to pkerch's suggestions, any race consisting of more than one lap, should have a means for verifying that all laps have been completed, even if this requires a brief exit from the water to pass over a timing mat.
As the current controversy proves, if you can't verify the course was completed, including wave, laps and boundaries, the timing data will be inconclusive.
FHS,
Some OW attach GPS enabled devices on swimmers which would solve many of the issues raised. The problem, however, is that these type of devices are (as one might expect) rather costly.
If people like Chris get DQ'd for going past 15 meters in a race, then OW swimmers should be DQ'd for missing buoys.
The rules do require a DQ for missing a mandatory buoy, if (1) the responsible official notices, or (2) someone else notices and protests (or self-reports after realizing later that s/he missed one).
Someone also may once have gone past 15m in a backstroke race without being DQ'd, because (1) the responsible official did not notice, and (2) nobody who did notice protested. A rule violation (15m, false start, etc.) could even have happened at Nationals.
These examples illustrate how much our sport relies on self-policing, and is vulnerable to normal human error, but they just don't persuade me that USMS needs to "clean up its act." Using the types of technology and officiating standards that apply to, say, the Olympics would raise entry fees and reduce the number of competitions rather substantially. Personally, I figure that if no one cared enough about the outcome of Big Shoulders to protest at the time, I am in no position to get worked up about it now.
I said OW had to clean up its act, not USMS ...
Of course officials can't always notice something. I was referring to the case where there were no officials to police the mandatory buoys.
Don't worry, I didn't go past the 15 meter mark in any races at Nats. :) Chris' dubious DQ freaked me out enough to botch all my backstroke starts and not take full advantage of my SDK.
Perhaps everyone accepted the results because they didn't have the time or energy to analyze the results immediately post race. Brain function is not always at fully operable when you're exhausted.
Way to go Andy! I knew you could do it! Don't worry about all of these online haters and dweebs maligning you from computer chairs. You done good!
You're right, all of us, ALL OF US, are dweebs and online haters. In fact knelson and I have been posting here for 7+ years for the opportunity to spring this on someone. We have been diligent about posting for this single opportunity! Sucks for you Andy, but you are the target of our master plan!!!
High 5 knelson, we pulled it off!
I said OW had to clean up its act, not USMS ...
Of course officials can't always notice something. I was referring to the case where there were no officials to police the mandatory buoys.
Don't worry, I didn't go past the 15 meter mark in any races at Nats. :) Chris' dubious DQ freaked me out enough to botch all my backstroke starts and not take full advantage of my SDK.
Perhaps everyone accepted the results because they didn't have the time or energy to analyze the results immediately post race. Brain function is not always at fully operable when you're exhausted.
If USMS is going to sponsor the National Championship, then it seems to me that they should be part of the "clean up" process.
As for having the time and energy to protest. Is a fraud not detected within 30 minutes, not a fraud?
When the results were announced, well after the 30 minute protest period had passed, the speaker (I presume Chris Sheean?) said that Andy was the "real deal" and that he had "won several significant OW swims outright" this summer. I still have no idea what races he was referring to.
He did mention two races. (note posted previously by knelson) A 15th place finish at Clovis 1 mile in 19:31 and 2:26 at Harbor Springs 10k do not seem commensurate with :56 for the 5k.
Regarding the 30 minute time limit. It's just not possible to review the data that quickly. I think this rule should be changed. A couple of days would seem reasonable.
As far as I can tell, no one has pointed to any other recorded swim to indicate that the winner did indeed complete the course in the time posted.
Let's put this in perspective.
Jim McConica swam a 1650 in 16:42 in 2001 as a M50-54 (USMS record)
Andy Seibt swam a 1650 in 18:05 in 2009 at the age of 51
Jim McConica holds the us postal 5k record for M50-54 at 1:00:53 (USMS Record)
Andy Seibt swam a OW 5k in 2009 at the age of 51 at BS swam 0:56:21
You have to be able to hold about a minute flat (yards) for a mile, if you're going to have a chance under an hour for 5K.
For those who think in relative terms. Jim swam 8% faster in the 1650, (both swimmers approx same age, in pool conditions) only to get beat by Andy 7% at 5k, where you would expect Jim to have had an advantage (assuming you agree that people will swim faster in the pool than in OW).
