PDA

View Full Version : When is it OK to disallow swims



Allen Stark
January 23rd, 2013, 06:06 PM
This thread is in response to Jim Thorton's thread about his AA time being disallowed.I think that if a swimmer swims in a USMS sanctioned meet and that the time gets to the "official" Top Ten list that it should count.Otherwise one could go back and check the length of ,say the Amarillo pool from the first Masters Nationals and if it was 1 cm short disallow the swims.There must be a statute of limitations and I think it should be when the official TT times are posted.

ElaineK
January 23rd, 2013, 07:20 PM
This thread is in response to Jim Thorton's thread about his AA time being disallowed.I think that if a swimmer swims in a USMS sanctioned meet and that the time gets to the "official" Top Ten list that it should count.Otherwise one could go back and check the length of ,say the Amarillo pool from the first Masters Nationals and if it was 1 cm short disallow the swims.There must be a statute of limitations and I think it should be when the official TT times are posted.


:applaud:I will never be in a position for this sort of thing to happen to me (unless I outlive my competition ), but I completely agree with you. You, Jim, Fort, and others, have my sympathy; it really stinks! :bitching: :bighug:

thewookiee
January 23rd, 2013, 07:40 PM
After the top ten, AA, have been deemed final, then NO, the rankings should not be changed. Jimbo has gotten a royal screwing by usms in this case. If the pool issue wasn't addressed during the period where challenges or changes could be addressed, then it shouldn't addressed after the final rankings are published.

Jimbo, you are still the #1 100 freestyle in my book, regardless of the screwing you have been given after the fact.

__steve__
January 23rd, 2013, 07:50 PM
:applaud:I will never be in a position for this sort of thing to happen to me (unless I outlive my competition ), but I completely agree with you. You, Jim, Fort, and others, have my sympathy; it really stinks! :bitching: :bighug:I too, hope that someday I could be in a position to have this happen to me. But for the record, Jim is still the 2012 #1 man in swimmings premier event for 60 - 64, even with a 5" adjustment - 101.54. He still won it with 2 more feet to spare.

scyfreestyler
January 23rd, 2013, 08:41 PM
Seems a little ironic that one can admit to cheating in an Olympic race and still walk away with a gold medal (Cameron Van Der Burgh), yet a pool measurement mistake can be used to strip one of their USMS Top 10 time.

jim thornton
January 24th, 2013, 01:21 PM
I just discovered this thread and want to thank Allen and all the kind posters! From what I have heard through the rumor mill, USMS has recently discovered a number of cases where people have changed their ages so as to do better in the TT rankings. This became possible after collating all the TT in a single data base, which made it easy to determine that if swimmer X, who made the TT at age, say, 27, makes it again 30 years later at age 60, something fishy is going on. In cases of outright fraud, I do think the malefactor should have his or her time yanked, though a person pathetic enough to do this probably is being punished by life already. Perhaps a better solution to TT horror stories is for USMS to withhold its sanction until a potential meet director submits everything necessary before he/she can even post the meet info. Check my modest proposal out on the other thread. And thanks, sincerely, to everyone for your kindness!

aguins
January 24th, 2013, 01:40 PM
Ugh, ugh, ugh

fmracing
January 24th, 2013, 02:20 PM
Seems a little ironic that one can admit to cheating in an Olympic race and still walk away with a gold medal (Cameron Van Der Burgh), yet a pool measurement mistake can be used to strip one of their USMS Top 10 time.
+1 to that.


I "abstain courteously", to the poll.

no200fly
January 30th, 2013, 05:39 PM
I just discovered this thread and want to thank Allen and all the kind posters! From what I have heard through the rumor mill, USMS has recently discovered a number of cases where people have changed their ages so as to do better in the TT rankings.

Wow, some people must take this pretty seriously. Some time back I heard a story about a guy I swam with in college getting caught in a motor vehicle assisted run during a triathlon. I guess I just donít understand what you would get out of doing that.

Sportygeek
January 30th, 2013, 07:24 PM
Wow, some people must take this pretty seriously. Some time back I heard a story about a guy I swam with in college getting caught in a motor vehicle assisted run during a triathlon. I guess I just don’t understand what you would get out of doing that.

Motor vehicle assisted run? Or vehicle drafting on the bike leg, which can be either deliberate or genuinely accidental (eg in ITU races draft zone around vehicles is 35m x 5m; if a technical official sees you riding at 34.5m you get a penalty). A couple of people in my club have been DQ for non-deliberate drafting that they weren't even aware of doing at the time (they were DQ for drafting off other racers, but I'm sure others have been done for vehicle drafting in the same sort of way)

no200fly
January 30th, 2013, 09:14 PM
This involved riding in the back seat of a motor vehicle for a big part of the run.

ekw
January 30th, 2013, 09:15 PM
This involved riding in the back seat of a motor vehicle for a big part of the run.

That's my kind of run! :banana:

Bobinator
January 30th, 2013, 09:40 PM
After the top ten, AA, have been deemed final, then NO, the rankings should not be changed. Jimbo has gotten a royal screwing by usms in this case. If the pool issue wasn't addressed during the period where challenges or changes could be addressed, then it shouldn't addressed after the final rankings are published.

Jimbo, you are still the #1 100 freestyle in my book, regardless of the screwing you have been given after the fact.

I agree w/ thewookie. Well stated wookie.

rodent
January 30th, 2013, 11:05 PM
After the top ten, AA, have been deemed final, then NO, the rankings should not be changed. Jimbo has gotten a royal screwing by usms in this case. If the pool issue wasn't addressed during the period where challenges or changes could be addressed, then it shouldn't addressed after the final rankings are published.

Jimbo, you are still the #1 100 freestyle in my book, regardless of the screwing you have been given after the fact.

There is no dispute that Jim had the fastest time in the 100 LCM freestyle for United States men, aged 60-64, in 2012. That swim will not be recognized by USMS, because it was not supported by a certified measurement that the pool is the proper length. Although the USAS team, that owns and runs the pool (NBAC) claims that the pool is the correct length, they have not provided such certification. USMS has on file a certification stating that when the pool was measured (while empty of water) it was an inch or two short. I don't know if NBAC is right, but I do think that they believe their pool is the proper length. USMS will not accept Jim's swim because they believe that the rule requiring that the pool be certified as the correct length, leaves them no choice but to disallow it. I agree that the decision reached by USMS would be correct in most cases, but because of the extenuating circmstances mentioned on the previous posts it is not a fair decision in Jim's case and creates an unjust result. However, I can understand the thought process of the Top 10 Committee.

jaadams1
January 31st, 2013, 01:26 AM
I got a message that a meet this past fall in the NW at the infamous Tualatin Hills Rec. Center didn't make the measurements requirement. The bulkhead ended up being short for a few/most of the lanes. My only gripe...the records were sent to me for the Zone records, and updated (back in October). Now apparently I need to strike these records, and attempt to figure out who/what/when/etc. had the record previously. Shouldn't the pool measurement issue have come up a while ago, before the notice of records was ever given out (in addition to the potential Top Tens that were stricken as well)??

That Guy
January 31st, 2013, 09:29 AM
I got a message that a meet this past fall in the NW at the infamous Tualatin Hills Rec. Center didn't make the measurements requirement. The bulkhead ended up being short for a few/most of the lanes. My only gripe...the records were sent to me for the Zone records, and updated (back in October). Now apparently I need to strike these records, and attempt to figure out who/what/when/etc. had the record previously. Shouldn't the pool measurement issue have come up a while ago, before the notice of records was ever given out (in addition to the potential Top Tens that were stricken as well)?? The SCM configuration at that pool is like nothing I've ever seen before. Here's a fun thing to try: stand on deck by the bulkhead for the fast heat of a 50 event, or the 100 free or 100 IM. Watch what happens when several swimmers all turn and push off the bulkhead at about the same time.

Chris Stevenson
January 31st, 2013, 09:35 AM
From what I have heard through the rumor mill, USMS has recently discovered a number of cases where people have changed their ages so as to do better in the TT rankings. This became possible after collating all the TT in a single data base, which made it easy to determine that if swimmer X, who made the TT at age, say, 27, makes it again 30 years later at age 60, something fishy is going on.

Jim you may appreciate this: there is a flip side to this phenomenon and possibly it is more common (Anna Lea can say for sure): vanity aging. That's when (usually middle-aged) swimmers enter a younger age than their actual years.

It puts them at a competitive disadvantage with respect to swimming achievements but perhaps they are interested in something other than TT rankings...

That Guy
January 31st, 2013, 09:58 AM
This involved riding in the back seat of a motor vehicle for a big part of the run.
Seattle To Portland is an annual 204 mile weekend bike ride. It is a *ride*, not a race. Most participants take 2 days to complete it but some do it in one day. On Saturday afternoon in Portland, on the side streets in the last couple miles before the finish area, you can see cyclists climbing out of cars and getting back on their bikes so they can ride across the finish line and get a "One Day Rider" patch. I earned my patch...

Betsy
January 31st, 2013, 11:47 AM
In regard to pool measurement and the sanction. For USMS meets, the sanction should not be issued until the pool measurement has been filed. At least, that is how it is supposed to work.
Unfortunately, USA-S requirements are different. I believe they only require measurement for championship events. I "heard" that is because so many older pools are used an if the measurement was required, there would be very few meets for all those swimmers. (I can't verify that statement, but it makes sense to me).

rodent
January 31st, 2013, 01:22 PM
I got a message that a meet this past fall in the NW at the infamous Tualatin Hills Rec. Center didn't make the measurements requirement. The bulkhead ended up being short for a few/most of the lanes. My only gripe...the records were sent to me for the Zone records, and updated (back in October). Now apparently I need to strike these records, and attempt to figure out who/what/when/etc. had the record previously. Shouldn't the pool measurement issue have come up a while ago, before the notice of records was ever given out (in addition to the potential Top Tens that were stricken as well)??. Jim, that will be a tough problem to fix. You may have to send an email to everyone in your LMSC and ask if you deleted one of their records then you can go to the USMS data base and verify their time. That might be more efficient and accurate than using your memory to recreate the deleted records through the USMS data base. The meet will go down in history as the "meet that never was".

Michael Blatt
January 31st, 2013, 01:52 PM
Jim you may appreciate this: there is a flip side to this phenomenon and possibly it is more common (Anna Lea can say for sure): vanity aging. That's when (usually middle-aged) swimmers enter a younger age than their actual years.

It puts them at a competitive disadvantage with respect to swimming achievements but perhaps they are interested in something other than TT rankings...


One of the humorous events I remember from the master's club I swam with 30 years ago was a then 50-ish female club member who did exactly this. As a 20-something at the time I thought it was pretty funny that somebody would do that. Now that I'm approaching 60, I still don't particularly understand the motivation, but am much more empathetic to it.

On subject, how difficult would it be for the TT recorders to not post swims from pools that don't meet USMS measurement requirements? It seems that Jim's case would have been better handled if the swim wasn't in the preliminary TT list because the pool didn't meet USMS requirements, giving him the opportunity to either work to get the measurements/paperwork submitted or find out that the swim wouldn't count at a much better point in the process.

Chris Stevenson
January 31st, 2013, 02:34 PM
On subject, how difficult would it be for the TT recorders to not post swims from pools that don't meet USMS measurement requirements?

TTRs are not supposed to submit times from meets where the pool hasn't been measured. And if they did, normally Mary Beth would not have included the times in the TT lists.

In the Tualatin Hills meet referred to earlier in this thread she did pull those times from the SCM TT list she is compiling right now. I'm not sure why the times were submitted in the first place; possibly the TTR didn't realize the pool was short (the measurements of the 25m pool were in feet & inches so it isn't necessarily obvious at a glance).

As for why this wasn't done in the case of the now-infamous NBAC meet, that was described in the other thread (http://forums.usms.org/showthread.php?21939-Top-10-Horror-Stories).

smontanaro
January 31st, 2013, 02:59 PM
I'm currently the ILMSA top ten recorder. When I do the top ten submissions for a particular season, Mary Beth wants to see the pool measurement forms or know that they are already in Walt Reid's spreadsheet. Was this meet at Tualatin Hills a non-USMS meet of some sort?

Chris Stevenson
January 31st, 2013, 03:47 PM
I'm currently the ILMSA top ten recorder. When I do the top ten submissions for a particular season, Mary Beth wants to see the pool measurement forms or know that they are already in Walt Reid's spreadsheet. Was this meet at Tualatin Hills a non-USMS meet of some sort?

Sanctioned meet, bulkhead pool had already been certified and was on the list. Looking at the measurements, both pre- and post-meet measurements were short so it wasn't a matter of the bulkhead moving it was a matter of the meet organizers not realizing that 25m converts to 82 feet 0.25 inches (a fact that is on the back of the measurement form (http://www.usms.org/admin/lmschb/gto_rectab_pool_measurement.pdf)).

orca1946
February 2nd, 2013, 12:41 PM
The pool should be legal BEFORE the meet is sanctioned !!!!!

smontanaro
February 2nd, 2013, 03:15 PM
The pool should be legal BEFORE the meet is sanctioned !!!!!

That's nice, in theory, but isn't really possible for bulkhead pools. You have to measure them before and after the meet. As Chris pointed out (in different words), our American aversion to the metric system probably contributed to the mistake.

Chris, I looked at the measurement form. I think the boxed notice at the bottom probably belongs at the top if it's meant to be seen and acted on. It could be extended with the English equivalents of the metric distances as well.

no200fly
February 2nd, 2013, 06:07 PM
Jim you may appreciate this: there is a flip side to this phenomenon and possibly it is more common (Anna Lea can say for sure): vanity aging. That's when (usually middle-aged) swimmers enter a younger age than their actual years.


Imagine what we would see if we had to list our weight.

Chris Stevenson
February 2nd, 2013, 09:04 PM
Chris, I looked at the measurement form. I think the boxed notice at the bottom probably belongs at the top if it's meant to be seen and acted on. It could be extended with the English equivalents of the metric distances as well.

Seems reasonable, I'll suggest that change.

A bigger problem IMO is that the whole second page was omitted from the Rules Book for some reason. If all people do is go by the Rule Book -- particularly if there isn't good wireless connectivity at the meet -- then they aren't going to go the USMS website to look up those procedures.

Michael Heather
February 5th, 2013, 12:59 AM
Wow. 80% of the respondents to the poll think that, by logical extension, when new evidence is found, a convicted felon should stay in jail. There is little difference from that argument to the ones being made here.

gobears
February 5th, 2013, 08:19 AM
Wow. 80% of the respondents to the poll think that, by logical extension, when new evidence is found, a convicted felon should stay in jail. There is little difference from that argument to the ones being made here.

Ummm, yeah, there's quite a difference, actually...

jim thornton
February 5th, 2013, 11:39 AM
Wow. 80% of the respondents to the poll think that, by logical extension, when new evidence is found, a convicted felon should stay in jail. There is little difference from that argument to the ones being made here.

Am I the criminal being kept in or released from jail? Is the penalty worthy of my crime? Does the prosecutor deserve any blame for withholding exculpatory evidence from the defense? Is ignorance of the law no excuse when the law is ignored by those whose job it is to enforce it? I am seriously confounded by this argument! Unless you mean that Greg Shaw, elevated to first place, is the unjustly imprisoned criminal released from the damnation of a No. 2 ranking when the criminal machinations of Jim Thornton have been revealed, perhaps after the statute of limitations has run out, perhaps not? Perhaps you might consider amending your tag line to read: It's like reality, only magic.

gull
February 5th, 2013, 12:10 PM
I would say that 80% of the respondents believe that Jim acted in good faith and is being unfairly penalized by the actions or omissions of others within the organization. The meet was sanctioned by USMS. He received assurances from the meet organizers that his times would count for top ten consideration. And his name appeared in the finalized rankings.

knelson
February 5th, 2013, 12:11 PM
vanity aging. That's when (usually middle-aged) swimmers enter a younger age than their actual years..

Never really understood this. Seems to me it's just setting yourself up for people saying "wow, he/she looks a lot older than that!"

But back to statute of limitations on TT times. You know, I think most people are responding to the poll with Jim's situation in mind, but there are other things that can happen. For example, I swam at SPMA LC championships a few years ago and the scoreboard said I went a 4:27 in my 400 free. I knew I was really more like 4:34 based on the times of a couple other swimmers I was right with. The backup timers screwed up and just wrote down exactly what the readout board said, so that didn't help. If I hadn't said anything about it I'm absolutely sure that time would have stood unless someone else complained and even then what could they do? The electronic timing had me down at 4:27. What they ended up doing is throwing that time out and letting me swim it again at the end of the day.

What if someone found out, after the results were official, that someone used paddles to swim the One Hour Postal? Would you want that result to stand just because the results were already official? There are all kinds of possible scenarios. I think the only fair thing to do is throw out any times that are known to not comply with USMS rules when the swim took place.

pmccoy
February 5th, 2013, 12:59 PM
[re: vanity aging]Never really understood this. Seems to me it's just setting yourself up for people saying "wow, he/she looks a lot older than that!"I've seen a master's coach get pretty worked up over losing an IM relay and rearrange his swimmers to ensure he won the free relay in that age group the next day (perfectly legitimate). Meet points seem to matter a lot to some people... nothing wrong with that. I suppose it's possible a misguided swimmer could take it a step further and sign up for a different age group knowing that it is less populated and thus provides a better chance for winning a race.

gull
February 5th, 2013, 01:37 PM
What if someone found out, after the results were official, that someone used paddles to swim the One Hour Postal? Would you want that result to stand just because the results were already official? There are all kinds of possible scenarios. I think the only fair thing to do is throw out any times that are known to not comply with USMS rules when the swim took place.

The problem I have always had with the "slippery slope" argument is that the examples cited are often not analogous. Jim didn't use paddles, or a tow rope, or even a motor. He entered a USMS-sanctioned meet, he didn't false start, and he wasn't disqualified. The truly fair thing to do would have been to allow the official results to stand.

knelson
February 5th, 2013, 01:53 PM
The problem I have always had with the "slippery slope" argument

In this case I don't think there's a slippery slope. The poll is stated as "Should the Top Ten list be altered after it is official." And the options were "No,that is what official means" or "Yes,if there is a problem there should be no statute of limitations ." No slippery slope. Yes, Allen was thinking of Jim's situation, but the poll is very specific: should top ten be altered after it's official? There was no mention of what reasons would or would not be valid for altering it. So, it seems to me, if you believe that there are reasons for altering Top Ten after it is official then you should vote "Yes..." It shouldn't really matter what you think about Jim's particular situation.

gull
February 5th, 2013, 01:59 PM
You asked the question, "What if someone found out, after the results were official, that someone used paddles to swim the One Hour Postal?" I interpreted that as a slippery slope argument in support of altering the top ten list.

knelson
February 5th, 2013, 02:11 PM
If this makes it a "slippery slope" then so be it. I can imagine scenarios where a time should be disallowed after results or Top Ten listings are "final" and because of this I felt like I should vote "Yes" on the poll.

gull
February 5th, 2013, 02:19 PM
Understood. My point was that Jim's time should not be disallowed simply because we can imagine such scenarios.

Chris Stevenson
February 5th, 2013, 03:12 PM
My point was that Jim's time should not be disallowed simply because we can imagine such scenarios.

It wasn't.

But the opposite applies too. I think that Kirk was correct that many people are responding solely to Jim's situation, and in one swim (100 free) at that. But the meet had lots of other swims that affected TT rankings. For example, a relay at that meet had been ranked #1 before the meet was pulled and no one knows about it (nor the relay that was "promoted").

You say "The truly fair thing to do would have been to allow the official results to stand." First of all, the results are still official. Jim wasn't DQ'd or anything. The times from the meet just aren't considered eligible for Top 10 consideration.

But more importantly I think there can be legitimate disagreement about what the fair thing to do is. You and others are thinking about this solely from Jim's perspective but his isn't the only one.

So here's a slippery slope argument. Suppose a facility manager, or meet director, or even top 10 recorder measured the pool to verify bulkhead placement and found out that it was short. Suppose that person concealed the fact and the times were submitted and accepted as Top 10 times. Then -- after the "final" lists were published -- the true measurements turned up.

What should be done? This is not a "disqualifying" offense. The results are official even if the pool is short, so it is not really analogous to Kirk's example. The times just should not have been submitted for Top 10.

Do you think this is such an unlikely scenario? Pool measurements are done on the honor system. I think most people are honorable. But I am not so naÔve as to think that everyone is.

gull
February 5th, 2013, 03:25 PM
So really the deadline for making corrections to the preliminary top ten list is a soft one.

swimmieAvsFan
February 5th, 2013, 03:26 PM
...So here's a slippery slope argument. Suppose a facility manager, or meet director, or even top 10 recorder measured the pool to verify bulkhead placement and found out that it was short. Suppose that person concealed the fact and the times were submitted and accepted as Top 10 times. Then -- after the "final" lists were published -- the true measurements turned up.

What should be done? This is not a "disqualifying" offense. The results are official even if the pool is short, so it is not really analogous to Kirk's example. The times just should not have been submitted for Top 10.

Do you think this is such an unlikely scenario? Pool measurements are done on the honor system. I think most people are honorable. But I am not so naÔve as to think that everyone is.

Chris, in your example quoted above, did the national Top Ten recorder receive the falsified measurements? Or did they only have assurances of the fact the pool was measured and was long enough? Because your answer will change my answer.

Allen Stark
February 5th, 2013, 03:55 PM
When I posted the original poll I was not making allowances for cheating.If there was cheating a swim or a meet or whatever should be thrown out.I meant to refer only to good faith swims.
Kirk I applaud your honesty in getting your "too fast"time removed.I hope I would have been that honest.I know in the aftermath of the infamous 2001 NW Zone SCM meet Wayne McCaulley posted something like "My friend Allen Stark was at the meet and I know he wouldn't want any dubious times to count"and I thought to myself"Wow,I didn't know I was that scrupulous."

The Fortress
February 5th, 2013, 04:01 PM
So really the deadline for making corrections to the preliminary top ten list is a soft one.

It is with regard to pulling times off the list apparently, but not the other way around. Didn't Chris say in the other thread that entire sanctioned meets (with valid measurements, etc.) have been rejected for inclusion when a meet director didn't send the results by the "deadline"?

Chris Stevenson
February 5th, 2013, 07:38 PM
When I posted the original poll I was not making allowances for cheating.If there was cheating a swim or a meet or whatever should be thrown out.I meant to refer only to good faith swims.

Thanks for giving your input, that's exactly the sort of thing I'm looking for to feed into the next Records & Tabulation discussion of this issue (a discussion of how permanent the "final" lists should be).


Chris, in your example quoted above, did the national Top Ten recorder receive the falsified measurements? Or did they only have assurances of the fact the pool was measured and was long enough? Because your answer will change my answer.

No, in my hypothetical example, she didn't. And in the real world too, she usually doesn't.

Most people possibly don't know this, but here goes. Measurements only need to accompany USMS/FINA record applications, not Top 10 submissions. The LMSC (usually the Top 10 Recorder) is supposed to keep those on file. When Mary Beth is processing results she checks the meet facility and checks if the pool length certification is in the national database. If it isn't, she asks the TTR if the pool has been certified. If the pool has a bulkhead she also asks if the bulkhead placement was verified as is required by the rules. Some TTRs send in the measurements in response to these questions but not all do, nor is it required.

So my hypothetical situation can certainly happen. Possibly the most unrealistic part of it is that the measurements are "discovered" after the TT lists are official, but I can think of a couple situations where this could happen. One would be a national record that isn't discovered until times are submitted for TT submission. (This happens quite often.) Mary Beth alerts the TTR about the record, and the record application (including the measurements) are submitted to Walt. The deadline for submission of times for records is 90 days after the end of the season, which is roughly about when the "final" lists are published.

So Walt might receive the pool measurements and realize they are short after the TT lists are published. Another situation is when the TTR sends the measurements on to MB without realizing they are short. This definitely happens, though I admit that it is less likely to happen after the final lists are published.

Realize that things have been changing the last few years in the TT world due to something called the E2EEM (end-to-end event management) project which, among other things, encourages TTRs to upload meet results into the national USMS results database to and use web tools to submit times for TT consideration. Online event sanctioning has also been added to E2EEM. One of the next stages is to tie into pool measurements; at some point -- I am speculating -- I could imagine inputing pool measurements as a required part of E2EEM. It would still be the honor system, of course, but more automated. Possibly -- again, speculation -- times couldn't be submitted for TT consideration or be part of "Current Event Rankings" unless those measurements are in the system.

And that's probably more information than any of you wanted to know about Top 10. :-)

swimmieAvsFan
February 5th, 2013, 07:52 PM
Okay, super simple solution to this- how about just not accepting swims that come from pools with no measurement on file (for fixed wall pools) or not accompanied by pool length certification forms (for bulkheaded pools)? That doesn't require Jim M. to have to add anything to the E2EEM system, but I do admit it would add paperwork for meet directors and the TTR. Any meet director worth his or her salt using a bulkheaded pool would already have the form filled out, so all they'd have to do would be scan and send the form. And yes, before you say anything, I know that meet directors are already busy- I'm married to one!

Michael Heather
February 5th, 2013, 09:07 PM
Am I the criminal being kept in or released from jail? Is the penalty worthy of my crime? Does the prosecutor deserve any blame for withholding exculpatory evidence from the defense? Is ignorance of the law no excuse when the law is ignored by those whose job it is to enforce it? I am seriously confounded by this argument! Unless you mean that Greg Shaw, elevated to first place, is the unjustly imprisoned criminal released from the damnation of a No. 2 ranking when the criminal machinations of Jim Thornton have been revealed, perhaps after the statute of limitations has run out, perhaps not? Perhaps you might consider amending your tag line to read: It's like reality, only magic.

Really? That is the best you could do? I am not going to bother pointing out the obvious parallels, but that last part was just petty. I guess I should expect nothing more.

thewookiee
February 6th, 2013, 08:08 AM
Really? That is the best you could do? I am not going to bother pointing out the obvious parallels, but that last part was just petty. I guess I should expect nothing more.

How is Jim being petty? Attention Jim Thornton, to paraphrase an 80's ceral commerical, "little mikey doesn't like it"

Rob Copeland
February 6th, 2013, 08:34 AM
Really? That is the best you could do? No, Jim can do better. But for the sake of keeping this thread somewhat on track, I sincerely hope Jim refrains from unleashing WMD's from his literary arsenal.

Chris Stevenson
February 6th, 2013, 08:39 AM
Okay, super simple solution to this- how about just not accepting swims that come from pools with no measurement on file (for fixed wall pools) or not accompanied by pool length certification forms (for bulkheaded pools)?

Well that is already the rule, it is just how you interpret "on file with USMS," which is the phrase used in the rule book for both records and TT. Our current practice is basically: for records it means it must be in the central database, for non-record TTs it means on file with the LMSC (which are of course part of USMS).

Your suggestion is the direction we're heading. But IMO it would be too disruptive to do it all at once. Many meets would be excluded if we implemented that policy immediately and strictly; the outcry would likely dwarf what we have here. It isn't JUST a matter of work, getting all 52 LMSCs to change abruptly really is like herding cats. (But many of them DO in fact currently send in their measurements anyway.)

I think the national certification database needs to be cleaned up before it can play a bigger role. Right now the TTRs are reviewing the database and comparing it to their records, making corrections and sending in new info as they can. Consolidating records between a national database and 52 LMSCs is not a quick process, especially when some of the files in the LMSCs are old and undoubtedly lost due to TTR turnover. (And not all LMSCs use TTRs for this task anyway.)

And just this year we also changed the policy and the Guide To Operations for TTRs so that all new pool certifications, not just for pools that had records set, should be sent into Walt so that he can add them to the database. Walt tells me that these two changes have resulted in a surge of submissions of measurements to him; it's a start.

Maybe full implementation in E2EEM is not needed but it would help a lot. At the very least having the certification info in a real database, accessed thru a web form, would be a vast improvement over what we have now: an Excel spreadsheet that some people have trouble reading. The reason E2EEM implementation would be helpful is, among other things, it would standardize LMSC practices and (hopefully) force everybody to input measurements.

Realize also that currently the single most common "violation" of the LMSC Standards (http://www.usms.org/admin/lmschb/gto_lmsc_standards.pdf) (ie, USMS' "best practices" document) is the timely uploading of meet results. I may be misremembering, but someone at Convention told me that compliance with the results standard (S8 on the standards document) is something like 50-60% by LMSC. Adding additional measurement requirements to the process thru E2EEM (ie, measurements must be included with the results) would make things worse.

knelson
February 6th, 2013, 09:41 AM
Kirk I applaud your honesty in getting your "too fast"time removed.I hope I would have been that honest.

I'm sure you would and most people would. Yeah, there are always going to be the Rosie Ruiz' out there, but really what's the point in getting an accolade you don't deserve? I'd never be able to live with myself.

swimmieAvsFan
February 6th, 2013, 11:04 AM
Well that is already the rule, it is just how you interpret "on file with USMS," which is the phrase used in the rule book for both records and TT. Our current practice is basically: for records it means it must be in the central database, for non-record TTs it means on file with the LMSC (which are of course part of USMS).
So, specifically in the case of the NBAC meet, it sounds like rule 105.1.6 wasn't followed (even allowing for current practices of non-record TT measurements being on file with the LMSC), as the rule states the times "shall not be accepted unless certification of course length accompanies them or is on file with USMS or FINA". This is where people are having issues with accepting the whole situation. A major rule wasn't followed, in admittedly good faith, but it doesn't change the fact that a rule wasn't followed. This is why I had said a while back that Jim wouldn't have been nearly as upset if his times hadn't made it into the preliminary TT- it would have been easy enough to say that rule 105.1.6 wasn't followed and therefore his time wasn't able to be included.


...And just this year we also changed the policy and the Guide To Operations for TTRs so that all new pool certifications, not just for pools that had records set, should be sent into Walt so that he can add them to the database. Walt tells me that these two changes have resulted in a surge of submissions of measurements to him; it's a start.

Maybe full implementation in E2EEM is not needed but it would help a lot. At the very least having the certification info in a real database, accessed thru a web form, would be a vast improvement over what we have now: an Excel spreadsheet that some people have trouble reading. The reason E2EEM implementation would be helpful is, among other things, it would standardize LMSC practices and (hopefully) force everybody to input measurements...
Although I feel bad that Walt has lots of extra work, I'm glad the policy is now to have people send in measurements to a centralized place. I've never really understood why it's taken this long to implement a change in policy for something that is this important. And I agree that the implementation of E2EEM will help immensely, but I'm curious how people have trouble reading the spreadsheet. It's not really that complicated, is it? I think possibly the most confusing part (which shouldn't be that confusing in actuality), is that each course has its own tab, so pools are listed multiple times.


...Realize also that currently the single most common "violation" of the LMSC Standards (http://www.usms.org/admin/lmschb/gto_lmsc_standards.pdf) (ie, USMS' "best practices" document) is the timely uploading of meet results. I may be misremembering, but someone at Convention told me that compliance with the results standard (S8 on the standards document) is something like 50-60% by LMSC. Adding additional measurement requirements to the process thru E2EEM (ie, measurements must be included with the results) would make things worse.

Oh trust me- on this one, I know. I've heard parts of many a LMSC Development conference call talking about this. Although, I think at this point, the compliance rate isn't quite that bad. I think it was that low at implementation, but it's gotten better as the standards have been in place longer.

gull
February 6th, 2013, 11:13 AM
I would propose that the "final" top ten list can only be changed if it is determined that a swim was fraudulent (e.g. a swimmer falsified his or her age). There is ample opportunity to check the preliminary list for inaccuracies prior to the publication of the final results.

jim thornton
February 6th, 2013, 11:30 AM
Most people possibly don't know this, but here goes. Measurements only need to accompany USMS/FINA record applications, not Top 10 submissions. The LMSC (usually the Top 10 Recorder) is supposed to keep those on file. When Mary Beth is processing results she checks the meet facility and checks if the pool length certification is in the national database. If it isn't, she asks the TTR if the pool has been certified. If the pool has a bulkhead she also asks if the bulkhead placement was verified as is required by the rules. Some TTRs send in the measurements in response to these questions but not all do, nor is it required.

Just so that I am understanding this correctly, it is possible that the TT lists are conceivably riddled with times set in pools where the measurement should have been sent in but wasn't? Maybe even where the pool was, in fact, never measured at all? Or was measured, found lacking, but the pool manager or other functionary, hoping not to have to give any of the meet fee revenue back to the injured parties, decided to remain silent?

If, say, someone who finds such possibilities abhorrent down to the youngest corpuscles of his marrow were to ferret out such a potentially fraudulent TT time set in a 50 LCM pool in, maybe, 1997, then go out on his or her own initiative and re-measure that pool today, determine that it is 1.74 inches short in a certain lane, report this finding along with all requisite documentation, would it be in keeping with the spirit and letter of the law for USMS to issue an erratum for whatever criminal mastermind it was that set a TT time in that lane and has been eluding punishment for years?

If so, perhaps USMS should consider paying a small bounty to the Purity Police among us to search out such egregiously unjust "cold cases" and make things fair for everyone and restore dignity to the victims! If the very thought that someone might have benefited by .05 seconds doesn't make your flesh crawl, can one truly call oneself a human being? How can one sleep till such violations of all things sacred are caught, the violator chastised, and the equilibrium of the universe restored?

But if retroactive TT yankings from 1997 are not routinely done, in fact, not even allowable, then are the elite members of USMS Rectitude Squad tacitly conceding that there is a statute of limitations? Or that pool conditions could have changed so much between today and 1997 that it's impossible to know if a contemporary measurement reflects a pool's length back then?

If the former, how much time must elapse before the statute of limitations kicks in?

If the latter, how much time between a swim and a pool's after-the-fact measurement (years? months? a different season of the year?) must elapse before the uncertainty factor becomes persuasive?

If some other factor accounts for this unequal application of the Hammer of God, if, indeed, the Hammer falls randomly, please do tell!

Or if I am misunderstanding what you mean, never mind!

Fodder for additional rumination:

From Wikipedia: "Rules lawyering" is the following of the letter (sometimes referred to as RaW or Rules as Written) over, or contrary to, the spirit (sometimes referred to as RaI or Rules as Intended) of the law. It is used negatively to describe the act of manipulating the rules to achieve a personal advantage. It may also mean acting in an antisocial, irritating manner while technically staying within the bounds of the rules.



No, Jim can do better. But for the sake of keeping this thread somewhat on track, I sincerely hope Jim refrains from unleashing WMD's from his literary arsenal.

Yes, Master!

Chris Stevenson
February 6th, 2013, 11:36 AM
I'm curious how people have trouble reading the spreadsheet. It's not really that complicated, is it? I think possibly the most confusing part (which shouldn't be that confusing in actuality), is that each course has its own tab, so pools are listed multiple times.

Yes that's it: people miss the tabs. The fact that you even know that Excel workbooks can have multiple worksheets probably puts you in a minority. :-)

Chris Stevenson
February 6th, 2013, 11:50 AM
There is ample opportunity to check the preliminary list for inaccuracies prior to the publication of the final results.

You believe that? This is an honest question, because I hear from some people who don't live on the forums that this isn't the case at all. There is something like two weeks between publication of the TT lists and the deadline for corrections. Sure we can lengthen that time but there is already something like 3 months between season end and the publication of the TT lists.

gull
February 6th, 2013, 11:57 AM
In my experience, there has always been enough time for me to see my swims drop out of the top ten. On the other hand, if the consensus is that there is insufficient time, then allow more time to correct the preliminary list prior to publication of the final one. Or don't call it final.

Chris Stevenson
February 6th, 2013, 11:59 AM
Just so that I am understanding this correctly...

It will take a smarter man than me to figure out which of your questions are serious... :-)

But I think you are asking me to affirm that there is an element of "the honor system" to the measurements associated with TTs, and whether unscrupulous people can game the system. The answer is yes. I mean heck: if I set a USMS record at a USA-S meet I can take the measurements in support of submitting my own record application. Maybe there is a teensy conflict there?

The way I see it: there will always be an honor system component to TT and Record measurements unless USMS contracts with a surveyor to do all measurements and that person submits the results to a disinterested third party. I don't think even the most ardent pro-measurement person advocates that.

So yes: your problem is basically that you didn't find the right bribe for the Maryland TT Recorder... :bolt:

swimmieAvsFan
February 6th, 2013, 12:15 PM
Yes that's it: people miss the tabs. The fact that you even know that Excel workbooks can have multiple worksheets probably puts you in a minority. :-)

Ouch. That's seriously basic functionality in Excel. I guess using multiple spreadsheets nearly all day, every day in every job I've had since college makes me an Excel wizard ;)

jaadams1
February 6th, 2013, 06:05 PM
I'm sure you would and most people would. Yeah, there are always going to be the Rosie Ruiz' out there, but really what's the point in getting an accolade you don't deserve? I'd never be able to live with myself.

How about if it was the Daily Double and you wagered all of it for $8,000 or so, and got it right but forgot to phrase it as a question? Maybe Mr. Trebek could let it slide... ;)

Bendy
February 7th, 2013, 11:16 AM
How is Jim being petty? Attention Jim Thornton, to paraphrase an 80's ceral commerical, "little mikey doesn't like it"

I'm new here, but that seems kind of harsh. Also not anywhere near the topic.

On topic, could USMS leave the top ten listings after some amount of time, and just erase the official times if the pool is the wrong length (or whatever other parameter they use)? Top ten seems like just a vanity listing anyway.

thewookiee
February 7th, 2013, 12:54 PM
I'm new here, but that seems kind of harsh. Also not anywhere near the topic.



That's not as harsh as the person really deserved. Calling Jim "petty" for expressing his frustration over the TT process wasn't on topic either. Granted, I knew my post was off topic, but I was sticking up for a friend. The person that my post was directed toward is about as charming as roadkill.

knelson
February 7th, 2013, 04:25 PM
How about if it was the Daily Double and you wagered all of it for $8,000 or so, and got it right but forgot to phrase it as a question?

Moot point because I'd never forget to phrase it as a question! :)

Bendy
February 7th, 2013, 04:48 PM
That's not as harsh as the person really deserved.

So you are prepared to go further into the weeds? Why?


Calling Jim "petty" for expressing his frustration over the TT process wasn't on topic either.

Seems that the petty reference was about Jim's denegration about his signature, also way off topic.


Granted, I knew my post was off topic, but I was sticking up for a friend. The person that my post was directed toward is about as charming as roadkill.

It doesn't look as if Jim really needs any help, he seems to respond pretty thoroughly.

thewookiee
February 7th, 2013, 05:02 PM
So you are prepared to go further into the weeds? Why?



It doesn't look as if Jim really needs any help, he seems to respond pretty thoroughly.


Never said Jim needed help, just did it for a friend. To answer your question, I can go deeper into the weeds. The moderator's would yank the reponses off pretty quick though. Why? That's really not your concern.

Michael Heather
February 7th, 2013, 09:28 PM
How is Jim being petty? Attention Jim Thornton, to paraphrase an 80's ceral commerical, "little mikey doesn't like it"


That's not as harsh as the person really deserved. Calling Jim "petty" for expressing his frustration over the TT process wasn't on topic either. Granted, I knew my post was off topic, but I was sticking up for a friend. The person that my post was directed toward is about as charming as roadkill.


Never said Jim needed help, just did it for a friend. To answer your question, I can go deeper into the weeds. The moderator's would yank the reponses off pretty quick though. Why? That's really not your concern.

Why all the hostility? Your panties are really in a twist, buttercup. Someone step on your happy meal? Couldn't be me, you don't even know me.

thewookiee
February 8th, 2013, 07:53 AM
Why all the hostility? Your panties are really in a twist, buttercup. Someone step on your happy meal? Couldn't be me, you don't even know me.

Sweet cheeks, you must have forgotten all the spiteful comments that you directed at me. I haven't forgotten them.

jim thornton
February 8th, 2013, 02:08 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sONfxPCTU0

I think this is a great sentiment. Honestly, I did not mean any offense; on the other hand, I will defend to the death Wookie's right to defend me to the death!

And on this note, can't we just all get along for the old people and the kids?

In my mind, I am the (good) people's (vanity) champion! That is more than enough for me, and much more than I deserve! Perhaps magic and reality are the same, after all.

rodent
February 8th, 2013, 07:52 PM
Don't lose sight of the issue here, was Jim's time in fact the fastest 100 free time in his age group last year. In other words did Jim swim 100M (w/i) a reasonable margin of error, faster than any other US male 60-64. The answer is yes. Although the pool may have been 1 or 2 inches short Jim's time was over a second faster than the 2nd fastest time. So as a result of the unduly strict Top 10 pool measurement rules, a valid time (the fastest in the US) is being stricken.
This is an unfortunate and unintended result of a very badly thought out rule and a poorly considered approach to applying the rule. USMS says that they are aware of the problem and will try to fix it. But, that doesn't help Jim.

Chris Stevenson
February 8th, 2013, 09:15 PM
a very badly thought out rule

Which rule is that?

rodent
February 8th, 2013, 11:07 PM
Chris, I don't agree with requiring measurements of pools for the Top 10, unless the circumstances warrant it. If Jim was swimming 1:05 and went 1:01 and other swimmers had significant drops in time then a measurement is necessary because the time might be the result of a short pool. But it doesn't make sense to measure pools and to repeatedly measure bulkheads. I am glad you changed the rule on foreign meets, but the bulkhead measurement rule needs to be re-evaluated and there should be some discretion. In Jim's case the length of the pool was not why he had the fastest time. He swam faster than anyone else. Also, I do not either believe or disbelieve NBAC. They might be wrong but I don't know all the facts. NBAC was not the only group that blew it w/ the pool. The swimmers were not negligent. Bottom line, a WR or AR from the meet should be stricken a Top 10 should not.

Chris Stevenson
February 9th, 2013, 12:08 AM
Chris, I don't agree with requiring measurements of pools for the Top 10

I can only say that it appears that a majority of USMS members disagree with you on that score.

I honestly don't quite know what to make of the double standard here. Many of the same people who say that USMS takes TT too seriously also routinely raise a huge stink about it. Which is it?

Obviously I don't get a fair sampling because people email me about problems with TT a lot, but all the evidence I see is that many people take TT very seriously indeed, and insist on standards. Those who don't possibly shouldn't get their tails twisted in a knot about it.

That's not to say that people don't have a right to get frustrated with snafus. I just think the argument that TTs aren't important enough to bother with measurements is invalid based on the evidence I'm seeing.

So what am I missing with that logic?


Bottom line, a WR or AR from the meet should be stricken a Top 10 should not.

One problem though: there are MANY records that are not discovered until well after the meet, for whatever reason. This happens pretty much every season. If you don't measure at the meet then you'll lose those records. As bad as Jim feels about losing an AA ranking, imagine how much worse it would be to lose an AR/WR.

For this reason, I can't see how you can have different measurement standards for TT and records. I think either you don't require measurements for either or you require for both.

USA-S and FINA do just that, though. But from what I can see every single solution to this measurement issue has flaws: USMS, USA-S and FINA, probably others too. If it were an easy problem it would have been solved by now.

But I will tell you: if the House of Delegates decide that measurements aren't needed for TT then Records & Tabulation will certainly adhere to the "will of the people." What we're not going to do is ignore rules that we don't like or that are difficult to implement.

Chris Stevenson
February 9th, 2013, 07:00 AM
I can only say that it appears that a majority of USMS members disagree with you on that score.

...

But I will tell you: if the House of Delegates decide that measurements aren't needed for TT then Records & Tabulation will certainly adhere to the "will of the people." What we're not going to do is ignore rules that we don't like or that are difficult to implement.

As a quick follow-up. USMS could always decide to go the route of FINA: pool certification is required for records but not TT, and no bulkhead measurements are ever required. Strictly from an implementation standpoint this is a pretty workable system. It also solves my concern about missing records because it turns out that certification can happen after the fact.

I wasn't involved when the HOD decided to adopt the current system so I don't know what discussions/debates took place. Like I said, my personal experiences are that our current rules reflect the "will of the people" but I also don't necessarily get a representative sampling of our membership.

Maybe people are willing to revisit the issue after years of implementation. I know that Records and Tabulation is happy with our current rules because I asked last year, so any different proposal will have to come from another source. But if people here want something else then propose a concrete alternative. Like I said, one of R&T's jobs is to try to manage the system to best implement the current rules and if you think the HOD wants something else then "campaign" for it. Healthy discussion on the subject is good.

As a footnote: I know that USMS has submitted a proposal that FINA adopt USMS' standards, not the other way around in which case those standards would apply internationally as well as domestically. Of course FINA might not agree to adopt them, it wouldn't be the first time that FINA didn't listen to a USMS proposal (USMS' proposal on tech suits was less strict than the one FINA eventually adopted for masters).

rodent
February 9th, 2013, 02:46 PM
I think that solution would be easy and less expensive. I also like a system that is universally applied throughout USMS, FINA and all federations. An AR or NR is a big deal, the Top 10 is 3 times a year every year. I don't see the need for routinely measuring pools for all those swims.

Michael Heather
February 12th, 2013, 12:56 AM
I think that solution would be easy and less expensive. I also like a system that is universally applied throughout USMS, FINA and all federations. An AR or NR is a big deal, the Top 10 is 3 times a year every year. I don't see the need for routinely measuring pools for all those swims.

First, you are mistaken to equate FINA and USMS. FINA is a worldwide governing organization for all aquatic sports, USMS is only a national governing body, not directly recognized by FINA. USMS, as well as all other American aquatic sports, is represented by United States Aquatic Sports, the only national body that represents USA to FINA.

Second, USMS believes that there is no difference in importance or value to records or top ten times, and further believes it would be disingenuous to allow faulty records for either. USMS pool measurement records are more stringent than USA Swimming because we want them that way and can afford to demand it of ourselves. No other reason. The reason we got that way is a funny observation, but not germane to this issue.

I can understand why Jim is upset at losing his AA, but it is definitely not because of a byzantine or nefarious system rigged to thwart his sublime and gravid greatness. It is a system designed by his peers to assiduously and sometimes eventually exact all of the records of USMS.

rodent
February 14th, 2013, 11:38 AM
First, you are mistaken to equate FINA and USMS. FINA is a worldwide governing organization for all aquatic sports, USMS is only a national governing body, not directly recognized by FINA. USMS, as well as all other American aquatic sports, is represented by United States Aquatic Sports, the only national body that represents USA to FINA.

Second, USMS believes that there is no difference in importance or value to records or top ten times, and further believes it would be disingenuous to allow faulty records for either. USMS pool measurement records are more stringent than USA Swimming because we want them that way and can afford to demand it of ourselves. No other reason. The reason we got that way is a funny observation, but not germane to this issue.

I can understand why Jim is upset at losing his AA, but it is definitely not because of a byzantine or nefarious system rigged to thwart his sublime and gravid greatness. It is a system designed by his peers to assiduously and sometimes eventually exact all of the records of USMS.

The point is that since swimming is an international sport, USMS should be on the same page as the other governing bodies which it is not currently. You wrote that USMS does not "believe" that WR's are of greater importance to swimming than a single Top 10 time; that is your opinion, not the "belief" of the USMS membership, or for that matter the belief of USMS, which as an organization has rules, not "beliefs". Jim's time is valid and according to the poll most members feel it should not be stricken.:canada:

swimmieAvsFan
February 14th, 2013, 12:44 PM
...Jim's time is valid and according to the poll most members feel it should not be stricken.:canada:

The bolded part of this sentence is what you are continually missing- Jim's time swum at the UMBC meet, as dictated by USMS rules on the books at the time of his swim, is not valid. I hate saying that, because the situation all around sucks, to be frank, but rules are rules (and policies are policies), and since they weren't followed in this case, his time doesn't make the cut to be a valid, submittable time.

I voted in your poll, and while I don't think it should be stricken (from a strictly personal standpoint), I can't argue with the rules and policies in place that have made it an invalid time. What I can do, and what you could do as well, is come up with a proposal that would prevent something like this from happening again, and go through the proper channels to get any applicable rules modified, via a vote in the HOD at the next rules-year convention. Continually claiming Jim's time is valid isn't going to do any good.

rodent
February 14th, 2013, 04:48 PM
SwimFan, I think we agree on principal on most issues. Hopefully, there will be some beneficial change in the rules as a result of this dialogue. By a valid time I mean that USMS can reasonably rely on that time as accurate w/i a margin of reasonable error. In other words, the time, 61 seconds, was reasonably accurate and the course, 100LCM, was also reasonably accurate. Although the pool may have been @ 2 inches short (which NBAC denies), that would not have made a significant difference in this case, due to the fact that the time was the fastest of the year by over a second. By "valid" I mean accurate enough to be relied upon. It was in fact the fastest time, which in my opinion is the most important consideration.

Michael Heather
February 15th, 2013, 10:30 AM
according to the poll most members feel it should not be stricken.

Forum members certainly have an opinion, but in order to make change, you must all participate in the process upon which USMS has agreed and set forth. The forums are a social gathering, sometimes closer akin to a mob than a town hall. Pitchforks and flaming torches rarely implement meaningful change to code.

Rob Copeland
February 15th, 2013, 11:11 AM
Pitchforks and flaming torches rarely implement meaningful change to code.Tell that to King Louis XVI


according to the poll most members feel it should not be stricken.
And let’s break this down…
It = Jim’s outstanding swim
Most members = 0.0417% of USMS members
Stricken = 1 afflicted or overwhelmed by or as if by disease, misfortune, or sorrow; 2 hit or wounded by or as if by a missile

Therefore “according to the poll 0.0417% of USMS members members feel Jim’s outstanding swim should not be afflicted by disease.”

Well if you ask me, I’d say shame on the 99.9583% of you want to see Jim’s swim hit by a missile.

swimmieAvsFan
February 15th, 2013, 11:27 AM
swimmieAvsFan, I think we agree on principal on most issues. Hopefully, there will be some beneficial change in the rules as a result of this dialogue. By a valid time I mean that USMS can reasonably rely on that time as accurate w/i a margin of reasonable error. In other words, the time, 61 seconds, was reasonably accurate and the course, 100LCM, was also reasonably accurate. Although the pool may have been @ 2 inches short (which NBAC denies), that would not have made a significant difference in this case, due to the fact that the time was the fastest of the year by over a second. By "valid" I mean accurate enough to be relied upon. It was in fact the fastest time, which in my opinion is the most important consideration.

Okay, so what if the course really was the 7 inches short that the professional measurement says some lanes were? Would that still be "reasonably accurate" enough to keep declaring that Jim's swim was valid? What if the lane had been 10 inches short? 20 inches short? Where does it end in your world?

Basically, if the pool is short, it's short, and it doesn't matter by how much. Times have been thrown out for the pool being 0.25 inches short, which is much closer to "reasonably accurate" than 7 inches, or even 2 inches. And it doesn't matter that he was a second faster than the next fastest swim- Jim's swim was in a pool that wasn't long enough by the way our rules read. End of story, time doesn't count.

P.S.- I also fixed my screen name up there, since SwimFan is a different user...

jim thornton
February 15th, 2013, 01:38 PM
I can understand why Jim is upset at losing his AA, but it is definitely not because of a byzantine or nefarious system rigged to thwart his sublime and gravid greatness.

I thank you for the compliments, but must make one correction in the event my fellow competitors think I am on supplemental hormones.

As much as my belly might look like it, I am not now nor have I ever been carrying young and/or unhatched eggs internally (the suckling and scrambled variety, however, are a different story).

Say what you want about Jim Thornton, but he is not gravid. Jim Thornton is no gravida.

jim thornton
February 15th, 2013, 01:52 PM
Therefore ďaccording to the poll 0.0417% of USMS members members feel Jimís outstanding swim should not be afflicted by disease.Ē

Well if you ask me, Iíd say shame on the 99.9583% of you want to see Jimís swim hit by a missile.

Rob, correct me if I am wrong here, but you are talking about warheads filled with pathogenic agents capable of inflicting me with diseases, right?

WMDs, in other words.

Much as I hate to suggest it, but I don't see any other alternative but to go to War against the overwhelming majority of USMS members. I'll tell Rummy and Dick to start drawing up plans. God darn those magnificent bastards!

They were right after all!

Chris Stevenson
February 15th, 2013, 06:00 PM
Just when you think this thread is dead it springs back to life!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hd521kE7f0A

rodent
February 16th, 2013, 02:06 PM
Just when you think this thread is dead it springs back to life!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hd521kE7f0A
Actually Chris, I think the thread is more like Freddy Kruger, who invades your dreams while you are sleeping and even if you kill him he keeps coming back every time you fall asleep until he gets you.

SwimAvsFan, If the pool was 7 inches short Jim's swim still should count. I am certain he can swim 7 inches in a second. However, I think he figured out what lane he was in and he was in a lane measured short by less than 7 inches. In the circumstances present here, the swim should count.
Bob, It looks like Jim is winning the poll 25-9. You can not assume that the USMS members who did not vote disagree with the majority.
And, there is still the possibility that NBAC will measure the pool this spring and find that it is the correct length, as they have maintained from the beginning.:canada:

Michael Heather
February 17th, 2013, 08:21 PM
I thank you for the compliments, but must make one correction in the event my fellow competitors think I am on supplemental hormones.

As much as my belly might look like it, I am not now nor have I ever been carrying young and/or unhatched eggs internally (the suckling and scrambled variety, however, are a different story).

Say what you want about Jim Thornton, but he is not gravid. Jim Thornton is no gravida.

Perhaps fecund would have been more appropriate? Maybe you have more of those 1:01s available at some time in the future?

knelson
March 10th, 2013, 12:35 PM
Bumping this for a FINA rankings question. Last year I swam Canadian Nationals and knew my times most likely would not count for USMS Top Ten due to the pool measurement requirements, but I did NOT know I'd also get omitted from the world rankings, yet that seems to be the case. My 1500 time of 17:42.67 should have ranked me 7th, but it doesn't show up. What gives? Is Walt Reid the person to contact about FINA Top Ten?

Chris Stevenson
March 11th, 2013, 06:26 AM
Bumping this for a FINA rankings question. Last year I swam Canadian Nationals and knew my times most likely would not count for USMS Top Ten due to the pool measurement requirements, but I did NOT know I'd also get omitted from the world rankings, yet that seems to be the case. My 1500 time of 17:42.67 should have ranked me 7th, but it doesn't show up. What gives? Is Walt Reid the person to contact about FINA Top Ten?

Canada should have submitted the results of this meet but it doesn't look like they did; I checked the (Canadian) winners of the 1500m free in two other age groups (35-39 and 45-49) and they didn't appear in the world rankings either.

Walt is in charge of FINA Top 10, you can reach him at usmsrecords AT usms DOT org.

knelson
March 11th, 2013, 10:22 AM
Thanks Chris. I sent a note to Walt and he told me he'll look into it. Actually I checked and the 35-39 winner (Bo Simpson) is in the rankings. You sure you were looking at SC rather than LC?

edit: just got an email from Walt and it's fixed! He said he also added the other swimmers from that meet.