PDA

View Full Version : The Impact



Frosty
February 6th, 2002, 10:10 AM
The impact of the EC’s impending decision in the cases of the too-short SCM meets goes well beyond rules 107.2.2B and 103.13.1. The repercussions will certainly be felt nationwide.

The decision enforces a responsibility upon meet hosts that I do not believe has been previously enforced. A meet host, in accepting a sanction, agrees that the “…conduct of a sanctioned event shall be in strict compliance with applicable USMS swimming rules…” (See Rule 201.1F(1)). Such rules include Rule 103.5, which assigns responsibilities to the “meet committee” that include “…obtaining a sanction; preparing the facility…”.

In fact, if there is a violation of USMS rules at a sanctioned event, it can no longer be a sanctioned event. The EC’s imminent ruling effectively withdraws the sanctions of the two disputed SCM meets and assigns responsibility to the meet hosts for failing to meet the conditions of the sanction.

Looking back at what has happened in and about the Oregon LMSC and the Tualatin Hills Barracudas (the governing LMSC and host of the NWZ meet), I cringe about the impending impact of such a ruling. Both organizations have, for the most part, acted in a most honest and open manner during and after the NWZ meet. Such action has exposed them to criticism (both responsible and irresponsible) in these public forums that I feel was mostly unjustified. The EC’s January 9th ruling praised OMS and THB for their honesty in bringing the matter to the forefront, and I expect the EC to reiterate that praise. The impending ruling, however, will still leave a sting for a group that has basically been honest and noble.

One of my many “hats” that I wear in Masters swimming is that of my LMSC’s sanction officer. I guess that in light of what the EC will announce, my advice to all future meet hosts is that if you advertise a 25-meter or 25-yard or 50-meter meet, you had better be very certain that you’re advertising the truth.