That is why it is the swimmer's responsibiility to get the measurements and inform their LMSC's top ten recorder about the meet and the results (preferably before the meet so the TTR can tell the swimmer what is needed).
But why do you assume that the meet directors weren't contacted?
[ame="http://forums.usms.org/showpost.php?p=238682&postcount=58"]U.S. Masters Swimming Discussion Forums - View Single Post - Canadian Masters Swimming Championships 2011[/ame]
Walt Reid also received no measurements with the USMS/FINA record application. USMS records require them. Based on the meet hosts response and since no measurements were included in the record applications, yes we assumed no measurements were done. And again: it isn't our responsibility to get them for recognized meets. I simply don't know how to say it any plainer.
Feel free to contact the meet hosts. It doesn't matter. The deadline for submission is long past and the top ten lists are final. I don't know what you are hoping to accomplish here, but it sure is a shame that all the time and energy you have expended on this matter wasn't proactive rather than reactive. So are we done? I'm going to assume so.
Last edited by Chris Stevenson; March 17th, 2012 at 11:43 PM.
I did not assume that you didn't contact the meet directors. It does appear that Leslie (not the committee) made an informal inquiry to them and basically was told not to worry.
I think the "new" policy is a mistake. How will you resolve inconsistent measurements by USMS swimmers? If I were to measure the pools at Worlds and my measurement indicates that they are short and Leslie also measures the pools and it believes she obtains a valid result that shows the pools are the correct length, how do you rectify the competing inconsistent measurements? Either could be right. Both could be wrong. We will never know. What laser and measuring devices are approved by USMS? How often do the devices have to be independently checked for accuracy? Do you have to be trained to use them? I don't see the new USMS policy as being practical, cost effective and reasonable. I don't think we should be reinventing the wheel.
I like the Canadians procedure, have a professional do it and monitor the situation.
Have a good meet tomorrow, I will let you know what I find out. Also, think about this. I believe that there is a better solution, you might be able to come up with something.
As I said I feel sorry for the disallowed swims.I am glad that I am not the one deciding how to rule.I do want to give a cautionary tale about bulkheads.I already mentioned my disallowed 100 SCM BR.It was at the ASU pool which had hosted Nats the year before so they were an experienced group. The pool was measured before the meet and was in compliance.The pool was measured after the first day and the bulkhead had slipped slightly so that 3 lanes were now 1 cm short.Here is a question for a real dilemma,SCY Nats is frequently held in a bulkhead pool,what if the bulkhead shifts at Nats?
"To strive,to seek,to find,and not to yield" Tennyson
The meet you went to happened, it wasn't up to standards for USMS, people were told ahead of time, now get over it.
We can't force the rest of the world to run meets our way and we can't have our members measuring pools in international meets. Your passion for accuracy is admirable though misplaced.
Someone please close the thread already...
And, again, there was no exemption for Stanford. There were no bulkheads.
Should have come to the Albatross SCM meet yesterday! You can be assured that Jeff Roddin's meets will always comply with all USMS rules.
One of the moderators can close the thread if it gets bad for some reason. As originator I could also but even though much of the same ground is being re-hashed, it is still useful for me to hear some of the objections. I can use that information when I write the rationale supporting a rule change.
Most of rodent's objections are directed to the rule itself, and the R&T Committee is in substantial agreement on that score: by a 6-1 vote the committee felt that we should submit a rule change so that, in the future, times from international meets that count for FINA purposes should also count for USMS purposes, even if our measurement standards aren't being met in the meet. We'll see if our rule proposal passes.
I have made inquiries with the Canadians who said they will get back to me, but Montreal is running the Canadian Olympic Trials, so they are busy right now.
I hope I did not offend your sensibilities with my comments. If I wrote something that you feel could be reasonably seen to be offensive, please point it out to me and I will refrain from future comments of that nature. The same goes for Jim. If I made either of you upset by unreasonable comments, I apologize. I know how serious both of you are about Masters Swimming.
That aside, you do understand my concerns with the current policy going foward? We should accept credible times swum in international meets where those times are swum in conformance with their standards and are reliable as was done in the past. We should not get into the busness of measuring foreign pools. If 5 different untrained people measure a pool they will come up with 5 different results. Any measuring device is only as accurate as the person using it. It must be calibrated frequently and can become innaccurate if dropped or if subjected to intereference. Those are just facts. You may dispute them but they are not offensive.
Just be patient the Canadians will get back to me and I will let you know what they say.
And my interpretation of the email was dead on. Despite the rhetoric about FINA "compliance," they explicitly told me they wouldn't measure the pool each day, and I knew the times wouldn't count for USMS. Turns out, they didn't. I did my due diligence.
No sensibilities offended at all! I was just puzzled by some of your comments. I completely agree with the R&T Committee proposal and hope international meets count for everyone going forward. Definitely in favor of having more swimmers' times count.