Skip to content
Solo marathon swim DQs
evmo
Sydneydev
To my knowledge, there has never been a disqualification for a rules violation in the history of SBCSA-sanctioned Santa Barbara Channel swims (53 solo successes).
It is my (unofficial) understanding that there has never been a DQ in the history of CCSF-sanctioned Catalina Channel swims (283 solo successes).
According to NYC Swim's public database, there has been one DQ in the modern history of MIMS, starting 1982 (923 solos, including DNFs, DNSs, and withdrawals). I believe the one DQ was for an illegal pace swimmer.
What about the English Channel? Anybody know?
Rottnest? Gibraltar?
It is my (unofficial) understanding that there has never been a DQ in the history of CCSF-sanctioned Catalina Channel swims (283 solo successes).
According to NYC Swim's public database, there has been one DQ in the modern history of MIMS, starting 1982 (923 solos, including DNFs, DNSs, and withdrawals). I believe the one DQ was for an illegal pace swimmer.
What about the English Channel? Anybody know?
Rottnest? Gibraltar?
Tagged:
Comments
I am sure someone from MIMS will qualify further. (again my apology if my info is in some way incorrect )
They're not recorded as DQ's for the English Channel but the official observer records the swim as "Successful" or "Unsuccessful".
Some reasons for an "unsuccessful" swim, other than not completing the swim could be:
- relay team changing the order of the swimmers
- relay team members changing over before the hour is complete
- putting on a wetsuit or fins during a swim
- grabbing hold of the escort boat
etc
I guess I was wondering about the frequency of the other type of DQ - when the swimmer breaks a rule without intending to self-DQ, and the observer DQs the swimmer. Like the MIMS example above.
This raises another interesting issue. In the English Channel, apparently, swimmers are allowed to "change the rules" in the middle of a swim. Is this ever a source of annoyance for an observer?
In the Santa Barbara Channel (and, I think, the Catalina Channel), if a swimmer DQs, the swim is over, and the swimmer must exit the water.
Note that the Rottnest bylaws are basically copied from the CCSF rules, neither have a "must get out" clause as stipulated by the SBCSA rules (and the SBCSA rules don't preclude getting back in after the swim is called off).
The only "must get out" stipulation that I know of for Rottnest is for a swimmer or team that doesn't make the cutoff times on the race day, but for a non race day crossing I don't think there is any such requirement.
http://notdrowningswimming.com - open water adventures of a very ordinary swimmer
Race Rule I: Race Course - MIMS 2013
A.Time Limitations
The following cutoffs at designated locations throughout the course will be strictly adhered to unless the Race Director determines that conditions warrant an extended time limit. You agree, in accepting the waiver, to be pulled from the race if you do not make these cut-off times:
Triborough Bridge: 3 hours 30 minutes
Spuyten Duyvil: 5 hours 45 minutes
79th Street Boat Basin: 7 hours 30 minutes
Pier 26: 9 hours 10 minutes
I'm kind of curious on this.
It seems to me that once a swimmer is DQ'd there a bunch of very valid reasons to absolutely pull the swimmer from the water and not let them back in, but if none of those apply, then could not the swim be converted into a training swim?
Off the top of my head the main reasons to pull the swimmer would be:
1. Swimmer safety (e.g. hypothermia, injury, failure to follow instructions)
2. It's an observed swim and the observer is not ok with hanging out while the swimmer trains (e.g. as I would suspect would happen if the swimmer is DQ'd for deliberately flouting the rules).
3. It's a race - Race directors have enough going on without having to deal with rogue swimmers and it would not be fair on the other competitors who might view the swimmer as still being legitimate.
4. The permission to swim is contingent on the swim being a legitimate attempt and said permission is revoked once the swimmer is DQ'd.
But if none of those apply, it seems that there is an opportunity for the swimmer to gain valuable experience and not possibly not completely waste the investment in boat fees and travel expenses.
I could imagine that a warm water swimmer who was doing a particular swim with the intention of using it as an EC qualifying swim might want to continue the swim to reach the six hour threshold for example, even if it is determined that they are DQ'd from the actual swim they are attempting (obviously the reason for the DQ would have to be something that would not DQ them from a qualifying swim e.g. through non compliant use of pace swimmers, not making a particular cutoff time etcetera).
These are clearly edge cases and possibly not worth cluttering the blessedly simple by laws that most channel swimming organizations seem to have, but figured I'd throw it up there for discussion :-)
http://notdrowningswimming.com - open water adventures of a very ordinary swimmer
It definitely solves the Brittany King scenario, unfortunate that poor reporting should drive rule choices though.
http://notdrowningswimming.com - open water adventures of a very ordinary swimmer
The number of swimmers who want 'a registered swim or nothing at all' is likely to be much, much smaller than the number of swimmers who want 'a swim that fits their personal goals'. That is, the more constraining the regulations, the smaller the ratio of adopters to non-adopters.
I would not expect the relation between constraints and adopter ratio to be monotonic in detail, but I would expect more->smaller to be grossly accurate. At a certain point, then, the degree of constraint will leave unserved a market so large that it will be viable to create new associations alternate viewpoints. The growth of common-man OW by itself may have already crossed that threshold. If not, a 'mandatory pull + no re-entry' policy may (or may not) carry it across.
The extreme statement for solo OW would be:
"Rules are made and enforced by people who want to make your swim their swim."
There are of course many other perspectives on 'rules', some with a positive spin. Here is another one:
"Rules are endorsed by people who are not satisfied with their swims. That is, their satisfaction rises out of comparison with other people's swims."
An alternate approach to rules would be to reward/acknowledge in proportion to effort. If I remember correctly, months ago someone else on this board posted a variation on this idea. I suspect that in the end, effort-based SAs will dominate because rule-based SAs are binary and exclusionary by design, where as effort-based SAs are graded and all-inclusive by design.