Lindsay Grogan has been added to the U.S. Paralympic Swim Team roster for the Rio Paralympics and Haley Beranbaum dropped from the team as a result of an error in the original selection process.
The U.S. Paralympics Association sent an email this week to athletes and staff for the Paralympic team announcing an amendment to the roster and explaining the selection error.
“Unfortunately, the selection committee that convened in Charlotte made a mathematical calculation error within the women’s rankings,” the e-mail said.
The email said that U.S. Paralympics sport staff reviewed its selection process after being notified of a potential error on July 4. Looking back into the process confirmed that there was an error in the selection, according to the email.
“While this situation is unfortunate and difficult for the athletes impacted, U.S. Paralympics has an obligation to follow its selection procedures,” the message said. “Thus, we are taking immediate action to rectify the mistake and nominate the correct athletes, as per the selection rankings, to the Rio team.”
The change to the roster adds Grogan to the roster. She competes in the S9 class and was 3rd in two events at the 2012 Paralympic Trials, taking bronze in both the 100 breast and 200 IM to just miss the team.. She won the 200 IM in the SM9 class at the Paralympic Trials last weekend, which now puts her on the road to Rio.
She replaces Beranbaum, who becomes the first alternate for the team. Beranbaum competes in the S5 class and won the 200 IM and 50 back at the Paralympic Trials.
The selection procedures for the U.S. Paralympics team was based on how a swimmer’s performances at Paralympic Trials stacked up in a slightly modified version of the IPC World Rankings. Each nation only has a limited amount of roster spots allocated by the International Paralympic Committee. You can find the full selection procedures here.
The error came on Section 1.3, Part 1 (Team Selection), Section C (Selection rounds) of the selection procedure. Selection Rounds 10 & 11 are very similar, with one key difference:
- Section Round 10: Swimmers who rank 4th and beyond, #5, #6, etc. overall in the MWR, provided that time is within 10.0% of the third ranked time and within the top 50% of that event in the MWR, will be added to the team.
- Section 11: Swimmers who rank 4th and beyond, #5,#6, etc. overall in the MWR, provided that time is within the top 50% of that event in the MWR, will be added to the team.
The record of 3 coaches in less than a year, it says it all!
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/sports/othersports/18swimmer.html?_r=0
Look what Julie O’Neill tried to do in 2008. Trying to get our own swimmer deemed ineligible so he couldn’t make the team! Julie and the rest of the misfit clan need to be aggressively thrown off the gravy train and us Paralympic swimming needs to move on without them.
Wow what an interesting article, as a parent of an intellectually disabled athlete who is very much unaccepted, this really hits home hard. Thanks for sharing
Remember, this is part of a greater organization that disqualifies athletes for their tattoos. The IPC won’t allow an athlete to have a Olympic rings tattoo exposed during competition, yet their “symbol” is no where to be found in the Rio displays. The IPC is a defective organization that knowingly turns it’s head to cheating (Australia, Ukraine) and the USPS does as well. They can’t complain about Elliott, when they participate in the charade that Michelle Kockly puts forth when she has someone help her onto the blocks. She posts pictures of her box jumping and admits she swims faster now then when she was “able bodied”. Why doesn’t she jump onto the block? We know she can. There is… Read more »
Michelle’s performance is nothing but a result of her dedication and hard work over the past few years. You are speaking as if due to her permanent injury she should only be able to go so fast. Imagine if all Paralympic athletes limited themselves? Michelle is taking Paralympic swimming to a new level!
No one should be classified for para swimming less than one year after a traumatic injury or surgery. thr body takes at least 2 years to fully heal itself. Yes she works hard and is a beast in the pool, I think the observation is that Konkoky actually physically recovered after year one of the injury. Heel fusion and vertebrae fusion are surgeries, but she is at s huge advantage remaining classed as an S9, as all of her limbs are completely functional.
Agreed, she is a hard worker and is going to be a huge success for Team USA, but she should not be classified as an S9 especially because she has more power in BOTH of her legs than most of her competitors do in their one arm or one leg.
Thank you US Paralympics you never fail to disappoint. They need to keep the new resident coach and clean house in Colorado Springs. This is just devastating to both swimmers involved.
My swimmer had earned a slot as well as having MET times. It’s definitely time for a change in selection process and transparency. Resident program impossible to get in, favoritism is so sickenly obvious. How do you think we feel after trying so hard for so long in a disability group that gets no recognition and very little reward.
I am baffled by this. Is there a mathematical process which is unknown to people? Are the inputs proprietary, or can anyone with a calculator perform them? Insofar as transparency, why is this unlike other sports with rounds or points based on several things where the point totals are known at all times like the running totals in diving or a decathlon? Makes no sense.
Its all in the selection document. Once you make an MQS(qualifying time to go to rio) then they rank where your time puts you in the world rankings. Higher ranked athletes go first. The cut-off is that the time of the swimmer has to be within 10% of the swimmer who is ranked third in the world rankings in that event. In some cases this was a moving target as a US swimmer was in the top 3 this past weekend. So Sophia Herzog swam fast 100BR on day 1 and actually bumped Riley Boyt outside the 10% factor on Day 1 but she made it in the IM on day 3. Grogan was inside the 10% factor in 400fr… Read more »
As TAA described, there are mathematical formulas for selection, but none for favoritism, I mean an entire group overlooking the same athlete.
It takes a lot more than METs. Those times are the minimum standards to complete at trials. Your swimmer needs to achieve a MEQ time, which are generally much faster. Also, world ranking matters. Is your swimmer in the top 5-10 in the world? You swimmers time is what % difference from the world record in that event. It is not like the able bodied team in the US. The top 2 in each event don’t go. There might be no athlete selected from a classification or for a particular race if no US athlete is close enough to the actual world record.
Yes, my swimmer has an MQS and yes is ranked 11. This disability group only has 4 opportunities while most have 7 events.
Ok, but what is the percentage of your swimmer’s times from the world record in their class?
Only the time swam at the trials meet is used in the world ranking. Your swimmer is 13th. Her time from 2015 would have her 11 but that doesnt count. And she was outside the 10% mark. 3rd rank is 106.55 so it had to be under 113.11
They need to publish the results. Its called transparency. They should try it sometime. And they should have published an unofficial ranking each morning on day 2 and day 3 I think it would have been caught before the team was named.
My daughter wasnt at the meet but as a future hopeful she tried to track it on a piece of paper but I laughed and did a spreadsheet for her. It was incredibly hard to track but I drilled down onto the bubble athletes pretty quick after day 1. And no one has even noticed how last position on the team was actually decided by .01 in the last event of the meet!! Mcclain Hermes 100bk she tied… Read more »
Time to clean house at USPS. Whether inept or just a parochial approach to the sport, just flip it out and start again with new leadership. If USPS is ostensibly a private club favoring inside dealing — like US Bobsled was/is for more than a generation — that is never for best.
Just me asking, would this leadership have both found and acted on math error against the interests of a Colorado Springs resident based athlete same as here for an athlete outside that group? Not an unfair question in light of some other comments here.
I would say so. Part of the national team director’s performance evaluation is allegedly tied to the resident team performance which makes it wrong that they are part of the selection committee in the first place.
Yaddayah – Queenie Nichols was recused from the selection committee and was not in the selection committee meeting in Charlotte, according to the email distributed.
Braden – she was only recused from the discretionary discussion. This is one small part of the selection process where the committee evaluates all the athletes that submitted a form. Julie O’Neill’s email to the athletes will lead you to believe she was not a part of the process and the error that was made. This is likely to protect her against any legal or HR action.
She absolutely was a part of the selection process and simply did not follow the procedures Julie created.
That meets a description of an untenable conflict of interest. If a national resident team program’s viability is linked to performance, the same persons / entities that would benefit from the selections are not honest arbiters to perform the selections. This sounds like a mess of a system, not one unfortunate outcome.
Joel – see above. Queenie Nichols was recused from the selection committee and was not in the selection committee meeting in Charlotte.
Thank you. I believe it would be for best if the article states who the selection committee members are. Queenie Nichols is one name — and a name I’m not familiar with — but is this selection committee made up of members By the hand and in tow associated with the best interests of the resident program? It is quite possible that some commenting, myself included, rely on a less than complete picture of this. I also find it a bridge too far to subscribe that it took two days to identify and disclose a rote math error given the seriousness of these outcomes.
I find it curiously odd there is a mathematical formula for selections over races for… Read more »
Team USA’s selection committee waits until Rio 2016, to make a mistake with selection? They couldn’t make a similar mistake at Worlds or Pan Pacs, instead? With the selection procedures posted publicly, I can assume that it is pretty straight forward for most intelligent people, and that this was simply an error that had been overlooked–NOT something that a team of 4-6 or however many are in a “committee” could overlook at the same time. Team USA, this is unacceptable. Telling someone their dreams have come true, just to take it away a few days later…it is disgusting that this kind of error could happen at this level. For the young woman who departed from the announcement at Trials broken-hearted… Read more »