Libby Lenton's 52.99

I read the GR 9.6.1.2 and the rule declares what events are to be contested at World Championships and the Olympics. Since the Duel in the Pool was neither, I don't see how it applies. I think Lenton got robbed on this one. There's a separate section of the rules related to which events world records are kept for. The 100 free is obviously one of those events. Of course, a mixed 4x100 free relay isn't one of the events, but if that's the problem FINA should have quoted that rule (SW 12.1) as the reason. Kirk: Taking this one extreme further and using this logic, if a USMS Masters swimmer broke a FINA World Record leading off a 400 Free Relay, and it doesn't matter if its a Women's, Men's, or Mixed, it would not count either because its a 400 distance. If the Relay was a 200 distance it would count because FINA spells this out in there Rules in MSW 4.2 www.fina.org/.../masters.php I am not sure if Swimming Australia would count it as a National Record but I would bet that USA Swimming would not count the Record either if a USA Swimmer broke the National Record leading off a Mixed Relay because Mixed Relays don't exist in the USA Rule Books and thus a Record cannot not be set because the events are not defined. About the only Record you could have in a 400 Meter Mixed Relay would be a USMS National Record that I know of. I am not sure about other Federations and how they would treat 400 and 800 Relays as there National Records because FINA does not consider that they even exist. Same for Top Ten Tabulations. Take a look and you won't see any 400 or 800 Relays from the just recently posted 2006 FINA Top Ten Tabulations.

Taking this one extreme further and using this logic, if a USMS Masters swimmer broke a FINA World Record leading off a 400 Free Relay, and it doesn't matter if its a Women's, Men's, or Mixed, it would not count either because its a 400 distance. If the Relay was a 200 distance it would count because FINA spells this out in there Rules in MSW 4.2 I would have thought that kind of record would count, but with the Lenton precedent, you're right, it shouldn't. However, I do think there's a subtle distinction in the masters rule versus GR 9.6.1.2. MSW 4.2 basically says "these are the valid events for masters competition." GR 9.6.1.2 says "these are the events required at the Olympics and World Championships." edit: after seeing Bill's post I'll add that I've been thinking about the drafting thing, too. Since Skip already mentioned masters rules, I'll bet there have been scads of masters world records set with the help of drafting (i.e., competitors of another sex or another age group in the adjacent lane). Does anyone question these? Now, I realize a masters world record, although a great achievement, isn't the same as a non-masters world record, but still... I think the bottom line is the powers that be at FINA felt Lenton's swim was aided by having Phelps in the next lane. They couldn't really find anything to discredit the swim based on that fact alone, so they latched onto another rule that really doesn't hold water (:)).

It was a great swim, but had it been counted as a record, it would've had an asterisk in my book. * drafted off Michael Phelps Bill: Your kidding right? I have to disagree with you both about the drafting because it has nothing to do with the rejection of this Record as explained by FINA in the press release. That might be a consideration, but that will never be admitted. There are no FINA rules that prohibit drafting off another swimmer in another lane. In fact, Ducan Armstrong set the 200 Meter Free World Record at the 1988 Olympics in Seoul and he and his Coach Laurie Lawrence admitted that there strategy was to draft off the big waves of Matt Biondi, who was in the next lane and provided a draft for about 170 meters. I saw a replay of this a couple of weeks ago and its obvious that Ducan was swimming on a draft of water that was provided by Biondi and it helped him break the World Record by .19 seconds. I think the FINA Technical Rules Committee made the call based on the Rules that are written. Its to bad that Libby didn't do this swim in the Women's 400 Free Relay leadoff because they would have counted it. If they allowed this to go thru, this would set a precedent that other swims not defined by the FINA Rules that could count for World Records. I don't think they are denying the World Record because of the type of meet this is because Michael Phelps set a World Record in the 400 IM at this meet in 2003. What they don't want is swimmers setting FINA World Records in events that are not defined by FINA Rules.

I think the FINA Technical Rules Committee made the call based on the Rules that are written. Its to bad that Libby didn't do this swim in the Women's 400 Free Relay leadoff because they would have counted it. If they allowed this to go thru, this would set a precedent that other swims not defined by the FINA Rules that could count for World Records. I agree with this, but I do think it's the wrong decision. It is clear to everyone that Libby Lenton swam a 100 meter freestyle. Her split was recorded with electronic equipment, and as you mentioned, would have counted if this was a women's relay. So what's the difference? The only difference I see is she was swimming with a fast man next to her. So, whether stated or not, the fact she may have gotten some benefit from drafting had to be a factor in their decision.

Lenton has a great response, a real class act. "I am a little disappointed because I know in my heart what time I swam and that time is faster than the existing world record, however, having said that, the disappointment can take nothing away from the fact I now know I am capable of swimming under 53 seconds and I will continue to strive to improve every aspect of my swimming." AMEN to you, Libby - Next time you're swimming a sanctioned 100 free, you can count on me cheering for you to go 52.98! Great attitude, girl, go stick it to 'em :dedhorse: :frustrated:

It was a great swim, but had it been counted as a record, it would've had an asterisk in my book. * drafted off Michael Phelps

I'll bet there have been scads of masters world records set with the help of drafting (i.e., competitors of another sex or another age group in the adjacent lane). Does anyone question these? Not usually. Masters swimming rules allow for men and women of all ages to swim together. A few years ago, I swam a 200 back next to Roger Franks during a SCM meet at St. Joseph's in Philadelphia. Although Roger is 39 years older than me, I was happy and contented thinking he may have caught a little draft off me. I knew before the race that he was going for a world record, so I was also very mindful about not making too many waves. I don't think many international / Olympic level swimmers would intentionally help out competitors by avoiding making waves or allowing others to draft - but I know a lot of Masters swimmers who would.

It was a great swim, but had it been counted as a record, it would've had an asterisk in my book. * drafted off Michael Phelps When someone is 4 seconds behind another swimmer, I don't see how in the world a person can draft. If they were within a body length or less, then yes, drafting comes into effect. At 4 seconds, Libby was eating his waves, not riding his draft.

Bill:Your kidding right? Nope, and don't get it twisted. I'm well aware of the process and how the rules are written - and don't disagree with them at all. My comment was more about the precedent, and I'm glad FINA didn't set that precedent.

When someone is 4 seconds behind another swimmer, I don't see how in the world a person can draft. If they were within a body length or less, then yes, drafting comes into effect. At 4 seconds, Libby was eating his waves, not riding his draft. Devil's advocate says: she was 4 seconds behind at the end of the race, but not for the whole race. (back to work - LOL)