FINA...in their grand wisdom, has decided NOT to make Libby Lenton's 52.99 as a world record. This has been reported the the Herald Sun out of Australia.
Once again, FINA shows that it is run by politicans, not swimmers or swimming fans.
So, Thank You FINA for once again screwing things up.
Former Member
RicK: I watched it closely, she fell behind quickly and I stand by both aspects of my opinion: that it wasn't meaningful, nor would it be an offense anyway. BTW I am smoking nothing.
Perhaps the best way to see the effect of Phelps... as they are both about to finish their leg, the camera pulls out just a bit to show a wider angle. If you look at the empty lane next to Phelps (closer to the camera), you can see the gigantic wave rolling down that entire lane. That's a huge wave! You can hang 10 on that wave if you had a surfboard.
-Rick
Drafting a lane over? Are you kidding.
Are you actually claiming that a mere lane line between them makes it as if they were in two physically separate bodies of water? Lane lines these days are good, but wow.
-Rick
The original comment about drafting was actually about one of the possible rationales behind the rule - not the rule itself.
The hypothetical question is "Why would FINA not want women swimming against men in elite, open international competition?"
Is there a rule that says women cannot swim in a men's race, FINA better get with the times and stop its discrimination.
Somehow I don't think women would like that version of equality.
If so, why didn't Ian repeat or break his World Record time in Melbourne? He couldn't be troubled to bother? I don't think so.
To me the assertion that if you swam a time once you will have no trouble swimming it again is so obviously untrue that I don't know how to make it any clearer. Grant Hackett hasn't made it close to his 1500m WR since, Ian Thorpe went a long time without equaling his 200m WR. By the end of their career every swimmer has a best time that they were only able to achieve once (there may be cases of a swimmer tying their own PB but it doesn't change the argument).
I assert that because she swam this PB after a tough meet the week prior. She was not in optimal condition to be making a WR attempt. Therefore, if she can break a WR under those conditions she should have no trouble repeating the WR with a proper train, shave, and taper.
As for record repeats, well the Texas Trio seem to have no trouble not only repeating their records but actually breaking them.
If so, why didn't Ian repeat or break his World Record time in Melbourne? He couldn't be troubled to bother? I don't think so.
To me the assertion that if you swam a time once you will have no trouble swimming it again is so obviously untrue that I don't know how to make it any clearer. Grant Hackett hasn't made it close to his 1500m WR since, Ian Thorpe went a long time without equaling his 200m WR. By the end of their career every swimmer has a best time that they were only able to achieve once (there may be cases of a swimmer tying their own PB but it doesn't change the argument).
Drafting a lane over? Are you kidding. These are non-turbulent lane lines. FINA needs to be able to protect the integrity of the records; measure the pool, the block height, check the timing system. But that is about it. This was a technicality, and a really lame one at that.
Originally Posted by dorothyrde forums.usms.org/.../viewpost.gif
I am a little confused about the talk that the record did not count because of drafting. The report says the record did not account because the mixed relay was not an approved fINA event.
Here's a summary:
1. BEFORE the ruling many speculated it wouldn't count due to Lenton swimming with Phelps in the next lane over (i.e., she got a benefit from drafting).
2. The actual statement by FINA did not mention drafting. It simply stated that the record wouldn't count due to GR 9.6.1.2 which simply states which event are contested at FINA World Championship event.
3. SW 12.1 lists the events for which world records are recognized. The 4x100 meter mixed free relay is not one of them. However, the 100 meter freestyle (obviously) is.
You are both correct, of course.
I believe that everyone -disappointed though they may have been at the official non-recognition (due to the existing rules)- was ready to accept the decision (based solely on the recognition of events) but happy for L.L.
Then the talk started about drafting and unfair advantage. This is what started the back and forth discussions :argue: because, as many believe, it was not a valid (i.e., invalid, argumentative, irrelevant, speculative and ... Fort, where the Fort art thou' when we need your vocabulary?... argument (in this as in any other case where swimmers -US or not- had extremely good finishes and won in the last few meters without accusations of unfair advantages). H@ck! There recently was a race where Phelps won by less than 0.03 (I'll check the tapes later) just as the commentators were almost declaring him second, but the "always truthful" clock said that Phelps, somehow, found that extra millimiter in his flexible body to out-touch (Crocker? Lochte? Peirsol?).
Methinks, we should have started a motion to have FINA have a (new and retroactive) rule that would bend some rules where such a feat would be recognized because, everything that Libby did was correct.
(Maybe if only as a Wedding present?) :smooch:
