Libby Lenton's 52.99

I wonder what would have happened if Michael Phelps had led off in world record time. I'm not so certain FINA wouldn't have allowed it. You might say, "yeah, well Phelps didn't get a drafting advantage" but that's really immaterial here. FINA says the record doesn't count because it isn't a sanctioned event, not anything to do with drafting. Exactly. They "got her" on a technicality. However the fact remains that she did do it. She swam a 100m Free, from blocks, on a (lead-off) signal, and I assume there were electronic time recording devices, in an officially-sized pool. Therefore every little thing was perfect except that this specific event was not sanctioned. (It could have been in a Mother/Sister/Daughter/Auntie event, but her part in it was 100% correct, as I understand it.) Can't we, for once, apply the spirit of the rules -and celebrate a woman going under 53- and not the strict letter? Anyway, we could debate this "ad infinitum" and in the eyes of many, she still didn't do it and in the eyes of others (many more, I'd bet) she's the first woman to have done it.

Pycological advantage how can this be a phycological advantage. Drafting is also hard to believe. Give the girl her rightfull dues she swam one really fast 100.

She was in the blocks with the new reigning Mr Incredible. She got a phsycological advantage and got amped up......That is something you can't "prove" she got, so it should count. Rtodd I'm with you for the part that says "should count". Now, as to the psychological advantage aspect. That is competition. In every race (competition), held anywhere in the World, there is a psychological favorite, or best-bet-to-win (based on QT or past history or for being the Record Holder or Reigning/Defending champ, or...........) Does this mean that when the favorite is beaten, whoever bested him got a(n unfair) psychological advantage? However it works both ways. The favorite is psyched to NOT lose. The others are psyched to try and best him/her. As Warren likes to say, the clock does not lie.

There is no way that she didn't get an advantage. Her 52.99 should not be counted. Your signature says, "The clock does not lie". The clock said 52.99 In a later post you talk about race strategy. Please explain the difference to us: a) Libby Lenton's race strategy is to draft off Phelps and she does (as per the clock) a 52.99, but it should not count. b) However, in the Race of The Year, the Olympics, Athens, the Men's 200m Free, Thorpe did not touch/turn first in any of the 1st three turns (if memory serves. I have the tape and could chceck it, if need be) and yet he won the race. Should he be disqualified and his win not recognized because he drafted off PVH? I also believe that in his 400m Free, there were several turns where he was out-touched by Hackett, but Ian had a fantastic finish (I have that on tape as well, or was it the Barcelona Worlds? -which I also happen to have-). Should he send back his Gold medal and have his title revoked? Come on!

I think because they did not give her the world record she may even take a lot more off the next time she swims.

She was in the blocks with the new reigning Mr Incredible. She got a phsycological advantage and got amped up......That is something you can't "prove" she got, so it should count. can't prove that she didn't get it either but what you can prove is she got a draft off of phelps.

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. In the USA rule book it lists recognized distances and strokes. I don't have a FINA book, but it probably has much the same thing. So if the event is not recognized by FINA, anyone else swimming a record, such as Phelps would not have been honored either. 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. My opinion is that the rules should stand because a. GR 9.6.1.2 does not apply. The Duel in the Pool is not a World Championship meet. My reading of that rule is a simple statement of which events are to be swum at Worlds (and the Olympics). I don't see any statement suggesting that this is a definitive list of events that FINA will recognize. And b. there's some gray area in SW 12.1. We know there's no world record for the 4x100 mixed free relay, but what about a leadoff split?

So, say swimmer A is racing a 200 and drafts off swimmer B, who went out hard for the first 150, at which point swimmer A comes on strong, passing swimmer B in the final 20 meters to win in under record time, you are saying swimmer A should not get the record because they got an advantage? Sorry, but that requires explanation, not just assertion. thats just race strategy. Libby didn't even touch the wall first.

... and in the same spirit which makes the fact that Libby Lenton swam in somebody else's wake, the criterion by which her WR was not recognized (invoking a technicality) would invalidate every World Record set by any swimmer, who surged ahead in the last few meters of any race, after being led for 90% of the race by somebody else, in any of the next lanes. I can think of scores of swimming icons who win because of a great last 50, 25, 12, 5m or even 50 cms. How long is 0:0.01 at World-level? Would it also lead to the suspension of the swimmer in Lane 4, if for 99% of the race, s/he was being led by both lanes 5 and 3. (That's a double-draft). Or let's do away with lane ropes/floats and replace them with solid walls. (No drafting whatsoever). Opaque, as well, so that one swimmer could not use another's pace as .......... a human pacing device. (I'm being a bit facetious here). ;)

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. Can we take this same scenario with a slight twist?: It's a Masters meet Sanctioned by Fina Timed Finals, Swum Coed (mixed genders in same heat) Lane 4 is John Deer (whatever age) Lane 5 is Jane Doe (no relation and, also, whatever age) 100m Free (LCM) John Doe does a poor swim (for him, that is) doing 51.00 but still faster than Jane Jane Doe does a 52.98It will count as a Masters (World) Record. Nobody denies this. But, will it count as a pure, open, complete and total World Record? She was -after all- swimming next to a faster man..... :dunno: