Libby Lenton's 52.99

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) Yea, and she was over two seconds behind going into the turn at the 50, so she would have swam into the wake coming off the wall. Bet that helped with the drafting.

I just watched the DVR recording of the race - four times - and noticed she was in his wake for a good 10-12 seconds. It was difficult to see exactly when she lost the draft because NBC cut to an underwater shot of Phelps at 13 seconds. But she definitely wasn't behind his feet until after 20 seconds, and that's more than 1/3 of the race. There was a very good view of Lenton because she was right on the lane line next to Phelps. :laugh2: To me, her proximity to the lane line suggests she was intentionally drafting. The other thing I noticed was Phelps slipped in and out of the wall and went so far underwater, he produced very little wake. :dunno: :2cents: BTW, I agree Libby Lenton is a class act. And it was fun to see the relay and imagine the possibility of a true sub 53 swim.

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. She and everyone else knows that she swam that fast. I think shel will go that fast again in a sanctioned event. What an amazing swim - almost as fast as Spitz's 1972 Munich time! The Oz Wimmin are incredible, with Leisel swimming a 1:04+ breaststroke...

You're kidding me!! WHY? What was the reason they gave?

You're kidding me!! WHY? What was the reason they gave?FINA rules GR 9.6.1.2. See the article in Swimming World www.swimmingworldmagazine.com...news/14597.asp 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."

FINA rules GR 9.6.1.2. See the article in Swimming World www.swimmingworldmagazine.com...news/14597.asp 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." This link wasn't working for me, so I tried here: www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/.../14597.asp

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.

This is the quote that is in the story on Foxsports.com.au "Swimming Australia was told today that Lenton's time would not be recognised because the mixed relay was not an approved FINA event" That is a load of crap.

Rob, You are dead on. Libby handled with totally respect and class. As a swimming fan, one who loves the sport more than any other sport, I want to see the record stand because it was an impressive performance, fastest of all time. I think swimming australia should at least count it as their national record then...man...would fina blow a fuse on that one.

We had to close a meet to run the unsanctioned races then officially open the meet and continue. If not every one would lose their amateur card. Rules are rules I guess we have to live by them.