Libby Lenton's 52.99

She and everyone else knows that she swam that fast. :shakeshead: The debate is not about whether or not she touched the wall in 52.99. It's about whether or not people think she had an unfair advantage.

There is no way that she didn't get an advantage. Her 52.99 should not be counted.

It does seem a little odd to come off of a World Championship Meet and break a WR, no? If she is truly capable of swimming that fast then she should have no trouble repeating such a feat after a proper taper. Those are my words of wisdom for the day.

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.

There is no way that she didn't get an advantage. Her 52.99 should not be counted. 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.

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.

It does seem a little odd to come off of a World Championship Meet and break a WR, no? If she is truly capable of swimming that fast then she should have no trouble repeating such a feat after a proper taper. She had a very busy schedule at Worlds and was under a lot of pressure, I find nothing surprising about being able to do a better swim a couple days later with some rest and under less pressure. Your second sentence makes no sense to me, how many world record holders can you truly say would "have no trouble repeating the feat"? :confused: I won't be surprised if she repeats her time, but then again I won't be surprised if she doesn't. I hope she does.

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. 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.

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:

... 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). ;)