The FINA rules say no but not considering the rulebook, should Libby Lenton's 52.99 go in the record books. There has been alot of debate on this in the other thread. What do you think?
Not at all sure why such a harsh comment.
My opinion is you play the cards you are dealt at the time. I agree this shouldn't be a WR. It's not a normal/recognized event, plain and simple. Sure, it's a great swim but it's not a WR. Your logic would dictate that Tiger Woods could go out at Augusta National during a pro-am and shoot a course low and win the Masters. He has the course low, but not the green jacket.
As to baseball, get your facts straight. MLB has done a decent job of recognizing it's shortcomings in regards to race matters in terms of records, disparate season lengths and HOF inductees. Have you bothered to take a look at the season-long recognition of Robinson?
Analogies are not your forte, are they?
A "course low" would be the analog to a world record. A "meet record" would be like winning the Augusta National. One implies a particular place and time set up; the other is just a question of numbers. As to baseball, my point is simply that when people were kept out because of their skin color, the argument could be made that the competition was not of the highest possible caliber, and therefore a segregated win or home run should count for less. I am not saying it should or should not. It is merely a theoretical argument meant to point out that records are not absolute.
Finally, I am not angry, and I think I have been having a perfectly reasonable discussion about this with scyfreestyler (who, you will note, actually understood my analogies). I do think arguing for the more punitive interpretation of an ambiguous situation is jerky and I don't really understand the impulse.
Not at all sure why such a harsh comment.
My opinion is you play the cards you are dealt at the time. I agree this shouldn't be a WR. It's not a normal/recognized event, plain and simple. Sure, it's a great swim but it's not a WR. Your logic would dictate that Tiger Woods could go out at Augusta National during a pro-am and shoot a course low and win the Masters. He has the course low, but not the green jacket.
As to baseball, get your facts straight. MLB has done a decent job of recognizing it's shortcomings in regards to race matters in terms of records, disparate season lengths and HOF inductees. Have you bothered to take a look at the season-long recognition of Robinson?
Analogies are not your forte, are they?
A "course low" would be the analog to a world record. A "meet record" would be like winning the Augusta National. One implies a particular place and time set up; the other is just a question of numbers. As to baseball, my point is simply that when people were kept out because of their skin color, the argument could be made that the competition was not of the highest possible caliber, and therefore a segregated win or home run should count for less. I am not saying it should or should not. It is merely a theoretical argument meant to point out that records are not absolute.
Finally, I am not angry, and I think I have been having a perfectly reasonable discussion about this with scyfreestyler (who, you will note, actually understood my analogies). I do think arguing for the more punitive interpretation of an ambiguous situation is jerky and I don't really understand the impulse.
