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?
Parents
Former Member
This just slapped me upside the head, but if the rules are so important to FINA to determine what is a world record and what isn't a world record, then why do they seem to be able to enforce the one's they want too and not others(a lot like NASCAR)
If the rules are so dang important, why didn't the japanese breastroker get DQ'd after video clearly showed the fly kick? And why didn't FINA tell the swimming nations that the rule wouldn't be changed? Instead of enforcing the rule, they changed it so they didn't have to enforce it.
It seems like they only enforce rules when they feel like it and not others.
At the meet, a FINA official was quoted in the Aussie press, telling Swimming Australia's head person to file for ratificiation, as the FINA official did not see any reason why the record wouldn't be ratified.
And just for Poolrat... :dedhorse: :dedhorse: :dedhorse: :dedhorse:
This just slapped me upside the head, but if the rules are so important to FINA to determine what is a world record and what isn't a world record, then why do they seem to be able to enforce the one's they want too and not others(a lot like NASCAR)
If the rules are so dang important, why didn't the japanese breastroker get DQ'd after video clearly showed the fly kick? And why didn't FINA tell the swimming nations that the rule wouldn't be changed? Instead of enforcing the rule, they changed it so they didn't have to enforce it.
It seems like they only enforce rules when they feel like it and not others.
At the meet, a FINA official was quoted in the Aussie press, telling Swimming Australia's head person to file for ratificiation, as the FINA official did not see any reason why the record wouldn't be ratified.
And just for Poolrat... :dedhorse: :dedhorse: :dedhorse: :dedhorse:
