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?
Generosity should have no place in record books in my opinion.
But it already does. You can't remove it here. If something is ambiguous, you can take the generous interpretation or the ungenerous one. There is no objective interpretation. And maybe you can be sanguine about keeping other people out of the record books, but I'm not. Besides, some people think Popov's time trial WR shouldn't count. Should we take that out of the books, since there is controversy?
Lenton came in far enough behind Phelps that it is clear she was not drafting the whole time, and she may in fact have been harmed by the wake from the turn. I don't know and neither does anyone else. So why be a jerk?
As for baseball records, should records from earlier years when the number of games differed be on totally different books? What about records from segregated years, when they weren't really playing the "best" possible?Should hockey records start all over now that there are shootouts, and thus more "wins"? It isn't science and nothing is perfect, so "purist" is quite a misnomer.
Barry Bonds should have NO....I repeat NO * next to his name!
Not only should there be an asterisk, he should be banned from baseball. Take a look at his melon head and enormous physique over his career. Only Victor Conte would claim that is via natural methods.
If Pete Rose is banned from baseball for betting on the game (aka cheating) why isn't a drug abuser also banned? The only people left defending Bonds are a small group of exiled formerly female E. German swimmers holed up in Parts Unknown, Canada.
If she benefitted from the draft for even 1/3 of the race then she had a benefit she would never have when swimming against other women.
Other women don't go out fast and fade at the turn? Ever?
As for Popov's record, don't FINA rules allow records from time trials? This issue really has nothing to do with drafting, that is just my personal opinion. Having said that, if FINA rules do not specify a mixed relay as being WR material then there is nothing more to discuss really.
And yet FINA rules count a lead-off for a relay that is later DQ'd. So it is not unambiguous. And the whole reason this argument exists is because many people think the "explanation" is the after the fact, because they cannot say what they want to.
Lastly, I don't think my opinion makes me a jerk but if it does I will wear the badge with pride.
I think the opinion is jerky. Not the person.
Lenton came in far enough behind Phelps that it is clear she was not drafting the whole time, and she may in fact have been harmed by the wake from the turn. I don't know and neither does anyone else. So why be a jerk?
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?
By the way....does this mean that Lance should lose all of his Tour wins? Because somebody else THINKS he was cheating?
I think I have now met the only person in America who defends Barry Bonds. He's a joke, he's made a joke of baseball. Are you actually willing to step up and say Bonds didn't take performance enhancing drugs? Say it - yes or no. Please remember he's already admitted to putting cream on himself from Conte but didn't know it was illegal - RIGHT!
I was in the "yes" category until a discussion with my kids coach--a trials qualifier. Her argument boiled down to this one comment: "She was drafting off Phelps. Even I (meaning she, not me) could swim a world record time drafting off Phelps."
Drafting is not illegal, so how could it possibly invalidate the swim?
edit: OK, Warren's original post does say "not considering the rule book..." but I don't know how you really can. Either the swim violated a rule and it's not a record, or it didn't violate any rules, and thus should stand as a record.
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.
OK, to tone it down a bit, other than the fact he's admitted to using The Cream and The Clear, albeit without knowing it was illegal, he has never tested positive. So, at the very least he's an unwitting dupe. At the very worst, he's just a junkie. I don't believe you are innocnent until proven guilty if you have already admitted to taking the stuff.
As a Braves fan, it sickens me that someone who, as an unwitting dupe, is taking a record from a stand-up person, who played the game like it was intended.
OK, so many people saying "no" feel Lenton got an advantage due to Phelps swimming in the next lane. So, do you also think Bob Beamon's phenomenal long jump record in the 1968 Olympics shouldn't have been allowed? After all, the jump was done in Mexico City at 7,400 feet with the maximum allowable tailwind at his back. These factors definitely gave Beamon an "advantage." Maybe not over the other competitors on that day, but certainly over people who previously jumped at sea level with no wind aid.
