Libby Lenton's 52.99

[thewookiee]

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.

[swimr4life]

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

[thewookiee]

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 Copeland]

You're kidding me!! WHY? What was the reason they gave?FINA rules GR 9.6.1.2.

See the article in Swimming World
http://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."

[Brian Stack]

FINA rules GR 9.6.1.2.

See the article in Swimming World
http://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:
http://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/lane9/news/14597.asp

[knelson]

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.

[thewookiee]

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.

[Frank Thompson]

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.

Kirk:

Taking this one extreme further and using this logic, if a USMS Masters swimmer broke a FINA World Record leading off a 400 Free Relay, and it doesn't matter if its a Women's, Men's, or Mixed, it would not count either because its a 400 distance. If the Relay was a 200 distance it would count because FINA spells this out in there Rules in MSW 4.2

http://www.fina.org/rules/english/masters.php

I am not sure if Swimming Australia would count it as a National Record but I would bet that USA Swimming would not count the Record either if a USA Swimmer broke the National Record leading off a Mixed Relay because Mixed Relays don't exist in the USA Rule Books and thus a Record cannot not be set because the events are not defined. About the only Record you could have in a 400 Meter Mixed Relay would be a USMS National Record that I know of. I am not sure about other Federations and how they would treat 400 and 800 Relays as there National Records because FINA does not consider that they even exist. Same for Top Ten Tabulations. Take a look and you won't see any 400 or 800 Relays from the just recently posted 2006 FINA Top Ten Tabulations.

[Swimmer Bill]

It was a great swim, but had it been counted as a record, it would've had an asterisk in my book.

* drafted off Michael Phelps

[knelson]

Taking this one extreme further and using this logic, if a USMS Masters swimmer broke a FINA World Record leading off a 400 Free Relay, and it doesn't matter if its a Women's, Men's, or Mixed, it would not count either because its a 400 distance. If the Relay was a 200 distance it would count because FINA spells this out in there Rules in MSW 4.2

I would have thought that kind of record would count, but with the Lenton precedent, you're right, it shouldn't. However, I do think there's a subtle distinction in the masters rule versus GR 9.6.1.2. MSW 4.2 basically says "these are the valid events for masters competition." GR 9.6.1.2 says "these are the events required at the Olympics and World Championships."

edit: after seeing Bill's post I'll add that I've been thinking about the drafting thing, too. Since Skip already mentioned masters rules, I'll bet there have been scads of masters world records set with the help of drafting (i.e., competitors of another sex or another age group in the adjacent lane). Does anyone question these? Now, I realize a masters world record, although a great achievement, isn't the same as a non-masters world record, but still...

I think the bottom line is the powers that be at FINA felt Lenton's swim was aided by having Phelps in the next lane. They couldn't really find anything to discredit the swim based on that fact alone, so they latched onto another rule that really doesn't hold water (:)).

[Frank Thompson]

It was a great swim, but had it been counted as a record, it would've had an asterisk in my book.

* drafted off Michael Phelps

Bill:

Your kidding right? I have to disagree with you both about the drafting because it has nothing to do with the rejection of this Record as explained by FINA in the press release. That might be a consideration, but that will never be admitted. There are no FINA rules that prohibit drafting off another swimmer in another lane. In fact, Ducan Armstrong set the 200 Meter Free World Record at the 1988 Olympics in Seoul and he and his Coach Laurie Lawrence admitted that there strategy was to draft off the big waves of Matt Biondi, who was in the next lane and provided a draft for about 170 meters. I saw a replay of this a couple of weeks ago and its obvious that Ducan was swimming on a draft of water that was provided by Biondi and it helped him break the World Record by .19 seconds.

I think the FINA Technical Rules Committee made the call based on the Rules that are written. Its to bad that Libby didn't do this swim in the Women's 400 Free Relay leadoff because they would have counted it. If they allowed this to go thru, this would set a precedent that other swims not defined by the FINA Rules that could count for World Records. I don't think they are denying the World Record because of the type of meet this is because Michael Phelps set a World Record in the 400 IM at this meet in 2003. What they don't want is swimmers setting FINA World Records in events that are not defined by FINA Rules.

[Swimmer Bill]

I'll bet there have been scads of masters world records set with the help of drafting (i.e., competitors of another sex or another age group in the adjacent lane). Does anyone question these?

Not usually. Masters swimming rules allow for men and women of all ages to swim together.

A few years ago, I swam a 200 back next to Roger Franks during a SCM meet at St. Joseph's in Philadelphia. Although Roger is 39 years older than me, I was happy and contented thinking he may have caught a little draft off me. I knew before the race that he was going for a world record, so I was also very mindful about not making too many waves.

I don't think many international / Olympic level swimmers would intentionally help out competitors by avoiding making waves or allowing others to draft - but I know a lot of Masters swimmers who would.

[thewookiee]

It was a great swim, but had it been counted as a record, it would've had an asterisk in my book.

* drafted off Michael Phelps


When someone is 4 seconds behind another swimmer, I don't see how in the world a person can draft. If they were within a body length or less, then yes, drafting comes into effect. At 4 seconds, Libby was eating his waves, not riding his draft.

[Swimmer Bill]

Bill:Your kidding right?

Nope, and don't get it twisted. I'm well aware of the process and how the rules are written - and don't disagree with them at all. My comment was more about the precedent, and I'm glad FINA didn't set that precedent.

[Swimmer Bill]

When someone is 4 seconds behind another swimmer, I don't see how in the world a person can draft. If they were within a body length or less, then yes, drafting comes into effect. At 4 seconds, Libby was eating his waves, not riding his draft.

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)

[thewookiee]

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.

[knelson]

I think the FINA Technical Rules Committee made the call based on the Rules that are written. Its to bad that Libby didn't do this swim in the Women's 400 Free Relay leadoff because they would have counted it. If they allowed this to go thru, this would set a precedent that other swims not defined by the FINA Rules that could count for World Records.

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.

[Muppet]

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."

AMEN to you, Libby - Next time you're swimming a sanctioned 100 free, you can count on me cheering for you to go 52.98! Great attitude, girl, go stick it to 'em :dedhorse: :frustrated:

[Swimmer Bill]

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.

[jonblank]

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...

[geochuck]

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.

[Swimmer Bill]

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.

[3strokes]

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:

[3strokes]

... 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). ;)

[Warren]

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

[scyfreestyler]

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.

[LindsayNB]

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.

[LindsayNB]

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.

[Warren]

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.

thats just race strategy. Libby didn't even touch the wall first.

[rtodd]

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.

[Warren]

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.

can't prove that she didn't get it either but what you can prove is she got a draft off of phelps.

[geochuck]

I think because they did not give her the world record she may even take a lot more off the next time she swims.

[3strokes]

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

Your signature says, "The clock does not lie".
The clock said 52.99

In a later post you talk about race strategy.

Please explain the difference to us:

a) Libby Lenton's race strategy is to draft off Phelps and she does (as per the clock) a 52.99, but it should not count.

b) However, in the Race of The Year, the Olympics, Athens, the Men's 200m Free, Thorpe did not touch/turn first in any of the 1st three turns (if memory serves. I have the tape and could chceck it, if need be) and yet he won the race. Should he be disqualified and his win not recognized because he drafted off PVH?
I also believe that in his 400m Free, there were several turns where he was out-touched by Hackett, but Ian had a fantastic finish (I have that on tape as well, or was it the Barcelona Worlds? -which I also happen to have-). Should he send back his Gold medal and have his title revoked?

Come on!

[knelson]

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.

[3strokes]

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.

Rtodd

I'm with you for the part that says "should count".

Now, as to the psychological advantage aspect.
That is competition.
In every race (competition), held anywhere in the World, there is a psychological favorite, or best-bet-to-win (based on QT or past history or for being the Record Holder or Reigning/Defending champ, or...........)
Does this mean that when the favorite is beaten, whoever bested him got a(n unfair) psychological advantage?

However it works both ways.
The favorite is psyched to NOT lose.
The others are psyched to try and best him/her.

As Warren likes to say, the clock does not lie.

[geochuck]

Pycological advantage how can this be a phycological advantage. Drafting is also hard to believe. Give the girl her rightfull dues she swam one really fast 100.

[3strokes]

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.

Exactly. They "got her" on a technicality.
However the fact remains that she did do it.
She swam a 100m Free, from blocks, on a (lead-off) signal, and I assume there were electronic time recording devices, in an officially-sized pool.
Therefore every little thing was perfect except that this specific event was not sanctioned.
(It could have been in a Mother/Sister/Daughter/Auntie event, but her part in it was 100% correct, as I understand it.) Can't we, for once, apply the spirit of the rules -and celebrate a woman going under 53- and not the strict letter?

Anyway, we could debate this "ad infinitum" and in the eyes of many, she still didn't do it and in the eyes of others (many more, I'd bet) she's the first woman to have done it.

[dorothyrde]

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.

[Warren]

Your signature says, "The clock does not lie".
The clock said 52.99

In a later post you talk about race strategy.

Please explain the difference to us:

a) Libby Lenton's race strategy is to draft off Phelps and she does (as per the clock) a 52.99, but it should not count.

b) However, in the Race of The Year, the Olympics, Athens, the Men's 200m Free, Thorpe did not touch/turn first in any of the 1st three turns (if memory serves. I have the tape and could chceck it, if need be) and yet he won the race. Should he be disqualified and his win not recognized because he drafted off PVH?
I also believe that in his 400m Free, there were several turns where he was out-touched by Hackett, but Ian had a fantastic finish (I have that on tape as well, or was it the Barcelona Worlds? -which I also happen to have-). Should he send back his Gold medal and have his title revoked?

Come on!

We are talking about the 100 here. If a lenton goes a 52.99 in a real race she would be ahead the whole time and would not get a draft off anyone. In the mixed relay she gets a draft off of phelps. She did go a 52.99 In the MIXED RELAY and theres no doubt about that because "the clock does not lie" but consider the situation. These are two completle different races. It is harder to go a 52.99 in a real race against other women than it is with phelps in the next lane becasue of drafting.

[tjburk]

MY humble opinion....."the clock does not lie" - New World Record.....

I think she will do it again....that will put a damper on any negatives!

[tjburk]

So Warren...then what is the verdict on Thorpe drafting off of PVH or anybody else for 3/4 of a race?

By what you're saying....anybody drafting should not have a world record? It's a part of swimming....heck it's a part of racing.

[geochuck]

What was Phelps time? You have to be very close to draft off anybody. If Phelps time was over 2 seconds ahead there would be no draft.

[geochuck]

Here is the video of the race http://scaq.blogspot.com/search/label/Duel%20in%20the%20Pool

[knelson]

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.

Here's a summary:
1. BEFORE the ruling many speculated it wouldn't count due to Lenton swimming with Phelps in the next lane over (i.e., she got a benefit from drafting).
2. The actual statement by FINA did not mention drafting. It simply stated that the record wouldn't count due to GR 9.6.1.2 which simply states which event are contested at FINA World Championship event.
3. SW 12.1 lists the events for which world records are recognized. The 4x100 meter mixed free relay is not one of them. However, the 100 meter freestyle (obviously) is.

My opinion is that the rules should stand because a. GR 9.6.1.2 does not apply. The Duel in the Pool is not a World Championship meet. My reading of that rule is a simple statement of which events are to be swum at Worlds (and the Olympics). I don't see any statement suggesting that this is a definitive list of events that FINA will recognize. And b. there's some gray area in SW 12.1. We know there's no world record for the 4x100 mixed free relay, but what about a leadoff split?

[scyfreestyler]

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.


Yes Lindsay, as did most other swimmers who swam their better times at the Worlds meet and not at The Duel. From the comments of swimmers at the Duel, they were still tired from Worlds and just looking to make a good showing for the country...not to break any records. Maybe Lenton is the exception to the rule and she performs better a few days after a big meet than during the meet.

As for record repeats, well the Texas Trio seem to have no trouble not only repeating their records but actually breaking them. Coughlin is another. Phelps goes without saying. I would go out on a limb to say that Lochte will likely be similar in this respect. I don't see where the confusion comes from here. Please clarify.


Look, I don't know for certain whether Phelps' wake had anything to do with the record but I can say that were I in Lenton's shoes I would want that record on the books with no controversy attached. If she was granted this record it would have footnotes behind it in many minds. This thread is proof of such I think.

[scyfreestyler]

So Warren...then what is the verdict on Thorpe drafting off of PVH or anybody else for 3/4 of a race?

By what you're saying....anybody drafting should not have a world record? It's a part of swimming....heck it's a part of racing.


The difference is that in the example you give, the swimmers (PVH and Thorpe) are gunning for the same record. Phelps and Lenton were not swimming for the same individual record...one is male and one is female.

[Peter Cruise]

I have watched the video several times- I don't think she got a meaningful draft anyway; which by the way, is not a cause for disqualification, so I don't think it should be considered. Much as I have disagreed with FINA over the years, they have stated the ruling by which the swim was disallowed and as they are the arbitrating body, if they say 'cause the event was not one of the 'official' ones, then that's it. It would be interesting if they adopted our enlightened events of mixed relays (I bet it would be a hit on TV) whether they would adopt such a swim as a world record or find some other reason to disallow it.

[3strokes]

Originally Posted by dorothyrde http://forums.usms.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.usms.org/showthread.php?p=90396#post90396)
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.



Here's a summary:
1. BEFORE the ruling many speculated it wouldn't count due to Lenton swimming with Phelps in the next lane over (i.e., she got a benefit from drafting).
2. The actual statement by FINA did not mention drafting. It simply stated that the record wouldn't count due to GR 9.6.1.2 which simply states which event are contested at FINA World Championship event.
3. SW 12.1 lists the events for which world records are recognized. The 4x100 meter mixed free relay is not one of them. However, the 100 meter freestyle (obviously) is.


You are both correct, of course.
I believe that everyone -disappointed though they may have been at the official non-recognition (due to the existing rules)- was ready to accept the decision (based solely on the recognition of events) but happy for L.L.

Then the talk started about drafting and unfair advantage. This is what started the back and forth discussions :argue: because, as many believe, it was not a valid (i.e., invalid, argumentative, irrelevant, speculative and ... Fort, where the Fort art thou' when we need your vocabulary?... argument (in this as in any other case where swimmers -US or not- had extremely good finishes and won in the last few meters without accusations of unfair advantages). H@ck! There recently was a race where Phelps won by less than 0.03 (I'll check the tapes later) just as the commentators were almost declaring him second, but the "always truthful" clock said that Phelps, somehow, found that extra millimiter in his flexible body to out-touch (Crocker? Lochte? Peirsol?).


Methinks, we should have started a motion to have FINA have a (new and retroactive) rule that would bend some rules where such a feat would be recognized because, everything that Libby did was correct.
(Maybe if only as a Wedding present?) :smooch:

[lefty]

Drafting a lane over? Are you kidding. These are non-turbulent lane lines. FINA needs to be able to protect the integrity of the records; measure the pool, the block height, check the timing system. But that is about it. This was a technicality, and a really lame one at that.

[LindsayNB]

As for record repeats, well the Texas Trio seem to have no trouble not only repeating their records but actually breaking them.

If so, why didn't Ian repeat or break his World Record time in Melbourne? He couldn't be troubled to bother? I don't think so.

To me the assertion that if you swam a time once you will have no trouble swimming it again is so obviously untrue that I don't know how to make it any clearer. Grant Hackett hasn't made it close to his 1500m WR since, Ian Thorpe went a long time without equaling his 200m WR. By the end of their career every swimmer has a best time that they were only able to achieve once (there may be cases of a swimmer tying their own PB but it doesn't change the argument).

[Jeff Commings]

The organizers should have let the coaches know that any world record attempt on the leadoff leg will not count. I don't know why they didn't anticipate someone trying this. World records have been broken in the Duel, it's a very fast pool and it was pretty close to worlds.

If Phelps had broken the 100 free record, you can bet there would be LOTS of ranting in USA Swimming.

Think of it this way:

The FINA rules say that if the leadoff swimmer in the 400 medley, 400 free or 800 free relays breaks a world/meet/country record, yet the relay is disqualified, the leadoff swimmer's record stands. (SW 12.8)

So, if Ryan Lochte broke Aaron's 100 back record in the prelim relay at worlds, the record would remain even thought the USA relay was disqualified, and therefore, invalid. Basically, FINA is saying Australia's team was invalid, AND Libby's swim did not count.

If it were just a 100 free race between Phelps and Lenton, would the record have counted?

Lots of "what ifs."

[scyfreestyler]

If so, why didn't Ian repeat or break his World Record time in Melbourne? He couldn't be troubled to bother? I don't think so.

To me the assertion that if you swam a time once you will have no trouble swimming it again is so obviously untrue that I don't know how to make it any clearer. Grant Hackett hasn't made it close to his 1500m WR since, Ian Thorpe went a long time without equaling his 200m WR. By the end of their career every swimmer has a best time that they were only able to achieve once (there may be cases of a swimmer tying their own PB but it doesn't change the argument).


I assert that because she swam this PB after a tough meet the week prior. She was not in optimal condition to be making a WR attempt. Therefore, if she can break a WR under those conditions she should have no trouble repeating the WR with a proper train, shave, and taper.

[geochuck]

Is there a rule that says women cannot swim in a men's race, FINA better get with the times and stop its discrimination.

[scyfreestyler]

Is there a rule that says women cannot swim in a men's race, FINA better get with the times and stop its discrimination.


Somehow I don't think women would like that version of equality.

[Swimmer Bill]

The original comment about drafting was actually about one of the possible rationales behind the rule - not the rule itself.

The hypothetical question is "Why would FINA not want women swimming against men in elite, open international competition?"

[3strokes]

Is there a rule that says women cannot swim in a men's race, FINA better get with the times and stop its discrimination.

Somehow I don't think women would like that version of equality.

However, women might like it, IF:

Separate men's and women's rankings and World Records were still
maintained, then women would love it. For the simple reason that all
they really, really would have to do is try to make reasonably sure they're in a lane within sight (say, 25 or 35 metres) of a superior, strike that, make it FASTER, male swimmer, off of whom they could draft for 97.5783% of the race in order to conserve enough energy so as to be able to break, if not a World Record, then at least a National one (where sponsorship contracts would ostensibly be less than for a WR but still quite considerable).

[osterber]

I have watched the video several times- I don't think she got a meaningful draft anyway;

With all due respect... what are you smoking? She could have just lay there without moving her arms, and she would have still gone under 1:00. There's a part of the video that is looking up at Phelps... you can see the wake pattern behind him. It looks like the wake pattern of a ski boat moving through the water. She got a _gigantic_ draft off of Phelps in that race.

Especially because the rest of the pool was empty. If there were swimmers in the other 6 (or 8) lanes, there would be lots of other wake in the pool causing different wave patterns. But the pool was empty and flat except for the two swimmers. Talk about _optimal_ drafting conditions!

-Rick

[Peter Cruise]

RicK: I watched it closely, she fell behind quickly and I stand by both aspects of my opinion: that it wasn't meaningful, nor would it be an offense anyway. BTW I am smoking nothing.

[osterber]

Drafting a lane over? Are you kidding.

Are you actually claiming that a mere lane line between them makes it as if they were in two physically separate bodies of water? Lane lines these days are good, but wow.

-Rick

[osterber]

Perhaps the best way to see the effect of Phelps... as they are both about to finish their leg, the camera pulls out just a bit to show a wider angle. If you look at the empty lane next to Phelps (closer to the camera), you can see the gigantic wave rolling down that entire lane. That's a huge wave! You can hang 10 on that wave if you had a surfboard.

-Rick

[geochuck]

Rick I looked at those lane dividers and they were really doing a great job they broke things up pretty well. But the good thing here is everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Right or wrong. Now just because I think you are wrong that does not mean you are wrong. I was not there and I am going by videos and my interpretation does not have to agree with yours. I could be wrong and I have never smoked anything either.

[lefty]

With all due respect... what are you smoking? She could have just lay there without moving her arms, and she would have still gone under 1:00.

oster, there is no respect being shown when you write "what are you smoking?" In fact, that is the opposite of respect.

[Blackbeard's Peg]

BUMP! :bump:

Just thought of something...

So, if Dara Torres and Libby Lenton are swimming a 100 free side by side, and Dara breaks her previous personal best, is she cheating... by drafting???

[Shaman]

I wouldn't say so. The way I see it Libby was drafting off a man who would create a draft much stronger than if she were racing another woman and she could get picked up in that draft much easier than a man would swimming next to phelps because she's much lighter than he is.

[Jeff Commings]

What if Dara shaved for masters nationals this week, swam the 50 free and broke Inge de Bruijn's world record, then came back the next day in the mixed 200 free relay and lowered that mark leading off for her team, and swimming next to a man who goes the same time?

Which time would count?

[FlyQueen]

I'm so torn on what I think about Libby's time. FINA does some shaddy stuff. Hopefully though she will be able to repeat this effort. That'd be amazing. Myabe she doped the day before??

In all honesty I bet Phelps had an effect whether physical, mental, or both.

[tjburk]

Whatever time she swims......NO matter who she is swimming next to!
IMHO of course....

She started from the blocks and swam the whole 100 herself.....World Record!

[Blackbeard's Peg]

She started from the blocks and swam the whole 100 herself.....World Record!
AMEN!

[Rob Copeland]

What if Dara shaved for masters nationals this week, swam the 50 free and broke Inge de Bruijn's world record, then came back the next day in the mixed 200 free relay and lowered that mark leading off for her team, and swimming next to a man who goes the same time?

Which time would count?Answer: Neither. I believe that FINA does not recognize times achieved at Masters events for open World Records. However, both of those swims would be considered for FINA Masters records.

Note: Dara’s times from Sr. Nationals could be submitted for consideration for USMS records but not for FINA Masters records.

[Frank Thompson]

Rob:

Would the record not count because in Masters we do not have drug testing after a World Record has been set an FINA does have testing done in FINA Swimming? Of course in this case that might be an exception the way all of the testing has been done on Dara.

I know FINA World and USMS Record times have counted in the past for FINA World Rankings for FINA Swimming. Kevin DeForest back in 1983 at the Long Course Nationals swam a :22.59 for the 50 Free and missed Robin Leamy World Record by .05 and was ranked 3rd in the World that year from the results of the Masters meet. Kevin still has the record and its one of the oldest USMS Records if not the oldest.

[Paul Smith]

I wouldn't say so. The way I see it Libby was drafting off a man who would create a draft much stronger than if she were racing another woman and she could get picked up in that draft much easier than a man would swimming next to phelps because she's much lighter than he is.

I think the record should stand....here's why; If Michael Phelps is swimming in lane 4 (any event) and the swimmer in lane 3 or lane 5 takes second...then technically the swimmers in lanes that we're not adjacent to him and his draft all we're at a disadvantage....heck ask Geek with his wealth of experience in the Tri world he should know all about drafting!

was there some effect due to drafting? Absolutely....anyone who has ever raced can't deny that occurs. Just because the drafting happened with a man not a woman next to her doesn't matter to me.

[lefty]

Kevin DeForest back in 1983 at the Long Course Nationals swam a :22.59 for the 50 Free and missed Robin Leamy World Record by .05

At the 1980 boycotting country's meet, Gary Schatz went a 22.4 in a redo of the original race. It was the world record at that time, but did not count. (There was a probelm with the start on the offical race, which is why they reraced).

In 1988 Peter WIlliams of South Africa swam either 22.28 or 22.18 (can't remember). However, because SA was an apartheid nation the record was not recognized.

What all of this means to me is that a World Record is not a World Record. It is a FINA record.

[Frank Thompson]

At the 1980 boycotting country's meet, Gary Schatz went a 22.4 in a redo of the original race. It was the world record at that time, but did not count. (There was a probelm with the start on the offical race, which is why they reraced).

In 1988 Peter WIlliams of South Africa swam either 22.28 or 22.18 (can't remember). However, because SA was an apartheid nation the record was not recognized.

What all of this means to me is that a World Record is not a World Record. It is a FINA record.

Lefty:

Peter Williams time was not counted because South Africa was an apartheid nation and thus the record was not recognized. If this were true then why would they have counted Jony Skinner 100 Meter Free World Record of :49.44 set back in August of 1976 at the Nationals in Philadelphia and he was from the country of South Africa.

The reason Peter Williams record was under review was because of 2 things. The Pool was not quite 50 meters and it was done in a time trial with no one else swimming, ideal for racing conditions. Tom Jager and others protested this record swim. FINA was suppose to review and make a decision but Tom Jager already broke the record and got it back before they rendered a decision. So it was a moot point by then. However that is where the pool measurement guidelines that FINA follows comes from today. Also more stringent rules were drawn up on how to conduct time trial swims for World Records. FINA still allows time trial World Records.

About Gary Schatz, I have provided a story about what happened regarding his World Record attempt on another thread which I have included here.

I remember that meet real well. It was the Hawaii Invitational and it was held in Honolulu in August of 1980 and was a farewell for the 1980 Olympic team members and others as a last meet in there careers. One of the others was Gary Schatz, who got 6th place in the 100 Free at the 1980 Olympic Trials and would have made the Olympic team, but like 1976 there was no Men's 400 Free Relay so he did not make the team. He missed making the 1976 Olympic team by .03 in the 100 Free and there was no 50 Free back in those days, so he never made the Olympic team. He was also the second man to go under 20 seconds, but never got the record because Joe Bottom did it first. The 50 Free was a new event internationally and he was one of the first great 50 swimmers of that era. When Bruce Stahl set the WR in the prelims at the 1980 Nationals with a :22.83 time, he was beaten in the finals by both Gary Schatz and Rowdy Gaines. Schatz won with a time of :22.86, just missing the record by .03 and Rowdy Gaines did a :22.91 and Bruce Stahl did a :22.92 and it was Gary's first National title.

At the Hawaii Invitational, Joe Bottom did a :22.83 to tie the record in the prelims. In the finals he did a :22.71 for the new record. There was a lot of controversey about the final. When the starter's horn when off, Gary Schatz was left on the blocks standing. A lot of people that saw the race thought it was a fast if not false start and the field should have been called back. Schatz was just coming down when everyone hit the water. He nearly made up this disadvantage and passed swimmers like Chris Cavanaugh and Kris Kischner but ending up taking 3rd and almost caught Scott Findorff who was second with a time of :22.99 and Schatz's time was :23.02. Because of the contoversial start, a special 50 Free time trial was set up to see if Gary could break Bottom's record at the conclusion of the meet. This would be the final swim of his career. During this time trial, Gary had a good start and blasted a :22.47 to literally shatter the record. However the controversy continues.

Gary Schatz's time however was not submitted for official recognition for the record or for the world rankings because it was not timed by fully automatically, meaning that the starter's electonic horn was not used but instead a hand held gun was used as the starting device. Ray Essick, who was the USA Swimming Director at the time would not permit Colorado Timing System personal to move the automatic timing equipment to the other end of the pool, so the race was hand started with a gun but electonically timed. Essick explained later why the race would not be timed fully automatically, saying that Schatz had had his chance in the individual 50 Free race itself and it wouldn't be fair to let him have a second chance at the record, particularly when Bottom was not swimming the race. So Gary Schatz's last race of his career that everyone had thought was a World Record was nothing but an exibition swim that did not count for anything.

Years ago I talked to Jim Montgomery about this and he saw the final race and confirmed that it was a very rocky start to say the least and that from what he saw there is nothing that could not convince him that Gary Schatz did not go that :22.47 judging from the finals race and the time trial swim. So that is the story about the controversy about starter problems.
__________________

[knelson]

Skip:

Your knowledge of the sport never ceases to amaze. You really should write a book!

[Frank Thompson]

Kirk:

Thanks. I just happen to have a memory for these things. Maybe someday I would like to write a reference book because there are really not many out there. I am just a swim reference junkie.

[geochuck]

She is a great swimmer. If she did not draft isn't it time for everyone to say something like she must use dope.

[tjburk]

Skip:

Your knowledge of the sport never ceases to amaze. You really should write a book!

I second the motion.....Some of the other folks I kind of skip over their books they write....but when I see your name on there I always read the whole thing.

[Shaman]

Is there a rule that says women cannot swim in a men's race, FINA better get with the times and stop its discrimination.

Well men can't swim in Women's races...

[geochuck]

Well actually men do compete in women's races. There are several guys who have had sex changes that are competing in women's events.Well men can't swim in Women's races...

[Shaman]

Well actually men do compete in women's races. There are several guys who have had sex changes that are competing in women's events.

There's probably just as many women who've had a sex change as well that swim.

Here's a question though. If a man were to get a sex change and break a world record as a woman would it be ratified? I mean technically he's not a man anymore but he's undoubtedly going to be more built than most women you'd come across.

[geochuck]

Here is an article, I read men may not have to even have a sex change. Just wear women's clothing for 2 years. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/02/24/1077594830755.html I don't know recent developments may be some one can tell us.

[Shaman]

I can't believe that! That's ridiculous, I don't understand how they can think that's fair.

[lefty]

I can't believe that! That's ridiculous, I don't understand how they can think that's fair.

Under what gender would you classify the swimmer? Their former gender? Or does a sex-chage disqualifiy you from setting any records?

Keep in mind, NOBODY does this for the records (Atleast I really really hope not!).

Just asking, it does seem a little unfair to me as well.

[lefty]

Lefty:

Peter Williams time was not counted because South Africa was an apartheid nation and thus the record was not recognized. If this were true then why would they have counted Jony Skinner 100 Meter Free World Record of :49.44 set back in August of 1976 at the Nationals in Philadelphia and he was from the country of South Africa.

The reason Peter Williams record was under review was because of 2 things. The Pool was not quite 50 meters and it was done in a time trial with no one else swimming, ideal for racing conditions. Tom Jager and others protested this record swim. FINA was suppose to review and make a decision but Tom Jager already broke the record and got it back before they rendered a decision. So it was a moot point by then. However that is where the pool measurement guidelines that FINA follows comes from today. Also more stringent rules were drawn up on how to conduct time trial swims for World Records. FINA still allows time trial World Records.


In response to the qustion about Skinner: Because in 1976 sports had not been fully politicized. The full politization occurred when the US boycotted the 1980 Olympics. I have heard the same questions you raised about Williams' time. But I have also heard that the protest was quite bogus, and that the conditions of the race had been sensationalized in an effort to thwart the record swim. I second what everyone else has said, Skip, I love reading your comments. Can you offer any further insite into this?

[geochuck]

In Canada right now we have a guy/she who races in the womens bicycle races and wins as a female. One of the females complained and was suspended from racing for 6 mons.

[Shaman]

Under what gender would you classify the swimmer? Their former gender? Or does a sex-chage disqualifiy you from setting any records?

Keep in mind, NOBODY does this for the records (Atleast I really really hope not!).

Just asking, it does seem a little unfair to me as well.

See that's the problem, I don't know. Technically I guess they're a woman but they've got the attributes of a man. That almost leads me to believe that it's sort of like using steroids. But I don't think anyone gets a sex change to get Women's World records.

[Peter Cruise]

Somewhere there's a proud holder of the World cockroach-eating record...

[3strokes]

Somewhere there's a proud holder of the World cockroach-eating record...


Not for long though................
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/38449/story.htm

[geochuck]

I have posted this story before but just for those who have not seen it http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/8-7-2006-104774.asp