PDA

View Full Version : Poll: should Libby Lenton have the record



Warren
April 30th, 2007, 02:09 AM
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?

geochuck
April 30th, 2007, 04:33 AM
I just voted, you know what I think of FINA - Jerks - but my ballot is a secret.

3strokes
April 30th, 2007, 07:01 AM
I just voted, you know what I think of FINA - Jerks - but my ballot is a secret.

Actually George, the secrecy (or not) of the ballo is decided
by the ballot-maker in this environmnet.

If you click on the number of votes for each choice,
you'll see the name who voted for each choice.

(So far it looks like 100% Canadians have been pro-Commonwealth.
Seemingly, unbeknownst to each other; vote-wise).

As I write this, 3 Yeas, 4 Nays.
Therefore, if at the end of the vote, the Yeas surge ahead,
it will be because we gained an unfair advantage by drafting
off the Nays who started off strong(er).

poolraat
April 30th, 2007, 09:18 AM
:dedhorse:

tjburk
April 30th, 2007, 09:22 AM
My point about this is this:

She led off a relay.......Male, Female or mixed DOES NOT matter.....
She swam a 100 Free and broke the record.....
Would any of us be as graceful about the decision as she was?
I know I would be a tad bit diappointed if it were me!!!

Just my :2cents:

Muppet
April 30th, 2007, 12:01 PM
Would any of us be as graceful about the decision as she was?

I gotta say again, that was awesome, esp. the way the reporter told her it didn't count and then stuck the mic in her face.
Regardless of whether or not they count it, the whole world knows she did it, and didn't dope.

scyfreestyler
April 30th, 2007, 12:04 PM
I gotta say again, that was awesome, esp. the way the reporter told her it didn't count and then stuck the mic in her face.
Regardless of whether or not they count it, the whole world knows she did it, and didn't dope.

Not so sure about that one.

Anthony Thompson
April 30th, 2007, 12:09 PM
Since the meet was sanctioned by a FINA organization (Austrialia Swimming) and is a recognized FINA event (see FINA rule book), it should be a record - once documentation is filed and reviewed by FINA.

thewookiee
April 30th, 2007, 12:09 PM
Not so sure about that one.


Not so sure about what? That she doped? If that is the case,then why is it Michael Phelps has those good swims, so does Lochte,Coughlin...but we don't even think of bringing up drugs with them.

Heaven forbid that someone from another country has a fantastic swim but then it gets tarnished with "she might have been doping"

scyfreestyler
April 30th, 2007, 12:12 PM
Not so sure about what? That she doped? If that is the case,then why is it Michael Phelps has those good swims, so does Lochte,Coughlin...but we don't even think of bringing up drugs with them.

Heaven forbid that someone from another country has a fantastic swim but then it gets tarnished with "she might have been doping"

Open your eyes please. Did you see what I highlighted? Sheesh!

Allen Stark
April 30th, 2007, 12:42 PM
OK,a time trial can count for a WR but not this.REDICULOUS.:dunno: :dunno: :dunno: :frustrated:

geochuck
April 30th, 2007, 12:45 PM
My oh my - the poll has reversed to what the real world thinks.

scyfreestyler
April 30th, 2007, 12:48 PM
So those of us who voted "no" are in some synthetic world then?

tjburk
April 30th, 2007, 12:50 PM
Yes, you do not exist anymore....you have been assimilated!!!!:rofl:

some_girl
April 30th, 2007, 12:52 PM
I don't understand the total lack of generosity in the whole NO RECORD!!!! brigade. Is it only a WR if you were ahead the entire race? Is it only a WR if you are the top seed, so you didn't use your underdog fire? Is it only a WR if you swim alone? Why are you so interested in saying no? There is some ambiguity--maybe she was hurt, maybe she was helped--so why not take the generous interpretation? There is no way to be certain.

geochuck
April 30th, 2007, 12:52 PM
I seem to remember that we even have some men (who have sex changes swim against the women) and can hold a women's record.

swimr4life
April 30th, 2007, 12:55 PM
I seem to remember that we even have some men (who have sex changes swim against the women) and can hold a women's record.

I'm not that generous....:shakeshead:

scyfreestyler
April 30th, 2007, 01:02 PM
I don't understand the total lack of generosity in the whole NO RECORD!!!! brigade. Is it only a WR if you were ahead the entire race? Is it only a WR if you are the top seed, so you didn't use your underdog fire? Is it only a WR if you swim alone? Why are you so interested in saying no? There is some ambiguity--maybe she was hurt, maybe she was helped--so why not take the generous interpretation? There is no way to be certain.


Generosity should have no place in record books in my opinion. There is obviously some mixed opinions about the legitimacy of this "record" and I don't think I would want my name on such a thing. It would be much better to have a record with no strings attached. Take for example Barry Bonds. His records will always be associated with his BALCO affiliation and quite frankly, meaningless to the purist.

If a fast swimmers wake has the ability to pull along a slower swimmer in an adjacent lane then the slower swimmer had an advantage they would not otherwise have. If the race were between Phelps and Peter Vanderkaay, Vanderkaay may have very well benefitted from the wake of Phelps but there is no way he could have used that advantage to make a WR time because Phelps would be ahead of him. In order for Vanderkaay to make a WR he would eventually have to overtake Phelps and lose the benefit of the wake he had been enjoying. If they are going to make these mixed relays WR capable then they need to have rules about lane separation.

some_girl
April 30th, 2007, 01:12 PM
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.

scyfreestyler
April 30th, 2007, 01:22 PM
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.

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.

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.

When I said purist I meant free of performance enhancing drugs, ie the BALCO association. Your other comments are all good points, but shall we just throw up our hands and let anything go due to the events of the past? I say no.

Lastly, I don't think my opinion makes me a jerk but if it does I will wear the badge with pride.

tjburk
April 30th, 2007, 01:22 PM
Barry Bonds should have NO....I repeat NO * next to his name! He has not been found guilty of any wrongdoing. Inuendos and rumors do not make a person guilty.

Just like Libby should have this WR with no * next to her name.....she swam a record breaking 100 Free! IMHO Of course!

imspoiled
April 30th, 2007, 01:24 PM
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."

Before our discussion, it seemed wrong, since I'm sure LL worked her butt off to keep pace. I'm still sure she worked her butt off, but watching the video, it does appear she got the benefit of a draft for the first 50m.

Having said, that, I wonder what FINA would have done if LL had swum that time and Natalie Coughlin would have swum the lead leg for USA?

I do think there is a difference between all mens/womens heats and mixed heats. Men do have a strength advantage, and in this case I think it benefitted LL. I also believe Masters meets handle the issue by seeding by time, thereby placing swimmers of similar ability in the same heats and minimizing the strength/draft advantage.

scyfreestyler
April 30th, 2007, 01:24 PM
Barry Bonds should have NO....I repeat NO * next to his name! He has not been found guilty of any wrongdoing. Inuendos and rumors do not make a person guilty.


Okay. :)

aquageek
April 30th, 2007, 01:29 PM
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.

geochuck
April 30th, 2007, 01:33 PM
The drafting thing is not even a possibility. It could only be of benifit if they swam in the same lane and were very close to each other.

I have probably done more drafting then anyone else here. Beleive me she did not draft. Those wave buster ropes looked to be very good ones.

Give her credit she broke the worlds record. The only Jerks in this picture are the FINA people who rejected the WR.

some_girl
April 30th, 2007, 01:34 PM
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.

scyfreestyler
April 30th, 2007, 01:35 PM
The drafting thing is not even a possibility. It could only be of benifit if they swam in the same lane and were very close to each other.

I have probably done more drafting then anyone else here. Beleive me she did not draft. Those wave buster ropes looked to be very good ones.

Give her credit she broke the worlds record. The only Jerks in this picture are the FINA people who rejected the WR.

As I recall she was swimming close to the lane rope of Phelps' lane. She knew what was up.

tjburk
April 30th, 2007, 01:36 PM
Geek, show me one test that has come back positive on one of the most tested people in the game (kind of like Lance Armstrong) and I will agree with you 100%.....until then......Barry will own the Home Run record by the end of the year.....and this is coming from a Dodger fan....we don't like those pesky Giants much!

By the way....does this mean that Lance should lose all of his Tour wins? Because somebody else THINKS he was cheating?

tjburk
April 30th, 2007, 01:38 PM
As I recall she was swimming close to the lane rope of Phelps' lane. She knew what was up.

So, Thorpe or anyone else for that matter swimming next to somebody (drafting) should have an asterisk next to theirs? Or should we just go ahead and take it away now?

scyfreestyler
April 30th, 2007, 01:39 PM
Other women don't go out fast and fade at the turn? Ever?



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.



I think the opinion is jerky. Not the person.

I suppose your idea is possible, but not probable.

If the entire lead off swim is legal then it should make no difference what the following swimmers do. If the anchor jumps the gun on his start how does that effect the lead swimmers time?

If my opinions are jerky then so must be I. It's okay, I don't mind...really. ;)

aquageek
April 30th, 2007, 01:40 PM
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?

scyfreestyler
April 30th, 2007, 01:40 PM
So, Thorpe or anyone else for that matter swimming next to somebody (drafting) should have an asterisk next to theirs? Or should we just go ahead and take it away now?
When did Thorpe set a WR by swimming behind a faster swimmer?

knelson
April 30th, 2007, 01:42 PM
Lenton also won't be getting the $20,000 bonus sponsored by Fujitsu for setting a world record: http://www.timedfinals.com/30042007/swimming-australia-says-no-bonus-for-lenton

aquageek
April 30th, 2007, 01:43 PM
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!

tjburk
April 30th, 2007, 01:45 PM
When did Thorpe set a WR by swimming behind a faster swimmer?

So you're telling me that on every one of his WR races he led from start to finish? I'll have to see if I can find some footage.

tjburk
April 30th, 2007, 01:49 PM
Yes, in the country I was raised in most people are innocent until proven guilty! I have known a lot of people....myself included that have put on weight and gotten larger over the years. Through weights and diet it is possible.

By the way, how long after you quit using steroids do the effects start wearing off? Shouldn't he have started getting smaller again by now?

knelson
April 30th, 2007, 01:50 PM
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.

some_girl
April 30th, 2007, 01:53 PM
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.

aquageek
April 30th, 2007, 01:57 PM
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.

geochuck
April 30th, 2007, 01:58 PM
My question is how many of you have drafted off a nother swimmer in a swimming pool when the wave buster lane ropes are in???

Leonard Jansen
April 30th, 2007, 01:58 PM
The reason that this is not being ratified is probably a bit different than any argument that I've seen here so far. It is probably similar to the reason that they don't allow records in track events (road events are different) to stand if they are set in mixed competition. The idea has always been that in mixed events men can easily pace women to world (or other) record times. FINA is probably ruling this way so that we don't start to see deliberately set-up records using men as pacers. I'm not saying that this happened in this case, but that FINA is attempting to be proactive about it.

-LBJ

thewookiee
April 30th, 2007, 02:00 PM
Since someone mentioned Thorpe...didn't he swim just a littl bit behind Grant Hackett at the 2001 Worlds in the 800 free? Then on the last 100 out sprint Hackett to win and break the world record? So, should that have counted since he swam just a bit behind Hackett for 700 meters, letting him do more of the work?

Just wondering...

Warren
April 30th, 2007, 02:02 PM
Drafting is not illegal, so how could it possibly invalidate the swim?


because she wouldn't have gained the advatage that she did in a real race.

would this be fair: A woman wearing fins and a woman in the next lane drafting off of her and getting a world record. the woman with fins would obviosly get dqed and the other woman would get the wr. Is that fair? Well phelps was going about as fast as a woman with fins. The point is, its not natural to gain an advantage off a man or a woman with fins.

And down the road if someone goes a 53.02 in a regular race they are going to say i wish i had phelps to draft off of.

scyfreestyler
April 30th, 2007, 02:03 PM
Since someone mentioned Thorpe...didn't he swim just a littl bit behind Grant Hackett at the 2001 Worlds in the 800 free? Then on the last 100 out sprint Hackett to win and break the world record? So, should that have counted since he swam just a bit behind Hackett for 700 meters, letting him do more of the work?

Just wondering...


The way I see it, the major difference here is that Thorpe passed Hackett. He took the aid of the draft but eventually swam faster than his opponent. I don't know if this actually occured, I am just basing this upon the situation you have described. With Lenton and Phelps, she took the aid of Phelps when she could but never surpassed him. She was not capable of swimming faster than the person she was drafting from.

SwimStud
April 30th, 2007, 02:04 PM
The reason that this is not being ratified is probably a bit different than any argument that I've seen here so far. It is probably similar to the reason that they don't allow records in track events (road events are different) to stand if they are set in mixed competition. The idea has always been that in mixed events men can easily pace women to world (or other) record times. FINA is probably ruling this way so that we don't start to see deliberately set-up records using men as pacers. I'm not saying that this happened in this case, but that FINA is attempting to be proactive about it.

-LBJ

Lenoard not arguing with you--just expanding on a point that you've mentioned here (not neccessrily these being your beliefs) that there is something wrong with men pacing women in mixed events. The women still have to run it. I think pacing devices (other people or counters) are not an issue, provided the technology is distributed equally and not prohibitively expensive.
In swimming I see it as not different to a fast skin, or the like. Why do sports allow "sciencing out" of chance and luck in some aspects but not others. Just my tuppence worth.

tjburk
April 30th, 2007, 02:08 PM
Geek, Hypothetically speaking.....you're a Natural home run hitting type of a guy.....your coach, trainer or friend hands you some "Muscle Cream" as you call it, says it works really well for them.....

You:

A) Use it?

B) Take it and have it tested for all sorts of illegal substances, some of which were not even illegal at that time?

knelson
April 30th, 2007, 02:13 PM
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.

aquageek
April 30th, 2007, 02:14 PM
Geek, Hypothetically speaking.....you're a Natural home run hitting type of a guy.....your coach, trainer or friend hands you some "Muscle Cream" as you call it, says it works really well for them.....

Fortunately, I stopped succumbing to peer pressure in about 11th grade so I'd probably err on the side of caution and look up the product and make an informed decision.

Then again, I'm not a zillionare baseball player who has hired a bunch of thugs as personal trainers, who would obviously seem quite moral and upstanding at face value.

FYI - I didn't call it "Muscle Cream." I was quoting Bonds himself who called it "The Cream" and "The Clear."

tjburk
April 30th, 2007, 02:17 PM
Geek, I believe this is where we should agree to disagree.

You see it one way....I see it the other.

geochuck
April 30th, 2007, 02:17 PM
When we talk records, I won a race 100 fly it tied the Canadian record, the guy who came second Cameron Grout applied for the a new record as his time was 1 tenth second faster then my time (in the days of the stop watch timers) however I obviously won the race. They awarded him the record even though he was second.

The same thing happened that day in the 100 free I had the fastest time he won the race.

scyfreestyler
April 30th, 2007, 02:19 PM
Geek, Hypothetically speaking.....you're a Natural home run hitting type of a guy.....your coach, trainer or friend hands you some "Muscle Cream" as you call it, says it works really well for them.....

You:

A) Use it?

B) Take it and have it tested for all sorts of illegal substances, some of which were not even illegal at that time?

This was not directed towards me but I'll give you my reply anyhow. Were I a natural home run hitting kinda guy I would not want to do anything to jeopardize my current status.

SwimStud
April 30th, 2007, 02:21 PM
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.

Kirk, there is nothing to stop everyone who feels the location played a factor from travelling there to try their chances...IMHO. I'm trying to figure out what the unfair advantage you have over me is...you can't just possibly be faster...there must be a reason... ;)

FTR I don't have a strong opinion on LL I see both sides of it. Was it drafting or pacing etc.

scyfreestyler
April 30th, 2007, 02:21 PM
When we talk records, I won a race 100 fly it tied the Canadian record, the guy who came second Cameron Grout applied for the a new record as his time was 1 tenth second faster then my time (in the days of the stop watch timers) however I obviously won the race. They awarded him the record even though he was second.

The same thing happened that day in the 100 free I had the fastest time he won the race.


It sounds like you did not really win the race then.

geochuck
April 30th, 2007, 02:21 PM
Did Libby take drugs before she raced????

Allen Stark
April 30th, 2007, 02:22 PM
Barry Bonds situation is different from Lance's. Lance was tested many times. MLB pretended it didn't have a problem and it's "testing" was a Joke. By Olympic or Biking rules Bonds would have tested positive for the"cream" and the"clear."MLB's head in the sand mentality brought this on themselves.
If a swimmer swam a time trial 100 and a swimmer in the next lane swam a 70 as fast as possible to provide a draft and then slowed down but finished and the first swimmer broke the WR,wouldn't FINA count it?

scyfreestyler
April 30th, 2007, 02:25 PM
If a swimmer swam a time trial 100 and a swimmer in the next lane swam a 70 as fast as possible to provide a draft and then slowed down but finished and the first swimmer broke the WR,wouldn't FINA count it?

What self respecting swimmer would want a record like that? I am sure there would be some controversy but it could very well be a legitimate WR.

geochuck
April 30th, 2007, 02:31 PM
It sounds like you did not really win the race then.
I actually won thats when the guys with stop watches timed the races you may be too young to remember, I have seen times vary by up to .5 of a second. The finish juges picked me first. They were actually right as there were a couple of photos that showed me as the winner.

Leonard Jansen
April 30th, 2007, 02:38 PM
Lenoard not arguing with you--just expanding on a point that you've mentioned here (not neccessrily these being your beliefs) that there is something wrong with men pacing women in mixed events. The women still have to run it. I think pacing devices (other people or counters) are not an issue, provided the technology is distributed equally and not prohibitively expensive.
In swimming I see it as not different to a fast skin, or the like. Why do sports allow "sciencing out" of chance and luck in some aspects but not others. Just my tuppence worth.
True. The women do run the event. However, I think that it is a "shades of gray" type thing. For example, suppose that (in track) we have a race with 1 studly woman and 6 guys. The guys are all there to pace her. In that case, 5 of the guys can surround her, cut the wind, etc. The 6th guy is the pacer who runs in the second lane and makes sure the time is dead on for the record. Each of the guys gets $5,000 for his work from the woman's shoe sponsor. This puts a record attempt out of reach of most people.
Another track example: A mixed race where a woman has several hired male pacers to go for some record. The other women have to not only race her, but race the men as well. Furthermore, if a record is on the line and the guys have $$ incentive to make it happen, things might get a bit rough in the pack.

I also watched the video that George linked to and notice that the commentator(s) said something about Lenton being close to the line to "get in Phelp's wash" (I forget the exact quote), so, assuming that the commentators knew what they were talking about, she may have seen some advantage.

One more thought before I have to get back to work. In a situation like this, it allows the athlete to go for absolute broke. Lenton KNEW that Phelps was going to beat her, so she could go all out without fear of the consequences. In an-all women race, taking a huge risk can have the actually have the consequence of getting beaten when, under normal circumstances, it shouldn't happen.

Don't get me wrong. Her swim was amazing and she gets to be my current STDPS for now.

-LBJ

thewookiee
April 30th, 2007, 02:42 PM
If a swimmer swam a time trial 100 and a swimmer in the next lane swam a 70 as fast as possible to provide a draft and then slowed down but finished and the first swimmer broke the WR,wouldn't FINA count it?

Correct me if I am wrong, but don't they do this in track and field all the time? Have someone go out fast to establish a pace, then at a predetermined time, actually drop out of the race?

If they can do it there, what is wrong with a similar thing happening in swimming?

geochuck
April 30th, 2007, 02:47 PM
In track and field they always had Jack Rabbits for setting the pace, a very common thing when they were trying to set world records.

geochuck
April 30th, 2007, 02:59 PM
To all those on the nay side, why???

Fortress I always thought you would be on the swimmer's side. Not on the FINA side.

The Fortress
April 30th, 2007, 03:10 PM
To all those on the nay side, why???

Fortress I always thought you would be on the swimmer's side. Not on the FINA side.

George:

I voted early and missed most of the ensuing debate. (I was swimming and not reading!) I was under the impression that it was just enforcement of a FINA rule, and, as a lawyer, I tend to be more rule oriented as a matter of fairness and consistency. But then Kirk appears to have pointed out that it might not be a rule violation. If it's not a direct violation of a specific rule and it is ambiguous, that would probably change my view. I'll have to re-read the two threads to see what I missed.

But I really detest Barry Bonds. Many people have testified about his drug use. I don't think there is any ambiguity on that score. He's just not in the slammer yet. I did actually take the time to read the book on Bonds/BALCO awhile ago. I'm a real baseball fan, and he is a disgrace to baseball.

ensignada
April 30th, 2007, 03:15 PM
I don't think I'd want to hold an official record if it were so controversial. Especially as a woman accused (rightly or not) of drafting off of Phelps. I'm cheering for her to do it again in a race without the complicating factors. I think she's already demonstrated a boatload of class.

geochuck
April 30th, 2007, 03:27 PM
The only controversy is here. I have no problem with anybody holding a record even if they were drafting which I do not believe she was.

knelson
April 30th, 2007, 03:43 PM
Lenton KNEW that Phelps was going to beat her, so she could go all out without fear of the consequences.

There were still possible consequences for the remaining three swimmers on her team. If she went out too hard and died she may have taken her relay out of contention. The second swimmer on her team very well could have had a 6-7 second deficit to make up instead of about four seconds.

geochuck
April 30th, 2007, 03:47 PM
Some one please tell me why a top ranked swimmer would not be able to go all out for 100m.

3strokes
April 30th, 2007, 03:49 PM
.... Especially as a woman accused (rightly or not) of drafting off of Phelps.

You (not you ensignada, so let me rephrase that):
One can only accuse someone of something illegal, or
not allowed.
As far as I know, drafting has yet to be outlawed.

(And if outlawed, the only way they can enforce it
is to have every swimmer swim all alone, since according
to the Laws of Physics, waves propagate (diminishing but propagate)
and if you take the calculation "ad infinitum", the wave created by somebody two lanes away from you is -I believe- equal to the square root
of the draft off the lane right next to you. So, theoretically
(on paper) lane 1 could feel the effect of the (draft) waves
from lane 8 (the difference would be measurable when they
have electronic timers capable of timing to the 1/1000000th
of a second).

Thus, I don't believe anyone was accusing her of drafting but explaining
why she did the time she did.





I think she's already demonstrated a boatload of class.


Amen to that!

Leonard Jansen
April 30th, 2007, 04:59 PM
There were still possible consequences for the remaining three swimmers on her team. If she went out too hard and died she may have taken her relay out of contention. The second swimmer on her team very well could have had a 6-7 second deficit to make up instead of about four seconds.

True, however given that this event will affect no rankings, since there is no mixed relay, the real gain was for Ms. Lenton to try her hand at a superior swim. I would suggest that, if the coaches were allowed to pick the order of the swimmers, the Oz coaches felt the same and were willing to risk it for the sake of her getting a superior time. National pride was on the line, but if you turn her loose in this way, you stand to gain both a world record AND a win. The other way, you probably only have a win to gain.

-LBJ

dorothyrde
April 30th, 2007, 06:46 PM
I voted no to the record. In the rule books it spells out what is sanctioned and not. I would think that the officials should have known before the swim even began that the swim was not sanctioned. If at summer club, someone swims fast enough to break a USA record, they know they would not get that record because summer club is not sanctioned.

That was my reasoning. That the event was not sanctioned for records not the drafting.

However, there were some interesting points about track and not running men and women together because of pacing and all that blah, blah, blah.

I voted early, but I still would say know, because the event was not an event that was sanctioned for a world record.

That said, I hope she can swim even faster in a sanctioned event and prove to everyone she can do it without Phelps beside her!

SwimStud
April 30th, 2007, 07:03 PM
However, there were some interesting points about track and not running men and women together because of pacing and all that blah, blah, blah.


LMAO! Dorothy, that's so funny. 90% of this forum is "blah, blah, blah..."

geochuck
April 30th, 2007, 07:06 PM
Dorothy the meet was sanctioned apparently. If it was not everyone who competed should be banned from swimming if FINA held to rules.

Warren
April 30th, 2007, 07:49 PM
To all those on the nay side, why???

Fortress I always thought you would be on the swimmer's side. Not on the FINA side.

I'm on the swimmers side that goes a 53 low in the future that dosen't get to draft off of a man.

geochuck
April 30th, 2007, 08:10 PM
Warren I have watched that race 20 times I can not see any evidence of drafting. She is not close enough after the dive and she is off the center lane marker (line on the bottom) no more than 8 inches at any time during her swim. The lane ropes were working well eliminating any wash. I even put it into my Dartswim swim analysis swim program which slows every thing down to a crawl.

dorothyrde
April 30th, 2007, 10:26 PM
Dorothy the meet was sanctioned apparently. If it was not everyone who competed should be banned from swimming if FINA held to rules.

From what I understand from the first page of the other thread, the meet may have been sanctioned, but lead-off of a mixed relay is not an eligible event for a world record? I don't have a FINA rule book. I have a USA rule book, just got it in the mail last week, and there is a list of rules for what can be considered a record.

I am curious if they said before the swim that this could not count as a record, or was it all debated after the fact.

Remember a few years ago some Masters records were broke out East and then they found the pool was too short. Zip went those records.

I still feel if there was a rule in place that says the lead-off cannot be counted, than it should not count. If the rule is ambiguous, then someone better be looking at it and rewriting it and it should be clear to all swimmers BEFORE the swim that a world record is not at stake.

LindsayNB
April 30th, 2007, 10:35 PM
The FINA rules are on their web site:
http://fina.org/rules/english/swimming.php
World records are rule 12.

Can anyone point to the rule that says this swim isn't valid?

Rob Copeland
April 30th, 2007, 11:39 PM
Can anyone point to the rule that says this swim isn't valid?SW 12.1 and SW 12.8

According to my understanding of FINA’s interpretation in this instance, the 4 x 100 mixed medley relay is not a valid event for world records, therefore times achieved in this event, including lead-off splits are not counted towards world records. I would assume that the same ruling would hold true for a lead off 50 back in a 4 X 50 medley relay or a 50 free in the 4 X 50 free relay, since the 4 X 50 is not a world record event.

And because the rules do not explicitly allow or deny lead-off splits for ‘nonconforming events” it is customary for the governing body to interpret to rules.

But back to the question, Should 52.99 count as a world record? If the organization that “owns” world records and the rules that govern then says no , then no it shouldn’t count. Did she swim faster then the existing record, absolutely. She knows she did it, we know she did it, what difference does a piece of paper make? Except for the $20,000 bonus for breaking a world record (which I heard she was awarded).


Dorothy the meet was sanctioned apparently. If it was not everyone who competed should be banned from swimming if FINA held to rules.George, I assume the event was sanctioned, however to clear up what appears to be a misconception, FINA does not as a rule ban swimmers who compete in non-sanctioned events. In the USA a majority of USA Swimming and USMS members who compete in events have at one time or another participated in a non-sanctioned event (YMCA, Rec, Senior Games, AAU, …) and to my knowledge none have been baned for their participation. It may be different in Canada.

Swimmer Bill
May 1st, 2007, 02:51 AM
To all those on the nay side, why???

I said nay because I feel FINA may have had a rationale behind their rule, and I believe it could have had something to do with a perceived unfair advantage women may gain by attempting to draft off men. Also because of what I saw and heard on the DVR recording.

:2cents:

islandsox
May 1st, 2007, 07:35 AM
Wow, all of this brings me right back into the Twilight Zone (is it a valid record, interpretations, drafting (poof on that one cause it's hard to do anyway in a pool with lane lines)). At least she's got video to prove she swam it in the time she swam it in. My congrats go to Libby.

dorothyrde
May 1st, 2007, 07:38 AM
One of the reasons I keep bringing up the rules is because when you become an official, the testing is quite extensive on certain issues. For Admin, I had to answer quite a few questions on valid events for LSC, National and World records even though I will likely never work an event that I have to be concerned about this. I know things are spelled out in USA rules, and the people on site running the meet should know the rules, and should know BEFORE the race that no world records were being contended.

aquaFeisty
May 1st, 2007, 07:44 AM
I thought open water was sometimes fastest? Ie., that would be a strategy to lead off your relay with your fastest person. Or, I thought that open water and the lack of turbulence is why some people question the validity of Popov's time trial 50m free, where no one was directly next to him? So how can it be argued both ways? I would think that the turbulence coming off Phelps, in addition to providing a draft, would have possibly hindered Libby, especially near the wall. Either way, I hope she does that time again. She is smokin' fast!

poolraat
May 1st, 2007, 09:10 AM
:dedhorse: :dedhorse:

geochuck
May 1st, 2007, 09:18 AM
Poolrat - you are right the FINA decision stll stands. We can banter on but it will not change.:blah: :blah: :blah: :blah:

osterber
May 1st, 2007, 09:36 AM
My question is how many of you have drafted off a nother swimmer in a swimming pool when the wave buster lane ropes are in???

I tend to get dragged off of all the time. I'm a pretty big guy (6'4"), so I move a lot of water. When people are directly behind me, they talk about "body surfing".

When I was in high school, after a long course race (1500 I think), the swimmer two lanes over thanked me for the drag. He positioned himself on the lane line, and about 10 feet back, and felt the boost.

-Rick

LindsayNB
May 1st, 2007, 09:51 AM
I am sure it is there but I'm having difficulty finding it, is there a rule that says men and women can't swim in the same heat? I.e. that you are not allowed to run a heat with both men and women. That would bear on the current question.

The debate is not whether LL will get her record, it is whether she should have got the record and if not what implicit rule was or should have been in place to prevent it. FINA undoubtedly has the final say, the question is whether they have created a new rule which is not there in the written rules and not based on a previous precedent. I don't believe the current rules explicitly state the swim does not count, for that to be supportable one needs to read
"The first swimmer in a relay may apply for a World Record."
as
"The first swimmer in a relay event contested at World Championships may apply for a World Record".
I would not support that rule.
Another possible rule would be "Men and women may not compete in the same heat." That is an interesting idea, I don't know.

LindsayNB
May 1st, 2007, 10:08 AM
George, I assume the event was sanctioned, however to clear up what appears to be a misconception, FINA does not as a rule ban swimmers who compete in non-sanctioned events. In the USA a majority of USA Swimming and USMS members who compete in events have at one time or another participated in a non-sanctioned event (YMCA, Rec, Senior Games, AAU, …) and to my knowledge none have been baned for their participation. It may be different in Canada.

FINA rule GR 4 seems pretty explicit, you seem to be suggesting that FINA ignores its own rules, at least when it comes to the US, except they did say they would apply it to US swimmers in the LatyCar incident. Presuming that the organizations you list are not affiliated with FINA why doesn't GR 4 apply?

I personally believe that masters should be explicitly exempt from GR 4, as they seem to be in practice in the US. As a general principle I don't believe that organizations or countries should have draconian laws that are selectively enforced. It is an offense against the principle of equality before the law.

On the other hand, FINA should have mechanisms to ensure that its members don't give sanctions to events with improper names, for example a sanction should not be given to an event calling itself the Masters World Championships of Swimming if that's not what it is. That, in my mind is the principle on which LatyCar went wrong.

geochuck
May 1st, 2007, 10:30 AM
I tend to get dragged off of all the time. I'm a pretty big guy (6'4"), so I move a lot of water. When people are directly behind me, they talk about "body surfing".

When I was in high school, after a long course race (1500 I think), the swimmer two lanes over thanked me for the drag. He positioned himself on the lane line, and about 10 feet back, and felt the boost.

-Rick

I think if she was drafting (I don't think she was) that would be called race strategy.

dorothyrde
May 1st, 2007, 11:10 AM
I think if she was drafting (I don't think she was) that would be called race strategy.

I actually agree with this George. Swimmers learn to draft very early on. I watched it all the time at age group meets, especially at UIPUI's more elite meets. I watched your video and I DO think she got a draft the first 50, and definately did not on the last 50. But not giving it to her because of a draft would be wrong. They state it is because the event is not an event that counts toward world records. I think that should have been more clear before the event was swum so all participating were aware of it. Then this would not be a discussion. Libby would be jazzed to have gone that fast, but known it did not count. And since folks say she took this well, maybe she DID know.

Rob Copeland
May 1st, 2007, 11:20 AM
Presuming that the organizations you list are not affiliated with FINA why doesn't GR 4 apply?I suggest you contact Cornel Marculescu Ė FINA Executive Director and Rich Foster Ė President of United States Aquatic Sports (USAS) if you are interested in an answer to this question. And please keep us posted as to what they say.

One other note: YMCA is an affiliate member of USA-Swimming, which is a member of USAS, which is a member of FINA. I donít know the affiliate status of the other organizations I listed.

And my apologies for this digression to those discussing Libby Lentonís phenomenal swim.

geochuck
May 1st, 2007, 11:21 AM
I have drafted in a pool with the wavebuster lane dividers. That is when the swimmer in the lane that I was drafting from was very close to the ropes and I was so close to the ropes, I was nearly pulled under the ropes and at his arm pits. Phelps was in the center of the lane and no where in the race did I see her really close to the ropes.

geochuck
May 1st, 2007, 11:33 AM
And my apologies for this digression to those discussing Libby Lentonís phenomenal swim. Rob it only ads to this discussion. I thank you for your comments.

lefty
May 1st, 2007, 11:39 AM
I posted this already, but there is no way there was any benefit of a draft of this race. First, as George mentioned Phelps was in the middle of the lane. Lenton was kind of in the middle, a little closer to Phelps side. 2nd, in contrast to what George said, these lane lines elimnate the possibility. Look how smooth the water is a lane over.

thewookiee
May 1st, 2007, 12:23 PM
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:

scyfreestyler
May 1st, 2007, 12:45 PM
Rules are always open to interpretation by people, hence the need for lawyers, The Supreme Court, Circuit Courts of Appeals, etc. FINA is no different. There are rules that can be argued in various fashions by various people. If the rules that govern our nation are not cut and dry then I would certainly not expect the rules for something as insignificant (relatively speaking) as swimming to be either. As long as people are involved there will be conflicts.

knelson
May 1st, 2007, 12:58 PM
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.

Because the turn judges need to make that call in real time. There's no provision for making rulings based on video after the race is over.

I think the main reason for the rule change was that the dolphin kick was just too hard to judge. Sometimes the judges saw it, other times they didn't. A rule that can't be judged consistently is worthless.

Rob Copeland
May 1st, 2007, 12:58 PM
why didn't the japanese breastroker get DQ'd after video clearly showed the fly kick?Quite simply, because the officials with jurisdiction (Inspector of Turns and Judge of Strokes) to call the infraction did not see any infraction and video instant replay is not an approved officiating tool.



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.Apparently the quoted FINA official at the meet was not the person who determines what will be accepted as a World record. Heck, if they would have asked me, Iíd have said yes submit the ratification paperwork, but I donít think FINA would have ratified the record just because I said submit the paperworkÖ. Or maybe they would; Iíll give it a try.

dorothyrde
May 1st, 2007, 01:20 PM
I was at a YMCA district meeting Saturday. In the room was a mix of coaches, officials, parent volunteers, many of whom have been with Y swimming for a long, long time. I read the rules for meets really carefully because I set up all of ours, and help the coach get entries out. I read the by-laws of the differenting sanctioning entities as well.

There was a blanket statement made about how the age groups at champs should be set up by one of the long time coaches. Others all murmured their agreements. 3 people in the room spoke up that they were wrong, myself, the coach who has hosted the district champs, and the district chair. These people all argued that we were wrong until the district chair pulled the by-laws up and showed them.

I point this out because there were officials who worked our championship meets in there that did not know the rules. So I can believe there were officials on the deck here that did not know the FINA rules. Should they, heck yes, but in case they don't you better hope the meet ref and admin ref do.

LindsayNB
May 1st, 2007, 04:28 PM
I think the main reason for the rule change was that the dolphin kick was just too hard to judge. Sometimes the judges saw it, other times they didn't. A rule that can't be judged consistently is worthless.

Unfortunately, it turns out that if a judge can't see whether one dolphin kick occurred they also can't see whether one or two dolphin kicks occurred, so we all got to watch swimmers at worlds doing multiple dolphin kicks.