Darian Townsend entered a masters meet in Mesa over the weekend and broke five world records in the 25-29 age group. This was Townsend's first masters meet. For those of you who are not familiar with him, Townend is a three-time Olympian and gold medalist from South Africa.
Swimswam.com posted a story about Townend's incredible meet. Here's the link: swimswam.com/.../
I found the comments quite interesting especially this one by "HMMM":
I have no problem with athletes making money off of Masters but why have a separate division called Masters if there are no rules or restrictions? None of the sponsored people you mention in their 50′s are training for Rio are they?. Most people in Masters believe they are swimming against recreational swimmers which is why there is a separate Masters division and those records are set by recreational/retired swimmers. If Phelps remains retired and wants to swim Masters, well there goes a few records in his age group but none of us in our club would have a problem with it. We discussed that very subject this morning after practice and Phelps, like Rowdy Gaines is retired and would welcome him. Many of us have swam against and met Rowdy and it is a true honor to share the pool with him in a Masters meet. But our entire team would have a huge problem if Lochte decides to swim a Masters meet while he is still fully training for the Olympics and blows all the records out of the water. If Lochte swims 12 events, he is going to walk away with 12 records. Why have a separate record book? If he can do that, you might as well just call us all USA swimmers and do away with the Masters division. There are meets where fully training pros swim and they are called Grand Prix’s, Nationals, and Worlds. Call us old fashioned, call us Masters swimmers, but we all think Masters should be separate from the training pros..
So I'm curious what the rest of you think. Should someone like Darian Townend or Ryan Lochte be allowed to swim in masters meets when they are professional swimmers who are training full-time? And maybe "allowed" is a poor choice or word. The bottom line is do you think they have any business swimming masters meets?
I can imagine those who voted "no" may feel a bit cowed at the moment, but I would still like to hear their point of view. I encourage you to comment and not just vote, especially if you vote "no."
I have no problem with the "elites in full training" participating in masters, but I am a bit surprised by the lop-sidedness of the poll here. I think that the viewpoint expressed by the "no" vote isn't all that uncommon, and I agree with you that it is important to understand.
And I think it is also the viewpoint of FINA. Consider two of their rules: they refuse to recognize records done by USMS members at USA-S meets (or similar situations in other countries), and they refuse to recognize the legitimacy of UNAT clubs. I may be wrong but I think both rules are aimed at trying to prevent "pro" swimmers from setting a bunch of masters records. It may also explain their insistence that 25 is the youngest age for masters swimming, rather than 18 as in the USA.
People who say it is about speed may be missing the point of the poster in the original article (emphasis added).
If Phelps remains retired and wants to swim Masters, well there goes a few records in his age group but none of us in our club would have a problem with it. We discussed that very subject this morning after practice and Phelps, like Rowdy Gaines is retired and would welcome him. Many of us have swam against and met Rowdy and it is a true honor to share the pool with him in a Masters meet. But our entire team would have a huge problem if Lochte decides to swim a Masters meet while he is still fully training for the Olympics and blows all the records out of the water.
The issue doesn't seem to be talent but the ability to basically be a full time athlete, a luxury that most of us don't have. And this view isn't so very uncommon. I remember a request from a full-time elite swimmer (I forget whom) who competed in a masters meet that her new records be disregarded; I think this happened a couple times.
I sympathize with the viewpoint -- I sure wish I had time to train more (especially lately) -- but IMO it does fall apart a bit on examination. The amount of time that "real" masters swimmers have to devote to training is widely variable, and is a major factor in one's performance. Heck, just look at some of those Go The Distance swimmers. Should folk who have retired from their day job similarly be forbidden from competing because they have more time/energy to devote to training? Obviously not.
For the last time, I don't want your autograph.
Hey, That Guy! It's great to have you (and your humor) back on the Forums! :smooch: It just wasn't the same without you. :sad:
I agree that anyone who is in good standing should be allowed to swim in any masters meets.
That said, everyone should be aware that at most masters meets, anyone can swim nearly any event. There could be first time meet swimmers, who have never swum in a meet before. There could be swimmers who take 30+ min to swim the mile. And someone of Olympic caliber would probably lap people in any event over a 200 (and possibly even a 200).
I've encountered elitism at meets where someone told me, "it is people like you who make these meets so slow." I'd hate for things like that to be repeated.
I'm not saying that everyone has to cheer for everyone else, but just that by going to a local masters meet like this, everyone should know what to expect.
I agree that anyone who is in good standing should be allowed to swim in any masters meets.
By "in good standing" you simply mean you have a valid credit card.
By "in good standing" you simply mean you have a valid credit card.
well, technically, NO!
as a perfect example, Lance Armstrong is in good standing with USMS.
HOWEVER, his ban by WADA and USADA therefore prevents him from competing in USMS even though he is "in good standing". and i would guess he has a valid credit card, but that doesnt really matter.
I can imagine those who voted "no" may feel a bit cowed at the moment, but I would still like to hear their point of view. I encourage you to comment and not just vote, especially if you vote "no."
If having the young, elite swimmers helps attendance at masters meets, I'm all for it. Having these folks attend could be used to the advantage of the meet organizer (Pittsburgh meets are rare and grossly unattended). I, for one, would love to watch these guys and gals swim. I just don't think it is big news when the super stars break all the masters records.
