Take a look at the press release posted on swiminfo.com: www.swiminfo.com/.../6949.asp
Here's a quote that bothers me:
By strategically increasing the surface area, TYR has increased his/her ability to pull without increasing any resistance through the recovery. Just think of it as ascending an aquatic ladder.
Should these be allowed? I would guess that they are o.k. as far as current rules read, but I don't like it. I think these sleeves amount to an aid, sort of like wearing paddles. I guess the question is: what constitutes a swimsuit? Obviously caps are o.k., so you can't argue that it must be one piece.
Parents
Former Member
FINA has it's rules and regulation re swimsuits. BTW, these regulations pretty much rule out naked swimming. But back to the main point. Aren't those so "outraged" by these new suits buying the companies propaganda? Do we really believe these claims? I'm highly doubtful that any truly scientific studies can demonstrate, in a peered-review journal, the claim that one of these suits can really make a difference versus the equivalent suit from Speedo, Arena, Addidas, etc. Isn't this just a form of marketing to get the less than Olympian athlete to fork over lots of money for an "unfair" advantage. Don't get me wrong...it's not all bad for these companies to make money from selling very expensive suits that are designed to wear out quickly. That means more money to promote swimming. It's just that we shouldn't believe all of the marketing promo and worry too much about protecting the integrity of our sport.
As a spectator I'd much preferred the older suits. I think that they showed off the magnificent figures of our athletes and did more to promote interest in swimming on the part of the general public then these new suits where everyone looks like some kind of marine mammal.
FINA has it's rules and regulation re swimsuits. BTW, these regulations pretty much rule out naked swimming. But back to the main point. Aren't those so "outraged" by these new suits buying the companies propaganda? Do we really believe these claims? I'm highly doubtful that any truly scientific studies can demonstrate, in a peered-review journal, the claim that one of these suits can really make a difference versus the equivalent suit from Speedo, Arena, Addidas, etc. Isn't this just a form of marketing to get the less than Olympian athlete to fork over lots of money for an "unfair" advantage. Don't get me wrong...it's not all bad for these companies to make money from selling very expensive suits that are designed to wear out quickly. That means more money to promote swimming. It's just that we shouldn't believe all of the marketing promo and worry too much about protecting the integrity of our sport.
As a spectator I'd much preferred the older suits. I think that they showed off the magnificent figures of our athletes and did more to promote interest in swimming on the part of the general public then these new suits where everyone looks like some kind of marine mammal.
