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
Originally posted by Fritz
Surely these guys have some inclination that Fina will approve them. What a gamble otherwise. A stupid gamble at that if they didn't do the homework.
Why are sleeves OK if connected to the suit but not OK if they aren't?
That's just the point!
At one time, no one (including swim suit manufacturers) would have dreamt of trying to sell the public on the idea that propulsive wristbands are components of a 3-piece swimsuit. But when swimmers are being allowed to use full body suits that cover their arms all the way down to their wrists, the argument becomes: Then why shouldn't anything that covers a swimmer's wrists be considered part of their swimsuit?
The bottom line is that the purpose of a swimsuit is to keep a swimmer's private parts from showing, and a "swimsuit" that covers other areas of the body has therefore ceased to be a swimsuit and is instead being worn to artificially enhance performance.
The only consistent solution, then, is to ban arm and leg coverings, regardless of whether they are attached to somebody's swimsuit or not.
Originally posted by Fritz
Surely these guys have some inclination that Fina will approve them. What a gamble otherwise. A stupid gamble at that if they didn't do the homework.
Why are sleeves OK if connected to the suit but not OK if they aren't?
That's just the point!
At one time, no one (including swim suit manufacturers) would have dreamt of trying to sell the public on the idea that propulsive wristbands are components of a 3-piece swimsuit. But when swimmers are being allowed to use full body suits that cover their arms all the way down to their wrists, the argument becomes: Then why shouldn't anything that covers a swimmer's wrists be considered part of their swimsuit?
The bottom line is that the purpose of a swimsuit is to keep a swimmer's private parts from showing, and a "swimsuit" that covers other areas of the body has therefore ceased to be a swimsuit and is instead being worn to artificially enhance performance.
The only consistent solution, then, is to ban arm and leg coverings, regardless of whether they are attached to somebody's swimsuit or not.
