The swimmer got first place. No DQ. Another swimmer raised the issue (I think after the race), and an official l said it was illegal. Nothing happened. I really can't believe someone would have the audacity to walk to the blocks in a wetsuit .... The meet was very under-officiated. I'm sure no one would have noticed. Looks a lot like a bodysuit.
Former Member
Wetsuits are not legal. Here are the appropriate paragraphs from the USMS Rule Book (remember, the entire Rule Book is online and can be found under "Articles and Publications" on the main page).
102.14. SWIMWEAR
102.14.1—Design
The swimsuits worn for competition shall be nontransparent and conform to the current concept of the appropriate. The referee shall have authority to bar offenders from competition until they comply with this rule.
102.15.9—Swimmers are not permitted to wear or use any device or substance to help their speed, pace or buoyancy during a race. Goggles may be worn and rubdown oil applied if not considered excessive by the referee.
Are you sure the swimmer received a time in the meet results? He/she should have been DQ'd if it was really a wetsuit.
This description is inherited directly from USA Swimming rules:
USA-S 102.10.10 No swimmer is permitted to wear or use any device or substance to help his/her speed, pace or buoyancy during a race. Goggles may be worn, and rubdown oil applied if not considered excessive by the Referee.
The USA Swimming Rules & Regulations Committee issued an interpretation back in 1999:
Until FINA determines otherwise, use of the full body suit, designed and marketed for competition, is permissible in USA swimming events. Use of suits of neoprene or other buoyant material, such as wet suits, is not permissible.
The key here is "neoprene or other buoyant material". A buoyant material in a swimsuit links the apparel to USMS 102.15.9/USA-S 102.10.10. It would seem apparent to me that a suit is buoyant or significantly improves buoyancy like a wetsuit has always intended to be illegal.
The current FINA rule, while not necessarily dispositive, is even vaguer:
FINA SW 10.7 No swimmer shall be permitted to use or wear any device that may aid his speed, buoyancy or endurance during a competition (such as webbed gloves, flippers, fins, etc.). Goggles may be worn.
Now enforcing a wetsuit rule is a different matter. At a meet, you don't have many tools to measure buoyancy other than dropping the suit in the water, and the "if it looks like a wetsuit, it's illegal" test. That would go against the grain in which the rest of the technical rules are judged for the most part (the benefit of the doubt going to the swimmer).
If only I really could attach an outboard motor. Then my pitiful breaststroke wouldn't get beat by people 40 years older than me.
Patrick King
This will be a tough job but I will volunteer for this assignment...:D
Well, then, of course, we need females to similarly inspect men's suits don't we? :D
Well, then, of course, we need females to similarly inspect men's suits don't we? :D
I saw a lot of men's bodysuits that were see through and degrading in areas last weekend. Ew. Get new suits, guys. :shakeshead:
The key here is "neoprene or other buoyant material"
That's the language which sets them apart.
Well that language isn't in the rule itself, but the USA-S interpretations generally bind to the USMS rules where applicable (articles 101, 102, and 105 as I recall, except for a few minor differences). It also devolves from the rule in a similar way that substances of the ilk of excessive rubdown oil devolve as well.
The catch is that to find this interpretation, unless you already knew it from someone else, you have to drill down about three or four layers deep on the USA Swimming website to find it (and oh by the way, you have to know where to look too). Most sensible people aren't going to do to want to do this!
However, unless you think about it in this manner, it isn't necessarily apparent that neoprene wetsuits are barred by rule, as several posters mentioned earlier. It's not a situation I'm fond of--an official interpretation is not apparent from the clearly written rule. It's also not a good thing if you have to officiate based on those rules without having all of the interpretations either.
Patrick King
This description is inherited directly from USA Swimming rules:
The USA Swimming Rules & Regulations Committee issued an interpretation back in 1999:
Until FINA determines otherwise, ...
Fina has determined otherwise, the correction to the fina handbook for 2005 - 2009 states
"GR 5 SWIMWEAR
GR 5.5 Before any swimsuit of new design, construction or material is used in competition, the manufacturer of such swimsuit must submit the swimwear to FINA and obtain approval of FINA."
Given the interpretation you gave, USMS needs to update its rules to follow the FINA rules.
I have been asking about this for a couple of months now. The wetsuit manufacturers are now coming out with "swim skins" meant to be worn at races where triathletes cannot wear wetsuits. These suits are oftan made of a buoyant material, just less of the buoyancy than wetsuits. Now ehtehr they should be allowed at a triathlon is another question.
But since these are now on the market, it is only a matter of time until they start showing up at start lines or starting blocks.
So when someone shows up at a race with one of these on what rule do you use to DQ them? The only thing I see is that the suit needs to conform to "the appropriate." So you can say that this new speed skin is not appropriate.
Fina has decided that rather than set rules that would be exploited, nothing is approved for competition until they say it is approved. I think this is the only decision that can stand technically. However administration would be problematic, has your swimsuit been approved by Fina? Has the swimsuit you have been wearing in competition for three years been approved?
I asked Marcia about this and I don't think I ever explained the situation adequately for her to see what I was on about.
Are wetsuits legal at meets?! A swimmer was spotted in a wetsuit before the 400 IM at my meet this week. Seems like a lot of float ...
Before we hang this person, how do you know it was a wetsuit? Which is a bigger question than it first appears.
What brand was it? What model was it? Could it have been one of the new swim skins?
There's no good way now to verify what anyone was (or wasn't) wearing at the meet.
Well put, Jayhawk. However, this discussion may lead to interesting activities for the National USMS Rules Committee, so it's interesting from that regard.
Fina has determined otherwise, the correction to the fina handbook for 2005 - 2009 states
"GR 5 SWIMWEAR
GR 5.5 Before any swimsuit of new design, construction or material is used in competition, the manufacturer of such swimsuit must submit the swimwear to FINA and obtain approval of FINA."
Given the interpretation you gave, USMS needs to update its rules to follow the FINA rules.
Well yes, but that doesn't bind directly on USMS, although USA Swimming and USMS will automatically modify their rules when FINA makes a change.
The problem is that the swimwear rule isn't the issue--it's the buoyant substance in the suit (see, FINA SW 10.7, USA-S 102.10.10, USMS 102.15.9). But you bring up a valid point--you can't just look at suits anymore to see if they're overly buoyant. If I'm at a meet, and I'm officiating, am I going to make you take off your suit to make that assessment? And at 2 or 3 judge meets, where you already have a lot on your plate to begin with, this is easily something that can slide through the gaps. But Jayhawk made the best point to solve this--if you see something you aren't sure about, or think is problematic (with you or with someone else), bring it to the attention of the referee. That's what they're there for.
But back to GR 5.5, the plain text of the USA Swimming rules doesn't incorporate FINA preapproval (see Article 102.9 of the 2007 USA Swimming Mini Rulebook). I would presume that their position is that a FINA legal suit is a USA Swimming legal suit. I would still conclude that a neoprene wet suit being illegal from the original 1999 interpretation is still the rule today.
Patrick King