Could Speedo Cause Olympic Disaster?

where are they Does anyone think Speedo included the transparent panel just so Phelps' Olympic rings tatoo would show?

Well, me neither, but I bet Mel was reacting to the over-the-top thread title. Which isn't Ande's, of course, but was taken from the original article that he referenced. As far Mel's contention that a $550 suit will somehow cause swimming's popularity to skyrocket in the US: I believe that the performances of people like Phelps and Hoff will do a better job of that. What did more for cycling popularity in the US, the wins of LeMond and Armstrong, or the introduction of aerobars and Zipp wheels? No, I'm really serious about this one, Chris, in contrast to many of my posts. I don't remember that aerobars, drafting, Zipp wheels, carbon fiber bikes etc etc generated ANY press that would have caught the public eye. So there wouldn't have been anything to attract viewers to cycling other than drugs, Armstrong, Pantini, Indurain and the like. Whether we like it or not, the American TV public enjoys controversy. It's why Fox news personalities, Rush Limbaugh and all the other flame-throwing commentators are so popular instead of, say, news commentators from the BBC who just read the news in a neutral tone. The fact that we have such heated discussions among ourselves shows the level of controversy over the suit. It has spilled over into the couch-potato population as a result and has become major headlines around the world. I believe it will divert attention away from Law and Order reruns and Judge Judy, even if only momentarily. Someone on these threads has pointed out that the Olympics usually produces a spike in youth swimming (or maybe I saw it my ASCA newsletters). All I'm saying is that the added controversy, on top of the great swimmers we have, will heighten the awareness and (I predict) will produce an even greater spike. I don't like Mike Tyson, but have to admit that his taste for ears sold tickets to his events. If the Speedo suit cost $50 instead of $550, it would still have generated the same level of controversy because of the acclaimed speed gain, especially since some of the competitors (suit manufacturers, not swimmers) were caught with their briefs down and stand to have serious long-term setbacks over this.

You can sure see which side Mike dresses on---:cool:

Not interested in the Phelps photo.......But Amanda? Nice! There is a song that used to play on Bob and Tom in the morning.....Camel Toe....set to the music of the Beach Boys' Kokomo.......perfect!!!! Natalie is still cuter to me though!!!!!!!

Tracy---for the record--:) Mike's pic didn't do anything for me either---I commented on it because it was the obvious "stand out" in the revealed dept. (pun intended):banana:

I bet that if either the Austalians or the US swimmers were banned from wearing the suit at the Olympics, they would still do an excellent job -- true champions will not blame adverse conditions for poor swimming. I would certainly be willing to bet that if the Americans were to show up without LZRs it would drop their medal count. The one identified swimmer in the article was Thomas Rupprath who held the world record before it was broken by a LZR-wearing Brit. In my book it seems strange to be talking about world records and mediocrity at the same time.

where are they Just to the left of the bulge in this picture: farm3.static.flickr.com/.../2261920298_4cf70d4235_o.png I don't know, I just have a hard time thinking that some kid is going to look at that picture and say "Yes! I'm going take up swimming so I can wear one of those!".

Again I must ask why my Borat swimsuit picture was taken down and they let pictures like the Phelps LZR stay???

It shows that Phelps is all man.

It seems like a really weird place to have a transparent panel....I feel like they could have made a little more attractive of a suit for nearly $600 a piece. :lolup: Heh-heh... maybe that's where they stuff the hundred dollar bills. (Piously): I'm sure it's all aerohydrodynamically optimized.