Anyone going to start practicing in a in the big rubberband?

The need, of course, is performance enhancement...and for some, an extra security blanket. I know several accomplished triathletes who have suffered panic attacks in the OW portion of the swim, particularly in choppy water with poor visibility. Fort, I realize that the WS is probably more performance enhancing than the LZR (as an aside, though: where is the evidence of that statement?), but that is a weak argument from both a practical and ethical standpoint. Practical: exactly how much enhancement is legal? Ethical: why is a "little" enhancement okay but not a "lot?" If it is a matter of principle, then it is violated in either case. People who have no problem with the ethics will always fall back on buoyancy as a practical way to distinguish between legal enhancement and something like a wetsuit. But all the arguments I always see against allowing wetsuits usually have a dominant ethical component: they aren't "real swimmers," etc. I simply fail to see how a LZR-clad swimmer is more of a "true swimmer" than a WS-clad swimmer. The so-called purists are on shaky moral ground, in my opinion, if they use technical suits in the pool. (And before jumping on me for being anti-LZR, keep in mind that I don't have an ethical objection to the LZR or any other technical suit.) In any event, we are not proposing that WS-clad be treated identically to those without a WS, just that they be allowed to race. I also don't have a problem with them starting in the same wave, I think that should be left up to the race organizers as a practical matter rather then be legislated from on high. I just said that as a teasing aside, not as an "ethical argument." I'm neither a purist nor anti-wetsuit, particularly if the WS gets more people swimming and that's what rocks their boat. To each his own and separate categories should suit both. Why object if the WS are in a different category? Are you saying I'm unethical, eh? :confused: We should allow wet suits in pool races too? Ditch the distinction between a device and a swimsuit?

Are you saying I'm unethical, eh? :confused: I believe "weak" was the word I used... :D

I think Chris Stevenson said, "Fort, I realize that the WS is probably more performance enhancing than the LZR (as an aside, though: where is the evidence of that statement?)" I don't think wetsuits offer an advantage. I grew up wearing wetsuits for surfing. I hated wearing them because they slowed me down and wearing a wetsuit caused significantly more fatigue, especially on my shoulders. Maybe I'm missing something and they have "specially" designed wetsuits for open water swimming. The only advantage I could see would be for a very weak swimmer. I don't see why a swimmer with actual speed would wear one. For instance, my preference for an all out 50 (or 1500 for that matter) would be to race in a technical suit like the LZR. My next preference would be to swim naked. My last preference would be to wear a wetsuit.

I'm still struggling to see the problem here. Yes, the wetsuit wusses are weak, immoral lepers who probably don't brush their teeth, but they are effectively in an entirely different race. They don't get to be the national champion and if enough of them show up their entry fees subsidize the after-race beer. We used to have this in racewalking (no, not wetsuits) - We'd have a national championship in with a shorter citizen's walk. In the citizen's race, unlike in the "real" race, it was often the case that the bent knee rule was suspended. Effectively it was two different events held together for the purpose of development. That, plus the citizen's race often had many more people than the true national and their entry fees subsidized the whole thing. They were happy to be part of the competition, meet the top walkers, etc, etc and the top walkers got better prizes than they would have otherwise. I also never heard someone say that they were the "national citizen's walk champion" or some such. Let the ballerinas in and make them bring the beer. (The latter should have been added to the proposed rule change - a shocking oversight.) -LBJ

I'm convinced. I really liked OurSwimmer's take on the whole situation. Anyone who has done as many OW's as she must know what she's talking about. The rule, if it passes, won't change much. And if it does change the face of things, who cares? To each his own. Bring on the wet suits. I still may try one out. . . Anyhoo, my overtraining (according to the great Paul Smith) seems to be working out well as I've never been in better shape, so I say bring it baby! :bouncing:

I'm convinced. I really liked OurSwimmer's take on the whole situation. Anyone who has done as many OW's as she must know what she's talking about. The rule, if it passes, won't change much. And if it does change the face of things, who cares? To each his own. Bring on the wet suits. I still may try one out. . . Anyhoo, my overtraining (according to the great Paul Smith) seems to be working out well as I've never been in better shape, so I say bring it baby! :bouncing: Just don't allow all that "over-training" tire you out to the point you forget to go buy that laser so you can be sure and measure every pool and OW race course you attend! :thhbbb:

I read the proposal and have no real issue with it, but am a bit confused on one point: Would this, in effect, produce 2 national champions in a given age/gender group - one for the real swimmers and one for the wetsuit ballerinas? As to the participation being too low, I think that is more a function of the size of the country than anything else. Also, even if you allow the WB's into the race, I don't see how that makes a national any more valid. You may have more people overall, but probably not any/many more in the RS group. -LBJ Here is really the heart of the proposal we submitted to the committee The Virginia LMSC proposes that article 3.5.7.5 be amended to read: “Wetsuit competitors shall be excluded for the purposes of articles 305.11 through 306.1.” 305.11 is for all-american recognition, which is given to national champions; 305.12 is for the all-star team and 306.1 is for records. So the answer to your question is essentially "no." Sure, there will be a winner in the wetsuit category at a national championship, so in that sense s/he is a "national champion." The change also allows for awards (305.10) for WS-clad swimmers (eg at the race itself they can get a medal or t-shirt or whatever, saying whatever the race organizers want it to say). However the WS winner would not be awarded the same level of recogniton as the non-WS swimmer, who will earn all-american status and points towards the all-star competition. This is in keeping with Marcia Cleveland's comments that non-WS swimmers will still be the "main" focus of attention (I forget her exact words). OW competition can be a somewhat scary experience for novice swimmers -- not just triathletes! -- who are accustomed to a pool environment. I disagree strongly with the notion that such people should just "man up" and deal with it; I think masters swimmers is all about welcoming and helping such swimmers...hopefully coaxing them out of the WS at some point. My own personal feeling: I wear a wetsuit when it is too cold to do otherwise (and I'm not macho about it either, I just don't relish shivering for hours after a swim). Wetsuits are a way to draw people into OW competition but the goal is to eventually wean them of it. Many -- perhaps most -- triathletes will have no interest in taking that step since their races allow wetsuits and make no distinction between WS and non-WS swimmers. Fair enough, our own pool races do not distinguish between LZR-clad and non-LZR-clad swimmers either...and both suits are intended to enhance performance. There is no reason for purists -- most of whom probably wear a technical suit in pool races -- to be snotty about the triathlete's choice. There is room enough in the lake/river/bay/ocean for lots of swimmers. On your second point, I believe you are correct. I agree that this proposal ALONE may not do much to increase participation. The proposal is actually a fairly minor change -- adding national championships to the other races where wetsuits are already allowed. It should be part of a broader effort to make USMS OW races better known and more accessible to triathletes and other swimmers who do not participate in OW races; that is really the key. This is just a step in that direction, one that doesn't really cost much to implement.

Interesting tactic. Withholding official "Nats Champ" status and All-American status to attempt to entice the WS into joining the revered non-WS ranks. Behavior modification. Do you think it'll work? I don't know ... Guess I'd put my money on the WS gaining official status down the line. Now, I have to go make reservations to swim in the OW fin race since I'm in a snit about LC zones ... :bolt: Oh, WS seems much more performance enhancing than the LZR.

I would guess that the vast majority of OW races nationwide are held in waters 68 or above. So, that pretty much eliminates the need for a wetsuit. Further, if the race is strictly swimming (not part of a triathlon) there is no need to "save the legs" by wearing a wetsuit. Lastly, other than a handful of extreme OW events, most OW events are 5K or less, and usually markedly less. If you have the pleasure of hanging around a bunch of tris, the first question asked of any swim is "is it westuit legal?" What the heck? I have no idea this obsession with the wetsuit. If they don't practice in a wetsuit, the water is warm enough and the distance is short, what's the need? I say if USMS is gonna allow these things, make them go in the first wave about 2 minutes ahead of me so I can mow them down and humiliate them further. I would suggest making them wear pink wetsuits but I suspect that Fort and (S)he-Man would rush right out to buy one as they are fashion mavens.

If you have the pleasure of hanging around a bunch of tris, the first question asked of any swim is "is it westuit legal?" What the heck? I have no idea this obsession with the wetsuit. If they don't practice in a wetsuit, the water is warm enough and the distance is short, what's the need? The need, of course, is performance enhancement...and for some, an extra security blanket. I know several accomplished triathletes who have suffered panic attacks in the OW portion of the swim, particularly in choppy water with poor visibility. Fort, I realize that the WS is probably more performance enhancing than the LZR (as an aside, though: where is the evidence of that statement?), but that is a weak argument from both a practical and ethical standpoint. Practical: exactly how much enhancement is legal? Ethical: why is a "little" enhancement okay but not a "lot?" If it is a matter of principle, then it is violated in either case. People who have no problem with the ethics will always fall back on buoyancy as a practical way to distinguish between legal enhancement and something like a wetsuit. But all the arguments I always see against allowing wetsuits usually have a dominant ethical component: they aren't "real swimmers," etc. I simply fail to see how a LZR-clad swimmer is more of a "true swimmer" than a WS-clad swimmer. The so-called purists are on shaky moral ground, in my opinion, if they use technical suits in the pool. (And before jumping on me for being anti-LZR, keep in mind that I don't have an ethical objection to the LZR or any other technical suit.) In any event, we are not proposing that WS-clad be treated identically to those without a WS, just that they be allowed to race. I also don't have a problem with them starting in the same wave, I think that should be left up to the race organizers as a practical matter rather then be legislated from on high.