It seems to me like the swimsuit situation has gotten a bit out of hand. Prices are high; LZRs are unavailable; swimskins are legal for USMS pool meets... the list continues.
With the fabrics, I think we can all agree neoprene should remain illegal for pool meets. But beyond that, who's to say what is and what isn't? It will be tough with all the new technology, and as we're seeing today with Speedo and BlueSeventy being FINA sponsors, it will be tough to knock the gift horse in the mouth.
Most of these new suits are body suits. Why not try to limit the effect a suit has on a performance by limiting the amount of suit that can affect performance? It is a stretch to get back to "briefs" and "recordbreakers," as already, women have a fabric advantage. But why not put a limit on the total amount of fabric that can be used, or the total amount of acceptable body coverage?
Small step to take, and in the end, to make the genders fair, we probably wouldn't lose much suit. But I think it is rediculous to see people completely covered at the pool. Their swims should be all about them - not what they and their suit can accomplish.
When does an innovation become an unfair advantage?
To compare this to running: Consider that some sprinters (in track) have adopted a full-body suit to reduce drag and wind resistance. And who would show up at the Olympics in track spikes made in, say, 1950, 1980, or even 2000? The innovations in equipment make for faster times and world records. No one even heard of altitude tents when Roger Bannister and Emil Zatopek competed.
But the USATF drew the line at shoes with springs:
www.american-trackandfield.com/.../spirashoesMar04.html
But why ban these shoes and not, for instance the Nike air cushion when that was first developed?
I don't envy those having to make the decisions on matters like this.
When does an innovation become an unfair advantage?
To compare this to running: Consider that some sprinters (in track) have adopted a full-body suit to reduce drag and wind resistance. And who would show up at the Olympics in track spikes made in, say, 1950, 1980, or even 2000? The innovations in equipment make for faster times and world records. No one even heard of altitude tents when Roger Bannister and Emil Zatopek competed.
But the USATF drew the line at shoes with springs:
www.american-trackandfield.com/.../spirashoesMar04.html
But why ban these shoes and not, for instance the Nike air cushion when that was first developed?
I don't envy those having to make the decisions on matters like this.
