Why does MLB prohibit the use of aluminum bats or spitting on baseballs or letting players use steroids (okay - two out of three)? Why does NASCAR prohibit fuel injected engines or certain transmission gear ratios? Why does the PGA disqualify certain golf balls or regulate golf clubs? Why can't basketball players where stilts or use a trampoline? Enough is enough, when a piece of equipment can alter the record books and cheapen the physical accomplishments of every past athlete, it's time to say stop (don't you think?).
The integrity of our sport is on the line here. How about two dolphin kicks for breaststroke or how about adding another arm-stroke to the backstroke turn or allowing IM'ers to turn-over before they touch on the back to *** transition.
I'm against the LZR and any suit that enhances performance and don't think I'll be changing my mind unless they find out swimming naked can make you swim faster.
Did you hear about the Buddhist who refused Novocain during a root canal? His goal: transcend dental medication.
Coach T.
Parents
Former Member
I think the new suits are an unnerving development. But I most dislike its likely impact on non-elite age group swimming, not the suits themselves. The suit is still a passive component of swimming. Maybe they create flotation by trapping air under rubber-like panels even though the suits don't actually float.
In another thread, and I've forgotten which one or I would go back to it, I asked whether it would be a good thing if FINA allowed fins to be used in competition. Hulk drew a distinction between suits and fins that I didn't really understand but seemed arbitrary to my mind. Perhaps an even better question would be, would it be a good thing if FINA were to remove the no buoyancy rule. There's a lot of debate about whether the new suits increase buoyancy by trapping air either inside the suit or on the surface, or whether swimmers just feel "like" they are more buoyant. In any case, buoyant suits are just one possible technological advancement that could help swimmers swim faster, just like the current suits.
Is there some distinction why it is good to approve the current suits but it wouldn't be good to approve more buoyant suits?
I think the new suits are an unnerving development. But I most dislike its likely impact on non-elite age group swimming, not the suits themselves. The suit is still a passive component of swimming. Maybe they create flotation by trapping air under rubber-like panels even though the suits don't actually float.
In another thread, and I've forgotten which one or I would go back to it, I asked whether it would be a good thing if FINA allowed fins to be used in competition. Hulk drew a distinction between suits and fins that I didn't really understand but seemed arbitrary to my mind. Perhaps an even better question would be, would it be a good thing if FINA were to remove the no buoyancy rule. There's a lot of debate about whether the new suits increase buoyancy by trapping air either inside the suit or on the surface, or whether swimmers just feel "like" they are more buoyant. In any case, buoyant suits are just one possible technological advancement that could help swimmers swim faster, just like the current suits.
Is there some distinction why it is good to approve the current suits but it wouldn't be good to approve more buoyant suits?
