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 am worried about what the very high cost and short life of the suit will do to (a) the accessibility of swimming at the age group level and (b) men's college swimming programs. Both of these could have serious impacts on swimming in the US.
A really valid point. A college team with deeper pockets could undoubtedly have an advantage if they were able to outfit everyone in LZRs.
One could argue that a competitor only needs pair of goggles, a polyester suit, and some skills to back it up.
But on the other hand, when races come down to tenths and fractions of a second, a techno suit could make all the difference. That's been proven.
College swimming budgets could be further stressed if LZR's become a mandatory part of their team gear.
Technology isn't really the negative. The downside appears to be high cost and limited availability which can make the playing field uneven...especially for swimming programs with limited $ resources.
Maybe at the FINA level (where corporate sponsors are spending big cha-ching)....a $500 disposal suit doesn't impose a negative impact on the sport in terms of accessibility for every athlete. If Michael Phelps (or whomever) tears a suit, they snaps their fingers and Speedo-usa throws ten more into the duffel bag.
As a masters competitor, in my opinion, if Jane or John Doe wants to wear one...more power to them.:weightlifter:
I am worried about what the very high cost and short life of the suit will do to (a) the accessibility of swimming at the age group level and (b) men's college swimming programs. Both of these could have serious impacts on swimming in the US.
A really valid point. A college team with deeper pockets could undoubtedly have an advantage if they were able to outfit everyone in LZRs.
One could argue that a competitor only needs pair of goggles, a polyester suit, and some skills to back it up.
But on the other hand, when races come down to tenths and fractions of a second, a techno suit could make all the difference. That's been proven.
College swimming budgets could be further stressed if LZR's become a mandatory part of their team gear.
Technology isn't really the negative. The downside appears to be high cost and limited availability which can make the playing field uneven...especially for swimming programs with limited $ resources.
Maybe at the FINA level (where corporate sponsors are spending big cha-ching)....a $500 disposal suit doesn't impose a negative impact on the sport in terms of accessibility for every athlete. If Michael Phelps (or whomever) tears a suit, they snaps their fingers and Speedo-usa throws ten more into the duffel bag.
As a masters competitor, in my opinion, if Jane or John Doe wants to wear one...more power to them.:weightlifter:
