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
One part of the article I found a little dubious was in section #4, specifically about visual detection of turbulent water from still pictures of elite swimmers during performances. Even when at rest, swimmers wearing these suits often exhibit these kind of "bubbles," and clearly there is no turbulence involved. So I think support for the author's contention that shaved skin is the best surface is still lacking.
Yeah, he's definitely mistaking bubbles for turbulence.
I read some of the articles he referenced regarding first-generation suits last night, and I'm going to try to find more of them today at the library. I read just the abstracts of most of them, and I still had a lot of questions.
The biggest hole in the research is a lack of realistic control groups. Swimmers need to be shaved in the regular suit condition, and they need to be wearing properly fitted competition suits, not just whatever they wore to practice that day. Huub Toussaint specifically mentioned this problem in one of his papers, and he showed pictures of a female swimmer from the study wearing the Fastskin and the regular suit. The regular suit was a poly trainer! Who wears that in a meet?
One part of the article I found a little dubious was in section #4, specifically about visual detection of turbulent water from still pictures of elite swimmers during performances. Even when at rest, swimmers wearing these suits often exhibit these kind of "bubbles," and clearly there is no turbulence involved. So I think support for the author's contention that shaved skin is the best surface is still lacking.
Yeah, he's definitely mistaking bubbles for turbulence.
I read some of the articles he referenced regarding first-generation suits last night, and I'm going to try to find more of them today at the library. I read just the abstracts of most of them, and I still had a lot of questions.
The biggest hole in the research is a lack of realistic control groups. Swimmers need to be shaved in the regular suit condition, and they need to be wearing properly fitted competition suits, not just whatever they wore to practice that day. Huub Toussaint specifically mentioned this problem in one of his papers, and he showed pictures of a female swimmer from the study wearing the Fastskin and the regular suit. The regular suit was a poly trainer! Who wears that in a meet?
