LD16 303.6.3 SWIMWEAR p. 62 OWLDC Modify
303.6.3 Wetsuits may be allowed in all USMS-sanctioned open water events, at the
discretion of the meet event director. Wetsuits generally provide a competitive advantage. If
awards are given to wetsuit competitors they shall be awarded separately from those for nonwetsuit
competitors. Any published results or records must clearly indicate which swimmers
wore wetsuits.
Rationale 1: Because the OWLDC is aware that people wearing wetsuits are no longer allowed to be treated as
non-participants because they represent a major area of growth to our organization. In most cases, these
neoprene-clad souls would trade their eye teeth to go without but for whatever reasons they chose to look like
shark bait, they want/need/can’t live without it so by allowing this new rule, they can now wear their wetsuit in
our USMS races and get a prize from USMS. Also, members of the OWLDC are getting tired of extracting
naked, frozen people from the bathrooms where they are attempting to warm up by splashing themselves with
lukewarm water from the sink and recognize that if these folks had been offered an opportunity to wear a
wetsuit in their race, they would be having a much more fun time at this USMS event than experiencing
hypothermia and swearing on their mother’s grave to never swim in an open water race again.
Rationale2: This rule is leading our organization down the slippery slope to The Sanitization of Open Water
Swimming. We have regulated water temp, hot hats, buoys every so often, swim suits that help us float, and
more devices to take the element of nature out of the events, sort of like rock climbing with an elevator, so are
we “purists” now viewed as the extremists in our sport, the on the fringe element? But on the other hand at
least people are swimming and staying healthy, which is a wonderful thing for our society.
Rationale3: As purists spend time acclimating to less warm water temps and not spending time cycling 140
miles or running 26 at a stretch, do we get a motor on our bike? How about we start a “Buffet Event”, similar to
the 300IM: Pick a few choices you want and we’ll all compete together. This could lead to the “All Gadget
Olympics.”
Former Member
As an avowed wet-suit avoider (death before dishonor), I can't see any reason that this is a bad idea. The more the merrier. I personally don't worry about the whole awards thing either, so have at it. As long as the championship events segregate the the real swimmers from the shark-trollers, no problems.
-LBJ
Really?! What a burden ... handing out a few more awards ... might be like a swim meet.
What's the beef if the wetsuit wearers are in a separate division where they can apparently be labeled and ridiculed as wimps by the OW swimming elite?
Why discourage participation?
ever been to the award ceremony at the bay swim? extremely long ...i can't imagine if they doubled it. (it would be longer than the swim)
as it is, many swimmers don't stick around until the bitter end at most events....and i attend a lot of them.
i don't know any swimmers that enter these events for the ribbons or hardware, but i have seen many a director sweat out the awards.
Another thought not voiced yet is that encouraging wetsuit usage allows for a longer open water season. We can offer more races if we expect people to continue to show up in October and November. I am directing a series of races in 2009 in Arizona. We will start in late March or early April and finish in November. Without wetsuits, half of the planned races wouldn't happen.
As an example, in the November 2.4 mile swim, we have a wetsuit and nonwetsuit division. There are swimmers in both. In previous years it has been along the lines of 370 wetsuit, 12 non-wetsuit. Without the wetsuit division, there would be no race. It wouldn't be economically feasible.
Why do they even need an award ceremony? Particularly if none of the "real swimmers" care? It's not like they have them at swim meets. Can't people just collect their medals if they want them?
i would prefer to just stick around and socialize. (unless they're giving away watches or bread!)
In previous years it has been along the lines of 370 wetsuit, 12 non-wetsuit. Without the wetsuit division, there would be no race. It wouldn't be economically feasible.
do they then present awards for the top three in every age group for men and women for those 12?.......they don't at chesapeake.
When races are small, I have used larger than 5 year age groups. Otherwise, everyone who signs up is a winner. We have always award men and women separate, even in small races. As the event grows in size, we give more awards.
Great question at the end, Chris. Why don't you conduct a poll????????
And yes, breaststrokers DO rule:bliss:
"Ultra elite breaststrokers?" :lmao: They are the ultimate example of the "live and let live" philosophy that supports a separate division for wetsuits...long after the stroke evolved into (far superior) butterfly, we still allow those bozos their ugly frog kick to compete...
The Nero Comp comment is interesting. I see a LOT of high-tech suits (Fastskins, B70s, and others) at OW events that are supposedly wetsuit-free. The ethical distinction between them and wetsuits (all are intended to enhance performance) really does escape me. Don't tell me it is a matter of degree, that's hogwash ("I only meant to steal A LITTLE BIT of money!")
At least the proposed rule separates wetsuits into a separate division at championships, unlike B70s, LZRs and the like.
So I'm curious how many wetsuit nay-sayers have never worn a tech suit in a meet? Very few of those at the last nationals, from what I remember.
there is a generally accepted rule of thumb that a wetsuit offers a 10% advantage. i wish the same were true for all those tech suits because they would never be permitted in competition.
another observation.... many folks wear wetsuits to increase their comfort level; no one would claim that squeezing into a fastskin or eq. would make them more comfortable.
Again, I don't think the degree of performance enhancement is a very good defense.
I've worn a wetsuit in competition twice (both during half-IM aquabike races). Speaking only for myself, 10% is a HUGE stretch, there is absolutely no way is it that much for me unless we are talking frigid water. Rob Jones, an excellent OW swimmer here in Virginia who has competed both with and without wetsuits, estimates the wetsuit advantage at about 1 minute per mile. That is slightly less than a 5% advantage.
Mark Schubert says that the LZR gives a 2% advantage, and a number of swimmers believe him.
So 2% is okay but not 5%? Where is the line, exactly? "Neutral buoyancy?" Give me a break, most swimmers I know who use tech suits say they feel buoyant, no matter what FINA claims.
USMS swimmers sometimes seem to view those who wear the LZR or B70 as "serious" about swimming fast. Some of those same swimmers look at wetsuit wearers with disdain, feeling that they probably couldn't even float without them.
This attitude makes no sense to triathletes (many of whom are quite good swimmers but wear wetsuits to go faster) and it makes no sense to me either.
i would prefer to just stick around and socialize. (unless they're giving away watches or bread!)
Geek's looking for a watch - maybe he'll enter more often.
