www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/.../19679.asp
The most substantial change, of course, is that suits would no longer be allowed to extend past the knee.
My personal opinion is this is sort of an arbitrary change. What really should be changed--if anything--is what types of materials are allowed and maybe testing protocol to approve a suit. I don't really think requiring suits to end at the knees would affect much.
I can't imagine this will pass.
Note, however, that USA Swimming did pass legislation for USA Swimming competition that has those restrictions for age group swimming in the USA. I.e., if you're in a "senior" or "open" sort of meet or championship, then you can wear whatever you want. But if you are in an age group competition, you can only go to the shoulders and to the knee.
The argument there is that there were too many young kids (well, their parents!) going out and buying these expensive suits that just weren't necessary. So they decided to level the playing field a bit at the younger age group level.
-Rick
I have got to admit the cost of these suits should be taken into account at the age group level. There is no reason why any swimmer under the age of 14 (perhaps even 16) should need to be decked out in full body racing suits.
The reality is that there are plenty of spoiled young kids that will convince their parents to drop $100's on a new LZR to be just like Michael Phelps or the other Olympic champs. And some parents will be hoodwinked into believing that their child will not become the next great swimmer without the amazing suit!
I don't, either. If they really wanted to do something significant they should have proposed that men's suits cannot cover the navel or go below the knees.
And I disagree with this one. I don't think they should limit men's suit coverage to just the knee to the waist. I like the suits that cover the upper body to the shoulders and down to the ankles.
The significant change,as a number of people have said, should be in the material used to design the suits...it shouldn't be in the amount they over.
Early jammers covered the upper body, as did the early fastskins. Dont' change that...change the material used.
The reality is that there are plenty of spoiled young kids that will convince their parents to drop $100's on a new LZR to be just like Michael Phelps or the other Olympic champs. And some parents will be hoodwinked into believing that their child will not become the next great swimmer without the amazing suit!
Wow, you sure are incorrect. It's standard meet quipment for higher level age groupers these days and really has nothing to do with spoiled kids or naive parents.
I can spend what I want on my kids to equalize the playing field. Others can sit on the deck and whine about the unfairness of it all.
Do you have a link to the USA-S rule on age groupers? I can't find any mention of it on their site.
No link for US Swimming, but saw this from the Board of Directors for Arizona Swimming LSC (www.azswimming.org/.../101508_BOD_Min.pdf):
"... changes made by the USA Swimming House of Delegates this last month at convention that will effect our LSC ...there will be swimwear restrictions in place for those swimmers competing in 12 and under age group defined competitions. This will go in effect May 15, 2009. Swimmers 12 and under will no longer be able to wear swimsuits that extend below the knee nor suits that cover the shoulders."
Would this mean that any records that currently exist and were set with suits that violate the new rules would be invalidated?
I can't imagine that would happen. I don't know of a single rule change in the history of the sport that invalidated current records.
Here's the legislation (for the 12 & under rule). It will go into effect on May 15, 2009 (or for all meets that begin on or after May 15, 2009):
102.9 SWIMWEAR
.1 Design
A Swimsuits worn for all 12 & under age group defined competition shall not cover the neck, extend past the shoulder, nor past the knee.
B Swimsuits worn for competition must be non-transparent and conform to the current concept of the appropriate.
C The Referee shall have authority to bar offenders from the competition until they comply with the rule.
So what I am guessing is that any event that is expressly identified as being for (maybe only for?) 12 & unders would be handled this way.
Not knowing specifically about the arguments regarding for/against this, there are two things I can potentially see with this:
*Fast 12 & unders will simply move up into senior competition to swim with the suits (note that some areas impose restrictions on exactly how such move-ups occur). This may be the case when a kid is trying to break a LSC record or something like that (or maybe a swimmer who is close to LSC Championship cuts, and thinks the suit would get them over the edge).
*I would be concerned that, especially at short-staffed meets, that this rule would be glossed over because everyone is busy with everything else going on with the meet, similar to what can happen with the high school jewelry rule. These suits are a bit obvious though, unlike (for example) earrings.
The interpretation and implementation of this rule will also be important, as to whether it's read to be very absolute and ironclad (you swim in one and you're DQ'd, no questions asked; you are barred from competition until you fix the suit or get a new suit), or whether it's more of a referee's discretion issue (can the referee simply warn the swimmer not to wear the suit at future meets?).
Patrick King
