USA Swimming proposes rule limiting suits

LOL wow. I did not even think of XC or running... I wonder how much that adds up to. If this were a perfect world, we would have the pool (maintenance) fees lumped in with the taxes for the road repairs and park forestry. :)

Seems to me the cat is already out of the bag on the suit issue. Actually the cat is miles away now. What a disaster it would be to implement a potentially slower or limiting suit technology AFTER all the World Records were broken this year. John Smith

Don't see how they can ban the current suits, since there is wide spread use. But they probably do need to issue better guidelines for future suits.

The solution to this all is obviously to outlaw all suits in competition. Compete in the buff. I can just see it now: "Here's your meet program and here's your barf bag"

Indiana Swimming enacted a rule for their 12 and under swimmers as well. Why can boys can wear jammers down to their knees, but girls can't have suits that extend below the pelvis? I purchased my daughter a kneeskin for States and Zones last summer and was told she couldn't wear the suit effective fall season. There was no warning for parents who purchased these suits for their children. They are expensive and it's unfair to those of us who invested in them. If they are going to enact a rule restricting suits, it should be the same for swimmers everywhere. When you are determining TOP 16, it's unfair to tell kids in some states they can wear them while swimmers in other states can't. Don't the LSC's realize that these kids are being ranked nationally and not just within their LSC? Also, parents should understand that there's no reason to purchase these suits for average swimmers. I thinks it's odd to see B/BB/A swimmers wearing Fast Skins, Tracers,etc. These suits are designed for the serious competitive swimmer who is excelling in State, Zones, and nationally. To restrict these kids from wearing suits that were designed to enhance their performnace just isn't fair. This is a small group of swimmers and these suits are part of their game. Swimming is expensive at this level and this is part of competing at that level. If someone going to Zones can't afford the suit, then maybe they should try raising the money, asking their coach who can probably purchase one at a discount, or asking family members to help out. To restrict these elite age group swimmers is going to far. The LSC's need to stay out of it and adhere to a national policy. Ignoring the issue of whether the USA Swimming rule change is good policy or not, this post actually is a concern for another reason: that the LSC's are striking out on their own and tacking on to the USA Swimming rule change however they see fit. Once again, the new rule (effective May 15): 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. Here, we see that North Texas is extending the limit to age 14, and implementing the rule differently by sex, and as quoted above, that Indiana is also taking a sex-based interpretation as well. But, unless the Rules & Regulations Committee comes out with an interpretation or clarification--and soon--it's going to be a situation where each LSC has its own separate rule. Why is this a problem? It's a problem if you have a suit that's legal in your LSC, and then you go to a meet in another LSC, where the suit is (by LSC rules or interpretations) illegal. I'll wager money that someone is going to have to go out and buy a new suit on site because the information wasn't in the meet announcement. And then what happens at Age Group Sectionals or a Zone meet that is held in a more restrictive LSC (remember, the sanction for these meets is issued by the LSC, and unless an exception is carved out, governed by that LSC's bylaws too)? And that's ignoring issues where some LSC's will interpret the rule to result in an immediate disqualification and some LSC's will interpret the rule to simply require the swimmer to correct the issue before his or her next event. Patrick King

A Modest Proposal re tech suits versus 'traditional' ones: Small change cubicles be erected behind the starting blocks (about the size of porta potties, with a door on timers' side and one opening onto the block). Swimmers enter pool deck clad only in terry cloth robes and place their choice of suit inside their changing cubicle. When the gun goes they enter their cubicle, close the door and change into their chosen suit. When they are ready individually they open the door onto their blocks and start their race, first to the finish line wins. In European races I'm sure the suit options could include no suit at all.

The solution to this all is obviously to outlaw all suits in competition. Compete in the buff.

Hockey and swimming are NOT the same sports. Yes, hockey is generally expensive and kids travel hockey is extremely time consuming, but you are comparing apples to oranges here. Since people are jumping all over D2 for being "uninformed" on tech suits, etc., consider me doing the same to you non-hockey parents. When comparing hockey and swimming, you have to look at two cost buckets: dues and equipment. Travel is a third to consider, but since it is probably a wash and sucks for all parents involved, we'll leave that out of the equation. DUES On the dues side, this is where everyone is seeing the $$ disappear in hockey. Travel hockey team dues may or may not include tournament fees, and they escalate fast. Add in additional clinics and the scheduled-at-the-last-minute holiday tournament dues, and you're looking at $2-3k easily. Just for a fall/winter/spring season. And then there's summer... where a lot of kids play in a summer league and go to a camp somewhere in michigan, minnesota or canadia. :canada: On top of all this, did I also mention playing for a second local-only team is not uncommon in these parts? My local USS team costs for Junior I group (pretty much your run-of-the-mill USS BB cut 9-12 year olds) were about $900 for a recommended 4x/wk. Add in a summer team for a nominal fee. By way of comparison, my masters swim practice costs (3x/wk) + meet entry fees ran me about $1k in 2008. Equipment A full set of brand new, mid-range equipment costs about $1200 (with jerseys), but most of it should last 3-5 years before it starts falling apart. For the record, when I started, I paid a bit less for not-as-fancy stuff. If you play goalie, costs can double, BUT is more than made up for in discounts received for being a goalie (most teams and leagues let goalies play either free or for a severely reduced rate due to cost of equipment, especially in the adult leagues). With kids, a lot of rinks and hockey programs have a stash of kids equipment that they rent out - basically, if you and/or your kid wants to try the sport, you can do so with little financial burden. Return it at the end of the season, and if he/she likes it, you can go out and get your own. Furthermore, a lot of teams have a team (or two) in most every division for kids 6-17, and will have programs set up where as the kids outgrow their equipment and move up, they can sell their small stuff to the next crop of little guys. Buying used equipment cuts down the cost at least 50%, and a lot of people go that route. Aside from rolls of tape, regular skate sharpening and a new stick every once in a while, that isn't much when you amortize the startup cost over time. Figuring a replacement/upgrade of one piece of basic equipment a year, I'd say $300/annually is a fair cost. There's really not much swim equipment a person NEEDS. Goggles, caps and practice suits are probably on every young swimmer's gift wish lists annually - and there's always the occasional set of fins and paddles (buoy and kickboard can last forever). One good non-full-body suit for the end-of-season meet, and that's $150 annually. These days, swim parents are having to shell out for one or two low-tech (ie fs1/2) suits for random meets, and then potentially spend $350 on a b70 or $550 on a LZR?!?!? All of which have a short life span and can't really be transferred to another swimmer. Figure on getting a new fs2 annually and a super-tech suit every other year, plus the above basic spend, and we're looking at $500 annually for equipment. Bottom Line Hockey will blow away swimming with dues costs, and I think that is a fact that most previous hockey-hater posters are alluding to. However, at the equipment level, the need to exceed hockey's costs is ludicris. Hockey players need thick pads for protection - ice is hard and a rubber puck flying at 70-100MPH hurts like hell if your body gets in the way of it. Swimmers don't need full-body coverage - just coverage of our personal areas. If your kid wants to play hockey, and you can pay for it, go for it. If your kid wants to swim, is fast and wants a super-tech suit and you can pay for it, go for it. But for everyone else, parents shouldn't feel pressured to be spending ridiculous amounts of money on a sport that is traditionally just about as inexpensive as you can get (after fort's running). :2cents:

Dolphin - your experiences are vastly different from mine in both education and personnel. However, these are my personal observations and I don't hold myself out as an expert, as you do. Given your lack of credibility and expertise in swimming yet your assertions on the topic, I tend to believe you have similar background and competence to speak on other matters. Your position in an elevator service company does not qualify you to speak definitively on parenting or education. I suspect if you'd ever spend time with the gifted students in your school you'd have a broader range of experience to draw from. The same could be said if you'd ever spend any time around swimmers or swimming programs. There are many on this forum you could learn from.

Hey ThewookieeConsidering the very poor state of the U.S. educational system, it wouldn’t be an absurd idea at all to just drop athletics at all publically financed institutions. Of course there would be howling and crying so the country will continue down the path to economic oblivion. :badday:Dolphin 2 That's pretty funny...almost as good as saying maybe we just need to toss more money into education without fundmentally changing the entire broken system...a system that starts with the absurd idea that somehow "failing" is not a possiblity and social promotion is the norm...here's a better idea...bring back mandatory physical education, encourage all kids particpate in one after school sport, get all junk food/vedning machines out of all schools and stop with the ridicolous banning of games of tag because someone loses..and maybe we'll see an increase in self discipline, self respect and possibly a decrease in childhood obesity.