Dear USMS Membership,
The Executive Committee met this week and discussed the recent FINA news release. USMS does abide by FINA policies however we recognize that there is much confusion with interpreting and applying the FINA release. In response and until further suit policy clarification is provided by FINA, USMS Board President Rob Copeland issued the following statement. Additionally, the USMS Rules Committee will be meeting on May 31st as they monitor the situation, any new information made available, and the implications it could have on USMS sanctioned events.
Rob Butcher
Executive Director
To: Kathy Kasey, Rules Committee Chair
Marcia Cleveland, Long Distance Committee Chair
Date: May 20, 2009
At this point in time no suits should be listed as banned by U.S. Masters Swimming for pool or open water swimming.
While FINA has listed the 202 approved swimsuits, FINA has NOT listed the 10 suits that have been “rejected for not passing the tests of buoyancy and/or thickness” or made a ruling on the “136 swimsuits to be modified in accordance with “Dubai Charter”." Until FINA provides the definitive list of banned swimsuits and specific actions on the 136, we should not report any suit as banned in a USMS sanctioned event.
If you hear anything from FINA in contradiction to this statement, please inform me as soon as possible. The list of FINA approved suits can be found at: www.fina.org/.../index.php. The FINA press release can be found at: www.fina.org/.../index.php
Rob Copeland
President - United States Masters Swimming
Pandora's Box: opened!
I think this is going to continue to be a major clusterf...k all around if the "letter of the law" trumps "the spirit of the law"--and where in sports has this ever not been the case?
Most swimmers, I think, agree that some suits should be banned--1/4" wet suits, for instance. Or jammers with built in pull buoys. Or suits that cover the entire body, including the hands and feet, and provide webbing on these extremities.
On the other hand, most swimmers agree that some of the older style body suits should be kosher--an Aquablade, and Johnny Weismuller's wool body suit from yesteryear, have the same shape, just some difference in fabric.
But the closer you get to the line separating the clearly legal and the clearly illegal, the more quibbling and claims of unfairness there are likely to be.
Let's face it: for the vast majority of masters swimmers who are passionate about this debate, the line in the sand is marked by the B70. Some consider this a wetsuit. Others consider it a body suit, only slightly different from a LSR.
The fact that B70 is a sponsor of USMS further complicates the picture, sort of like drug advertising in medical journals.
We are definitely in the middle of a "letter of the law" situation now, and I don't think any good will come of this. If the B70 remains legal, then how long before the B70 Plus hits the market, then the B70 Plus Ultra, and so forth?
I loved swimming in the B70, but in my heart of hearts, it felt like a wet suit. I think a lot of folks will agree with this, and maybe rail at the unfairness of Speedo's LSR still being legal because of a few water infiltration panels here and there.
I certainly don't envy whoever is making this decision, and as incompetent as FINA may be, I don't think any body vested with this decision is likely to emerge unscathed by wrath and criticism.
Pandora's Box: opened!
I think this is going to continue to be a major clusterf...k all around if the "letter of the law" trumps "the spirit of the law"--and where in sports has this ever not been the case?
Most swimmers, I think, agree that some suits should be banned--1/4" wet suits, for instance. Or jammers with built in pull buoys. Or suits that cover the entire body, including the hands and feet, and provide webbing on these extremities.
On the other hand, most swimmers agree that some of the older style body suits should be kosher--an Aquablade, and Johnny Weismuller's wool body suit from yesteryear, have the same shape, just some difference in fabric.
But the closer you get to the line separating the clearly legal and the clearly illegal, the more quibbling and claims of unfairness there are likely to be.
Let's face it: for the vast majority of masters swimmers who are passionate about this debate, the line in the sand is marked by the B70. Some consider this a wetsuit. Others consider it a body suit, only slightly different from a LSR.
The fact that B70 is a sponsor of USMS further complicates the picture, sort of like drug advertising in medical journals.
We are definitely in the middle of a "letter of the law" situation now, and I don't think any good will come of this. If the B70 remains legal, then how long before the B70 Plus hits the market, then the B70 Plus Ultra, and so forth?
I loved swimming in the B70, but in my heart of hearts, it felt like a wet suit. I think a lot of folks will agree with this, and maybe rail at the unfairness of Speedo's LSR still being legal because of a few water infiltration panels here and there.
I certainly don't envy whoever is making this decision, and as incompetent as FINA may be, I don't think any body vested with this decision is likely to emerge unscathed by wrath and criticism.
