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
I figured that Craig Lord would have a lot to say about the tech suits lists, etc, and I finally got around to reading it last night. There are a lot of entries, so allow a little time:
http://www.swimnews.com/news
I do want to point out a couple things. First there is this
In a letter to FINA, Prof Jan-Anders Manson, of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, states:
"During our testing procedures, we have observed a number of swimsuits which are constructed exclusively or predominantly from solid (non-textile fabrics) non-permeable material.
"While these swimsuits comply with the buoyancy value when tested in accordance with the defined procedure, we note that this kind of construction may cause significant air trapping effects when worn by the swimmers." (emphasis added)
"We note that construction resulting in air trapping is in principle prohibited under your regulations.
"As measure to counteract those effects in the case of swimsuits which do not already include significant areas allowing air release, our recommendation would be to request modifications ensuring that air does not remain trapped. This is to ensure air release in particular from chest/abdomen area, lower back area and groin area.
"The measure could consist in applying areas of permeable material/regions (textile or hole perforation). If the measure consists in perforation, we suggest as recommendation: a minimum diameter of 2mm and a maximum distance between holes of 10mm."
So was this why B70 and some other suits were rejected, b/c the testers noted in passing that air could get trapped? Was a specific, repeatable measurement used to determine this? Who knows, but I can certainly see why B70 was upset.
It also cracks me up that the team was so specific in their recommendation (diameter, spacing, and regions of modification). How was this determined? I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if Manson just picked them mostly arbitrarily. I also wouldn't be surprised if the numbers get enshrined in stone at some point in the future.
Which brings us to this recent Lord posting that I just noticed today:
"Just when the LZR-crew thought it was safe to get back in the water, blueseventy suits, the Jaked01, the arena X-Glide and other apparel that pumps performance past the natural state of the swimmer may yet be resurrected - unmodified.
After complaints from blueseventy that tests conducted by Prof Jan-Anders Manson and team in Lausanne were not sufficient to judge a suit under the terms of the Dubai Charter, new tests are being carried out and by Friday this week the world of swimming and the Rome 2009 form guide may have shifted once more."
In the meantime, are B70s legal for WRs and FINA Top Ten? Again, who knows. I get that there will be uncertainty in the transition, but what mess. I just want to know what is legal (for FINA, not just USMS) and what isn't.
I figured that Craig Lord would have a lot to say about the tech suits lists, etc, and I finally got around to reading it last night. There are a lot of entries, so allow a little time:
http://www.swimnews.com/news
I do want to point out a couple things. First there is this
In a letter to FINA, Prof Jan-Anders Manson, of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, states:
"During our testing procedures, we have observed a number of swimsuits which are constructed exclusively or predominantly from solid (non-textile fabrics) non-permeable material.
"While these swimsuits comply with the buoyancy value when tested in accordance with the defined procedure, we note that this kind of construction may cause significant air trapping effects when worn by the swimmers." (emphasis added)
"We note that construction resulting in air trapping is in principle prohibited under your regulations.
"As measure to counteract those effects in the case of swimsuits which do not already include significant areas allowing air release, our recommendation would be to request modifications ensuring that air does not remain trapped. This is to ensure air release in particular from chest/abdomen area, lower back area and groin area.
"The measure could consist in applying areas of permeable material/regions (textile or hole perforation). If the measure consists in perforation, we suggest as recommendation: a minimum diameter of 2mm and a maximum distance between holes of 10mm."
So was this why B70 and some other suits were rejected, b/c the testers noted in passing that air could get trapped? Was a specific, repeatable measurement used to determine this? Who knows, but I can certainly see why B70 was upset.
It also cracks me up that the team was so specific in their recommendation (diameter, spacing, and regions of modification). How was this determined? I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if Manson just picked them mostly arbitrarily. I also wouldn't be surprised if the numbers get enshrined in stone at some point in the future.
Which brings us to this recent Lord posting that I just noticed today:
"Just when the LZR-crew thought it was safe to get back in the water, blueseventy suits, the Jaked01, the arena X-Glide and other apparel that pumps performance past the natural state of the swimmer may yet be resurrected - unmodified.
After complaints from blueseventy that tests conducted by Prof Jan-Anders Manson and team in Lausanne were not sufficient to judge a suit under the terms of the Dubai Charter, new tests are being carried out and by Friday this week the world of swimming and the Rome 2009 form guide may have shifted once more."
In the meantime, are B70s legal for WRs and FINA Top Ten? Again, who knows. I get that there will be uncertainty in the transition, but what mess. I just want to know what is legal (for FINA, not just USMS) and what isn't.
