From Swimnews

I don't know all that much about FINA, and I don't want to be needlessly argumentative here, but a case can be made that this current dilemma is not entirely their fault. The first major improvement in suits was the Speedo Aquablade. In so many ways, this was--on the surface--a minor change to what was already common, at least for women--i.e., a body suit made out of material that was essentially Spandex and Nylon (if memory serves) with some alternating stripes of hydrophilic and hydrophobic material. The big change with this suit was that men started wearing what I clearly remember my teammates calling "girly suits" because of their cut. But Johnny Tarzan Weismuller wore a body suit, too, albeit one made out of wool, when modesty first reigned over suits. If FINA had acted forcefully to deny the Aquablade, the first domino wouldn't have tumbled. One could argue they SHOULD have acted then, but on what grounds? Possibly the teflon-like coating that gave the hydrophobic stripes their impermeability to water? Possibly the fact that the suits went down to the knees? But jammers do this, too. And I can see some litigious guy claiming he wanted his moobs covered and it was sexual discrimination to let women's suits, but not men's, cover the breastal areas. At the time, a decision to ban the Aquablade did not seem intuitively obvious. Was there much controversy back then? Did anyone even suggest that FINA should ban the Aquablade? But they didn't act then, and really, who blamed them at the time for failure to act? Though it wasn't obvious (to me, at least) at the time, this was the first trickle of toothpaste exiting the tube--basically allowing suit design to have a significant impact on swimming speed. Everything since then have been improvements on this initial technology. Everything since then has been enabled by FINA's decision not to decide to keep the genie in the bottle. With the Aquablade, the nuclear arms race of suits began! The toothpaste-genie is out of the tube-bottle, and it's going to be awfully hard to get it back in. Has FINA said anything about WRs set in now illegal suits? Will there be asterisks? Is the current "fastest" allowable suit the LSR? If this is the case, is Speedo going to be permitted to improve on this? I don't know. Athletes want to go fast. Companies want to create demand for their products. If the quest for faster suits is allowed, then it becomes like the America's Cup race: exorbitantly expensive to get tiny bits of incremental improvement in the little wiggle room the regulations allow. Yikes! Put the lid back on Pandora's Box before swimming joins Nascar, yachting, and Las Vegas Bunny Hunts as recreational activities available only to the super rich! To sum up: toothpaste out genie out Pandora's Box open Bunny Hunts in Las Vegas our only viable option? Where was I?

I don't know all that much about FINA, and I don't want to be needlessly argumentative here, but a case can be made that this current dilemma is not entirely their fault. The first major improvement in suits was the Speedo Aquablade. In so many ways, this was--on the surface--a minor change to what was already common, at least for women--i.e., a body suit made out of material that was essentially Spandex and Nylon (if memory serves) with some alternating stripes of hydrophilic and hydrophobic material. The big change with this suit was that men started wearing what I clearly remember my teammates calling "girly suits" because of their cut. But Johnny Tarzan Weismuller wore a body suit, too, albeit one made out of wool, when modesty first reigned over suits. If FINA had acted forcefully to deny the Aquablade, the first domino wouldn't have tumbled. One could argue they SHOULD have acted then, but on what grounds? Possibly the teflon-like coating that gave the hydrophobic stripes their impermeability to water? Possibly the fact that the suits went down to the knees? But jammers do this, too. And I can see some litigious guy claiming he wanted his moobs covered and it was sexual discrimination to let women's suits, but not men's, cover the breastal areas. At the time, a decision to ban the Aquablade did not seem intuitively obvious. Was there much controversy back then? Did anyone even suggest that FINA should ban the Aquablade? But they didn't act then, and really, who blamed them at the time for failure to act? Though it wasn't obvious (to me, at least) at the time, this was the first trickle of toothpaste exiting the tube--basically allowing suit design to have a significant impact on swimming speed. Everything since then have been improvements on this initial technology. Everything since then has been enabled by FINA's decision not to decide to keep the genie in the bottle. With the Aquablade, the nuclear arms race of suits began! The toothpaste-genie is out of the tube-bottle, and it's going to be awfully hard to get it back in. Has FINA said anything about WRs set in now illegal suits? Will there be asterisks? Is the current "fastest" allowable suit the LSR? If this is the case, is Speedo going to be permitted to improve on this? I don't know. Athletes want to go fast. Companies want to create demand for their products. If the quest for faster suits is allowed, then it becomes like the America's Cup race: exorbitantly expensive to get tiny bits of incremental improvement in the little wiggle room the regulations allow. Yikes! Put the lid back on Pandora's Box before swimming joins Nascar, yachting, and Las Vegas Bunny Hunts as recreational activities available only to the super rich! To sum up: toothpaste out genie out Pandora's Box open Bunny Hunts in Las Vegas our only viable option? Where was I?