OK - the "Suits" started the whole thing, so you can say that FINA and the manufacturers are responsible for the entire mess. But, there are ways to handle a situation without creating this silly mess. If you ever read Swimnews, the author Craig Lord, basically makes the suits out to be the devil and he is the Spanish inquisition. Why can't they just voice their opinion and then move on for the good of the sport.
Most main stream journallists have no idea about suits, records and all of that - they take their stories from the coaches and swimmers. The more the coaches and swimmers complain the worse the public, non-swimming perception will be - it's that simple. How about just saying - "I would prefer for the suits to changed - but Worlds are swimmer against swimmer - everybody can wear whatever suit they want and they are all available. In the end it comes down to the swimmer not the suit."
Michael Phelps was not world athlete of the year in 2008, not just because of the suits, but because of all the talk about them !
L'Equipe is now banning any record note in their newspaper and I am sure the coverage of Worlds will be terrible. Well - they are French, but it's still a big blow to the sport.
I don't read speed skaters complaining about a new track being the fastest in the world - they can only set records in certain places. I don't see the track cyclists making a huge affair out of a new faster cycling track that allows athletes to blow away all the records. I did not see the outrage when they changed the backstroke turn rule - how much is that in a 200 back ? About a second ? How much faster is allowing a dolphin kick off the wall in *** ? How much faster is allowing in regular Breaststroke to put your head underwater ??
I think there has to be a way to discuss it and not make it take over the sport -- by the way, I am actually against the suits, I would love for them to go back to regular suits. But at the same time, I also embrace new technology, I have a Blue 70 and a LZR.
Former Member
I only hope that all this suit testing, standard testing, expert employing, lawyering etc. is not detracting from from enforcement, education, developing of new tests for, re Performing Enhancing Drugs which still stand as the real threat to the legitimate conducting of world class swimming at the open, olympic level. Does anyone have any idea what kind of coin FINA is spending to sort out the whole suit mess? Where does the money come from and are other budgets such as PED detection affected?
The long, probably expensive "pseudo-scientific" screening method has been farcical. What they need are a small number of simple tests following well-established and public guidelines. (Personally I like the idea of testing thickness & buoyancy.) Then limit the suit coverage (knees to navel for men, pelvis-neck for women works for me) and step back. Suit makers would have simple and predictable guidelines to follow.
The whole "permeability" thing is a red herring. Are they worried about buoyancy? Then test for that. Are they worried instead about some vague "contact with the water" thing? Go contemplate your navel and stop wasting our time.
:applaud::applaud:This is spot on Chris. Like knelson I agree. FINA have created an approval minefield for themselves (no surprise there), an enforcement nightmare for officials and a suit choice/access conundrum for swimmers and coaches. As you say, we need (very) simple, objective criteria; (very) simple, robust testing method/process (that anyone can replicate in a high school lab); I would also add a clear timetable for new suit approval (preferably 12 months before each worlds/olympics). The battle against the suits is almost certainly lost, particularly as FINA's decision making is dominated by its commercial interests, but surely even they can follow good advice like yours. This is an opportunity for the prospective new leadership at FINA to restore some semblance of fairness and rationality, and perhaps even an interest in swimming! It will be good when (if?) the swim talk is again more about about technique, conditioning, etc - rather than the damn suit.
If they will establish clear, precise guidelines and the testing protocal to test for their guidelines, then I see no reason why coverage can't be from shoulders-to-ankles and variations in between for both men and women.
I'm with you on this wookie is I love the torso coverage to simulate shaving.....but I would accept jammer coverage if it ended this suit nightmare
FINA should mandate a "durability" requirement for tech suits. Yes, it's a bit amorphous, but I'm sure all the creative thinkers out there could come up with some standards and enforcement procedures (e.g., suits cannot have notoriously faulty zippers and must last more than 5 swims before stretching or ripping).
i think you're joking about this. but if not.... who could possibly create any kind of standard here? when compression is a goal, there will always be those looking to compress more than they should.... and bodies being as varied as they are..... (maybe ralph nader should go to work for fina if the issue is now consumer protection)
I
The long, probably expensive "pseudo-scientific" screening method has been farcical. What they need are a small number of simple tests following well-established and public guidelines. (Personally I like the idea of testing thickness & buoyancy.) Then limit the suit coverage (knees to navel for men, pelvis-neck for women works for me) and step back. Suit makers would have simple and predictable guidelines to follow.
The whole "permeability" thing is a red herring. Are they worried about buoyancy? Then test for that. Are they worried instead about some vague "contact with the water" thing? Go contemplate your navel and stop wasting our time.
While I agree with you on the testing, esp. making the guidelines and results public, I don't think coverage should be limited to knees to navel. People didn't seem to have strong opposition to 2007 suits and before that covered shoulders to ankles and many variations in between.
If they will establish clear, precise guidelines and the testing protocal to test for their guidelines, then I see no reason why coverage can't be from shoulders-to-ankles and variations in between for both men and women.
i think jammers is the way to go- upper body coverage is just too constricting
See, that's why we should have the range from ankle-to-knees and in between. Myself, along with others, don't find the torso coverage to be constricting. I find them to be comfortable.
Let those that want to wear briefs or jammers wear em. Let those of us that want to wear legskins or shoulders-to-ankles wear em. Just make clear, defined rules about suit material and testings, so that we know all suits and companies, regardless of cut and style are playing by the same rules.
