FINA could have kept pretty much everyone happy if they had decided to say "All suits used at the 2007 worlds and before are what we are going back too. Any suit approved after the 2007 world's will be illegal"
Completely stifle any further suit development? I don't think that's a good solution. Even if they aren't allowed to make the suits any "better" (ie, more performance-enhancing), innovation to make the suits more durable or cheaper would be welcome.
But within FINA's constraints (materials, coverage...and maybe others like thickness and buoyancy?), suit-makers should feel a market incentive to make the fastest suit possible.
I guess I'm glad I didn't drop the $500 for one of those suits, but have a couple of FS Pros that still have some swims in them. We'll see what USMS does, but I'm sure they'll follow on FINA. The whole thing has been has been a mess, and may change yet again from here. FINA let the mfg'ers out run them, and the whole situation got out of control, and when they tried to govern it, they were all over the place, totally inconsistent, and only contributing more confusion and inconsistencies. So now they seem to be taking the easy way out... well, maybe the 2nd easiest way... the easiest being to do nothing.
Personally, I liked the suits for me, but I think other swimmers with different body shapes than me may get more out of them than I do. Or maybe I needed a LZR or B70. However, I don't like the aspect of trying to retard innovation in principle. I would have preferred a more strong governance model, with FINA setting the specs and standards, and the mfg'ers having to pay for the "proof" to submit a suit for approval, subject to audit of course. It's worked with other sports that have gone through similar technical innovation threats, such as golf. Several years ago, the golf clubs and balls were threatening to obsolete many of the classic course since they enabled the player to hit the ball much further, and golf's governing bodies (there are two main ones - USGA and R&A, so they have to come some agreement) were asleep at the wheel. Eventually, the rules were stiffened, but not to the point to stifle technical innovation, but more to control it, and in some cases, dial it back. It was a little messy at first, lawsuits, non-compliant clubs, Arnold Palmer taking Callaway's (think Speedo of golf clubs) side, etc., but eventually everything settled down. For example, club faces (mostly drivers), must not exceed a certain level on the "coefficient of restitution" (a spring effect)... a very technical measurement. Similar restrictions on balls now. But they've recently dialed one standard back, outlawing the use of square grooves, requiring in Jan 1 2010 the use of "v" grooves. Square groves put more spin on the ball and therefore allow for more control on shots from the rough, so the v-grooves should bring an increased penalty for imprecise shots, so we can expect PGA tour scores to go up a bit in 2010.... but the players will likely progress, and get better.
FINA seems to have dialed it too far IMO, like golf's governance orgs going back to wood woods and all steel shafts... or hickory shafts. Now that I think of it, the newer golf technology seemed to help other players more than me, at least on the tee shot... I've always hit the ball well, and long, and I hit about the same distance I have over the years, with a few different (and newer) drivers... but most of my buddies are hitting the ball farther than they used to, much closer to me... and we are all older, but the new clubs allow them to swing harder than they used to. I've spent $450 for a new driver, with mixed results... the one I play with now was an old one of my Dad's he could no longer hit, so it was free... and I hit it long and straight, with much more confidence than I have in years. I still have to swing the clubs to score, and still have to swim the race to win.
Holy cow... watching the world champs on TV as I write this... Ariana Kukors was a 2:07.03, new WR by 1.4 seconds in the 200IM, blew away Stephanie Rice... were can I get a Jaked? I need to see if my folks have one laying around they're not using... :).
There is a wee bit of precedent in track and field- they altered the technical specs for men's javelin in the 1980s and women's javelin in the 1990s, in order to make it easier for the point to stick and for the judges to give a correct distance, and the result was an immediate 10%ish in distance thrown. The IAAF and national federations have kept separate lists of records and important throws under both the old and new javelins.
But in general, I'd say to keep the current records swum in plastic. The swimmers were following the rulebook as it was written at the time, and there may have been any number of sub-national and national records broken in 08-09 in 2007 suit technology, and the idea of trying to sort out which from which would be a nightmare.
People have gone on to break records after the invention of the 15M rule; they've broken the records of East German and Chinese dopers. It may take a couple years, but eventually they'll break the records of the plastic suit people too.
Schubert thinks that the tech suit era records should be stricken:
Should 2008-9 be remembered as swimming’s asterisk era? “The rules that were in there at that moment, we accept it,” said Uruguay’s Julio Maglione, who was elected president of FINA at Friday’s congress. “No change.”
Mark Schubert, the general manager of the United States national team, disagreed. Earlier this month he said the records should be stricken because they were artificially aided. “I just don’t think we’ve been good stewards of the sport to allow what’s happened,” he said. Does that mean we would go back to pre-2000 records. How likely is this to happen and is it even possible?
Hello Masters Swimmers: Do we have the official wording that this regulation also applies to Masters Swimmers?
Who can we contact? I think they should exclude Masters Swimmers. Is there any ideas of how to try not to include us.
Myriam
Although it appears I am in the minority lets ban them all ON EVERY LEVEL. Time to go back to the classic suit (circa 1992?).
Actually,the first Tech suit by Speedo came out in 1992(Although it could be said that introducing nylon suits,or latex suits were tech suits for the time.)
A shocker: Speedo is upset.
I do feel sorry for the effect of FINA's yoyo-ing on the suit manufacturers, including Speedo.
But I think it is a little dishonest for Speedo to say "Speedo has always believed that there is no place in the sport for buoyancy aids." Maybe not as buoyant as the impermeable suits, but most people I know who have worn Speedos (from Fastskins on up) feel like they are buoyant, especially when dry.
And why should buoyancy be forbidden any more than any other type of aid, such as compression?
Hi, new here. I just read your post and I'll add my opinion. The difference between compression and buoyant in that one helps fight drag and the other changes a bad body position. The swimmer should learn to change the bad body position on their own.
I have rarely competed in suits that were "to the knee". When I bought a tech suit, it had legs to my ankles. I'm so damn short that those knee-length suits come below my knee. Uncomfortable for racing! I wonder if, when all the companies redesign, there will be a size for short people. After all, when we swam in age-group swimming, there were sizes like "30 LONG" for women or girls.
