If the full body rubber suits do end up getting banned, why should USMS follow their lead on this issue? (i.e. assuming the suits would continue to be manufactured).
Isn't Masters mostly for each individual to pursue what they want and the level they want out of the sport?
If the full body suit is preferred by many USMS participants, why not satisfy the base by keeping it available?
What's really the point of forcing old USMS swimmers out of their girdles if FINA bans them?
John Smith
I'm split on all of this. I do know that the tech suits are faster than "standard" suits. I also know that FINA isn't a great role model when it comes to rule-making or well-reasoned decisions. I also recognize that USMS doesn't have to follow FINA rules.
But USMS has rules for swimming equipment that blocks traditional wetsuits from being worn in open water and pool competitions--I always presumed that those rules were in place because the wetsuits gave an advantage to swimmers who were wearing them. Doesn't that same rationale argue for regulating other swim suits that give advantages? Isn't the logical extension of that to regulate the playing field so all competitors are wearing the same equipment--and keeping the costs down seems like another benefit as well. Shouldn't people swim faster because they are better swimmers who are in better shape(which does not include me in either category)as opposed to being able to purchase a better swim suit?
I don't want to over-emphasize the role of the suit. If I was wearing a Jaked, and a real world class swimmer was wearing a three-piece suit with cummerbund, top hat and shoes, I'm pretty sure I'd be getting whopped. So its not just the suit. But I do like the idea of the competitive advantage in USMS competition going to the better swimmer and not the better equipment.
I'm split on all of this. I do know that the tech suits are faster than "standard" suits. I also know that FINA isn't a great role model when it comes to rule-making or well-reasoned decisions. I also recognize that USMS doesn't have to follow FINA rules.
But USMS has rules for swimming equipment that blocks traditional wetsuits from being worn in open water and pool competitions--I always presumed that those rules were in place because the wetsuits gave an advantage to swimmers who were wearing them. Doesn't that same rationale argue for regulating other swim suits that give advantages? Isn't the logical extension of that to regulate the playing field so all competitors are wearing the same equipment--and keeping the costs down seems like another benefit as well. Shouldn't people swim faster because they are better swimmers who are in better shape(which does not include me in either category)as opposed to being able to purchase a better swim suit?
I don't want to over-emphasize the role of the suit. If I was wearing a Jaked, and a real world class swimmer was wearing a three-piece suit with cummerbund, top hat and shoes, I'm pretty sure I'd be getting whopped. So its not just the suit. But I do like the idea of the competitive advantage in USMS competition going to the better swimmer and not the better equipment.
