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 won't go nearly so far as to say that the tech suits have "ruined" swimming. But yes, I don't think they are a good thing, and not because of the expense or the time drops or the fragility of the suit, although these are not necessarily insignificant things. (By the way, Beren's suit malfunction is the cause of a number of hilarious comments on the Huffington Post...go over there are read them when you get a chance, there are 700+ and counting. I wouldn't be surprised to see him on Letterman!)
The reason is simple: the choice of suit is having a big impact on the results of a race.
Call it nostalgia if you want, but I really miss the days when the choice of suit -- like the choice of goggles or cap -- was a matter of personal preference and was not likely to have any measureable influence on the race.
Sure it was nice that Speedo allowed its athletes to wear another suit if they want -- Phelps didn't take them up on it, and he can be questioned for that decision.
But Speedo certainly didn't have to do that.
It isn't so hard to imagine that an entire team is forced to wear a particular suit that is far inferior to the competition's; indeed, that has already happened. Imagine being a member of the German Olympic team, having spent most of four years training for that moment...and then giving up SECONDS to your competitors because you can't wear a LZR.
When an athlete or team accepts money from the company, they agree to abide by their rules, and the most basic of these is promoting their product. There may even be some unwritten rules: "sure you can wear another suit!" but I can't imagine that Speedo would be very happy if Phelps so publicly switched to a Jaked right now, in answer to Cavic's challenge. I think Phelps is wise to resist that challenge.
I don't see FINA changing this sponsorship model; legally, I'm not even sure that they can. So they are forced the regulate the nature of the suits instead, to ensure that they do not enhance performance greatly and that the variation between them is not large.
I have spoken to a dozen local coaches about the swimsuit issue, and not a single one opposes a ban. Why should they? A single unwise choice or unlucky rip can undo a season's worth of work.
Professional swimmers are in the same boat. SO MUCH rides on such small decisions: legs or body? Tyr or Speedo? And sometimes they are unlucky enough to be on a team who choses its sponsor unwisely.
So while Craig Lord rubs me the wrong way -- a lot -- I do understand and reluctantly agree with his rants against an "equipment-based" sport. Because that is what swimming has now become, and all the analogies in the world with tennis or cycling or baseball are not very convincing that this has been a good thing.
I won't go nearly so far as to say that the tech suits have "ruined" swimming. But yes, I don't think they are a good thing, and not because of the expense or the time drops or the fragility of the suit, although these are not necessarily insignificant things. (By the way, Beren's suit malfunction is the cause of a number of hilarious comments on the Huffington Post...go over there are read them when you get a chance, there are 700+ and counting. I wouldn't be surprised to see him on Letterman!)
The reason is simple: the choice of suit is having a big impact on the results of a race.
Call it nostalgia if you want, but I really miss the days when the choice of suit -- like the choice of goggles or cap -- was a matter of personal preference and was not likely to have any measureable influence on the race.
Sure it was nice that Speedo allowed its athletes to wear another suit if they want -- Phelps didn't take them up on it, and he can be questioned for that decision.
But Speedo certainly didn't have to do that.
It isn't so hard to imagine that an entire team is forced to wear a particular suit that is far inferior to the competition's; indeed, that has already happened. Imagine being a member of the German Olympic team, having spent most of four years training for that moment...and then giving up SECONDS to your competitors because you can't wear a LZR.
When an athlete or team accepts money from the company, they agree to abide by their rules, and the most basic of these is promoting their product. There may even be some unwritten rules: "sure you can wear another suit!" but I can't imagine that Speedo would be very happy if Phelps so publicly switched to a Jaked right now, in answer to Cavic's challenge. I think Phelps is wise to resist that challenge.
I don't see FINA changing this sponsorship model; legally, I'm not even sure that they can. So they are forced the regulate the nature of the suits instead, to ensure that they do not enhance performance greatly and that the variation between them is not large.
I have spoken to a dozen local coaches about the swimsuit issue, and not a single one opposes a ban. Why should they? A single unwise choice or unlucky rip can undo a season's worth of work.
Professional swimmers are in the same boat. SO MUCH rides on such small decisions: legs or body? Tyr or Speedo? And sometimes they are unlucky enough to be on a team who choses its sponsor unwisely.
So while Craig Lord rubs me the wrong way -- a lot -- I do understand and reluctantly agree with his rants against an "equipment-based" sport. Because that is what swimming has now become, and all the analogies in the world with tennis or cycling or baseball are not very convincing that this has been a good thing.
