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
Parents
Former Member
The fact that almost every WR has been broken in Rome is certainly pretty strong evidence that the suits are having an effect; I'm not mule-headed about it. But I will point out that, by their very nature, setting WRs is a biased way to look at the suits effects. We obviously do not see counter-examples, situations where a swimmer goes no faster, or even slower, with the suits. Because such a person is generally not going to be in the finals and isn't going to set a record. One obvious example of this is a "Berens-style" mishap, but I have definitely talked to swimmers who (for example) did not benefit from using a LZR.
Another thing that bugs me is lumping together suits of different types: legskins, body and jammers. So we might be told that Piersol broke the WR with an Arena but neglecting to mention that it was legs only; I have to think that makes a difference.
Love this post. People (e.g., Craig Lord) have been selective in the examples they use to support their argument. The evidence that the suits help is so strong, but even this strong argument gets eroded when people conveniently ignore evidence to the contrary.
The other point that has been making me crazy is "the suit helps different body types/techniques/events/strokes more than others." This may be true, but it's just being used by those with vitriolic hate for the suits as a plug to make whatever case they want when the evidence doesn't quite support their stance.
And your point about suit type is spot-on. If the times progression became statistically anomalous once the LZR, Jaked, X-Glide, etc. were introduced, why are we banning suits used when times were projecting as expected based on historical evidence? Why is the FSII getting lumped in with the Jaked? Legs? if air-trapping and girdling are the issues, why are full legs going to be banned?
Not that I'm expecting FINA to act rationally at this point (bunch of damn goldilocks-es: this suit is too small, this one's too long...this one's just right!). But there has to be a solution that is fair to the athletes, doesn't produce silly results, and allows the manufacturers to innovate, make money, and support our sport.
How about approving a short list of raw materials that can be used to make suits? The manufacturers can only choose from a short list of approved textiles from certified suppliers, but can then innovate on how to put it together, make pretty colors, or whatever. I agree that the swimmers should not be in a position where suit choice is as important as how many sdk's to take off each wall, but if the alternative is eliminating choice altogether, that's not any better, IMO.
The fact that almost every WR has been broken in Rome is certainly pretty strong evidence that the suits are having an effect; I'm not mule-headed about it. But I will point out that, by their very nature, setting WRs is a biased way to look at the suits effects. We obviously do not see counter-examples, situations where a swimmer goes no faster, or even slower, with the suits. Because such a person is generally not going to be in the finals and isn't going to set a record. One obvious example of this is a "Berens-style" mishap, but I have definitely talked to swimmers who (for example) did not benefit from using a LZR.
Another thing that bugs me is lumping together suits of different types: legskins, body and jammers. So we might be told that Piersol broke the WR with an Arena but neglecting to mention that it was legs only; I have to think that makes a difference.
Love this post. People (e.g., Craig Lord) have been selective in the examples they use to support their argument. The evidence that the suits help is so strong, but even this strong argument gets eroded when people conveniently ignore evidence to the contrary.
The other point that has been making me crazy is "the suit helps different body types/techniques/events/strokes more than others." This may be true, but it's just being used by those with vitriolic hate for the suits as a plug to make whatever case they want when the evidence doesn't quite support their stance.
And your point about suit type is spot-on. If the times progression became statistically anomalous once the LZR, Jaked, X-Glide, etc. were introduced, why are we banning suits used when times were projecting as expected based on historical evidence? Why is the FSII getting lumped in with the Jaked? Legs? if air-trapping and girdling are the issues, why are full legs going to be banned?
Not that I'm expecting FINA to act rationally at this point (bunch of damn goldilocks-es: this suit is too small, this one's too long...this one's just right!). But there has to be a solution that is fair to the athletes, doesn't produce silly results, and allows the manufacturers to innovate, make money, and support our sport.
How about approving a short list of raw materials that can be used to make suits? The manufacturers can only choose from a short list of approved textiles from certified suppliers, but can then innovate on how to put it together, make pretty colors, or whatever. I agree that the swimmers should not be in a position where suit choice is as important as how many sdk's to take off each wall, but if the alternative is eliminating choice altogether, that's not any better, IMO.
