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
We all wear googles now when racing and "back in the day" we never used them. Is it an advantage? Yes, especially on turns; and it is generally better for the eyes. But it is definitely an advantage and I suspect we are faster because of them. Let's keep them. And if FINA banned them I would still want to keep them.
I just don't think goggles are directly comparable. The primary purpose for using goggles is so you can see better and to protect your eyes from chlorine. The purpose of goggles isn't really to make you swim faster. This may be a consequence of these other factors, but it isn't their primary purpose. Full-body, rubberized suits, on the other hand, are clearly primarily intended to make you swim faster.
We all wear googles now when racing and "back in the day" we never used them. Is it an advantage? Yes, especially on turns; and it is generally better for the eyes. But it is definitely an advantage and I suspect we are faster because of them. Let's keep them. And if FINA banned them I would still want to keep them.
I just don't think goggles are directly comparable. The primary purpose for using goggles is so you can see better and to protect your eyes from chlorine. The purpose of goggles isn't really to make you swim faster. This may be a consequence of these other factors, but it isn't their primary purpose. Full-body, rubberized suits, on the other hand, are clearly primarily intended to make you swim faster.
