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
Though most people are adding the fact that wearing a full bodysuit is too much of an advantage, the major argument is the material put on the suit.
FINA, from my understanding, scaled back to jammers for men to make sure the manufacturers don't try anything sneaky with the full suits, in addition to the fact that it was hard to quantify if a full bodysuit trapped air and/or water.
When FINA announced it was going to jammers and after people said that the records should be stricken back to Feb. 2008, people started pointing to Ian Thorpe's swims as the reasons not to put asterisks next to records. No one complained that he won so many Olympic medals covered 95 percent with fabric because they never thought full bodysuits were the issue.
Though most people are adding the fact that wearing a full bodysuit is too much of an advantage, the major argument is the material put on the suit.
FINA, from my understanding, scaled back to jammers for men to make sure the manufacturers don't try anything sneaky with the full suits, in addition to the fact that it was hard to quantify if a full bodysuit trapped air and/or water.
When FINA announced it was going to jammers and after people said that the records should be stricken back to Feb. 2008, people started pointing to Ian Thorpe's swims as the reasons not to put asterisks next to records. No one complained that he won so many Olympic medals covered 95 percent with fabric because they never thought full bodysuits were the issue.
