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
Thanks, Kirk, it looks to the simple minded that I am losing more than I gained.
But I suppose it's like the stock market.
If you lose 50 percent in one year, and regain 50 percent the next year, you are still down a hell of a lot of money, right?
Example: a $2 million portfolio loses 50 percent in 2008. Amount in account now: $1 million.
The $1 million portfolio gains 50 percent in 2009. Amount now: $1.5 million.
Net loss: $1/2 million.
Now, apply the same basic math but start with my own portfolio, worth $117 in 2008.
I think women must really like me for me.
But somehow, I am once again slipping away from the moorings of the original topic.
Thanks, Kirk, it looks to the simple minded that I am losing more than I gained.
But I suppose it's like the stock market.
If you lose 50 percent in one year, and regain 50 percent the next year, you are still down a hell of a lot of money, right?
Example: a $2 million portfolio loses 50 percent in 2008. Amount in account now: $1 million.
The $1 million portfolio gains 50 percent in 2009. Amount now: $1.5 million.
Net loss: $1/2 million.
Now, apply the same basic math but start with my own portfolio, worth $117 in 2008.
I think women must really like me for me.
But somehow, I am once again slipping away from the moorings of the original topic.
