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
Our current USMS administration has tried very hard to bridge the gap between USAS and USMS. The dual sanction concept is the biggest way they are doing that. If USMS says "anything goes" regarding the swimsuits, no Masters swimmer will want to attend a dual sanction meet because they cannot wear the rubber suits (USA Swimming rules prevail in dual sanction meets). Thus, the dual sanction concept becomes meaningless because Masters swimmers will be afraid to race in jammers, or know that they can swim a Masters-only meet and go faster and get a higher top 10 placing or even contend for records. And all the work Rob and others have done so far will go out the window.
People willing to swim in USA meets are not generally "afraid."
And, at least for me, this is inaccurate. I just swam in a USA meet after the first FINA ban in an old suit. I likely would have been faster and had a higher ranking in my B70, but I'm not losing any sleep over it. I've also swum in a poly tank at a USA meet as well. I'm sure people could manage.
I respectfully disagree with this statement. I would argue that the majority of Masters swimmers investing in and wearing technical suits are anything but lazy. Personally, even if I had the time to train more than six days/week, I don't believe that my body could handle the yardage. Fifty may be the new thirty, but even Dara is facing yet another operation on her aging body.
Totally agree with Gull. Yeah, there are always a few like the ones Jeff mentions. But I definitely don't think they are the majority by any measure. Most people wearing these suits train pretty hard. (Well, not Hulk, ;), but most others.). Indeed, the people on my team that rarely compete work their asses off.
Apparently there can be no middle ground where we accept technology but place reasonable restrictions on it (material, thickness, coating, etc).
Actually, there can be. However, it is predicated on several things:
There must be a standard of "reasonableness" that exists either as a regulated standard by an organization empowered to do so and enforce it or as a de facto standard agreed upon by the majority, and "enforced" by the majority.
If the organization is empowered, it must be able to convince the majority that it's decision is "reasonable." If they can't, you end up with the majority circumventing or actively opposing said decision, effectively nullifying it. Example: The death of "amateurism" in sports like Track and Field. Further, the organization must have the means to accurately distinguish between those things that meet the definition and those that do not. The fiasco that FINA recently found itself in is a good example of what can happen even if you (potentially) have the means/ability.
If the majority puts forth a de facto standard, it has no real recourse to enforcing it (short of lynching/shunning) and likely little ability/resources to determine what fits the standard. Example: Some of the open water races in this part of the world draw a strong majority of people who don't think you should do an open water race in a wetsuit. Some of the people in the race do wear them. The majority has no say in the matter, however, since it has nothing behind it.
USMS can set whatever rules they like and they can enforce the most obvious things, but they have neither the ability or resources to enforce the finer points. Example: Who will determine if the coating on a suit is actually a legal coating if they both look, smell, etc alike. Even more so is the case where technology evolves and USMS is stuck with trying to decide if a new material meets its standards, is better or worse than some thing that is illegal, etc, etc, etc. I'll nominate you to that USMS committee, but I want no part of it.
FINA took an interesting tact in their most recent decision by effectively saying "We can't distinguish what fits a more technological approach to swimming equipment, so we are rolling it back to a level that we think we can distinguish what fits the rule and what doesn't."
If we decide to break with the mother country, go to the other point of distinction (this is not an extreme -it is a point where decision-making is pragmatic) Throw out the passive mechanical changes, since there is no mechanism in USMS to enforce them anyway and stick with the things you can enforce.
Just look at how fractured the opinions are within this group about this topic and the subtle, and in some cases not so subtle , differences. Is 1 mm thickness of material X "better" than 1.1 mm of Material Y? Why is 1 mm thickness of material X "good", but 1.1 mm of Material X "bad?" How to decide this and how to enforce this?
However, take comfort in the fact that Tech suits come and Tech suits go, but Polyester jammers are forever.
-LBJ
Should we be allowed to wear what we want because some people are too lazy to train like they know they should or are embarrassed by their beer guts?
I respectfully disagree with this statement. I would argue that the majority of Masters swimmers investing in and wearing technical suits are anything but lazy. Personally, even if I had the time to train more than six days/week, I don't believe that my body could handle the yardage. Fifty may be the new thirty, but even Dara is facing yet another operation on her aging body.
The whole idea of spending $500 on a tech suit for Masters seems completely ridiculous to me...
What about the idea of spending that much (or more) on a driver, or several times that much on a bike?
In my first Masters meet I didn't use goggles to race; I never had before and didn't know how to dive in without losing them. 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.
The tech suit issue got exaggerated in Rome because Phelps got beat by Biedermann and Bowman seemed to suggest that it was because of Biedermann's suit as compared to Phelps' "inferior" LZR. FINA seemed unsure of when to move on the ban until Bowman threatened to hold out his star swimmer until they ban the suit that caused Phelps to lose. I thought it was bs. I think Biedermann is a great swimmer and likely would have beat Phelps if they swam naked and without goggles.
Now, Jeff says that tech suits give lazy Masters swimmers an excuse not to train as hard. News to me. I had injuries last year and a half so I couldn't train hard enough to do 200's in competition but hoped I could still compete in the 100's. I got a Blue Seventy and loved the way it felt but even with that great suit I wasn't able to get my best times because I simply hadn't trained hard enough. The suit won't swim it for us. And I think they have the opposite effect that Jeff suggests. The notion that I could go even faster in this suit makes me want to train harder so I can get my best times. It's what a lot of us swim for--to get our best ever times. If other things cause us to train less: injuries, family, job, we may jokingly say the "tech" suit will pull us through, but no one who really trains and races seriously thinks that is true, because it isn't. Suits don't swim. We do.
And personally, I'd like to swim like Mike Ross although I am happy to watch Phelps on TV.
I'm riding a $500 bike....that I bought 15 years ago.
The $500 suit lasted ONE meet.
Capitalism at its best: The best thing to do is vote with your dollars and don't buy one until they figure out a way to make them last longer.
Here's a modest proposal for the group: If we are going to split with FINA on this, then make anything legal as a suit as long as it does not offer active mechanical leverage advantages (e.g. webbed gloves, flippers, etc.) Passive mechanical advantages (e.g. buoyancy, streamlining, drag reduction, etc) are fine. This means that you can wear a wetsuit or similar, a tech suit, an "old school" suit, jammers or swim naked. Why not? It seems that this can of worms would be opened anyway if we split with FINA. By that I mean, if we allow what are called "tech suits", what constitutes a "tech suit" and are there limits on their features? If FINA is out of the mix, no one will be testing the various suits that may be produced (USMS is in no position to do this). That means that it's all a gray area, so just open it up and get rid of the rat's nest of technicalities that we seem to be setting up for ourselves. As a bonus, a wetsuit is cheaper than the $500 tech suits, is fast and lasts a long time.
I'm wearing my Tyr Durafast polyester jammers to open water races regardless of the above, since they meet MY personal needs of what I want out of swimming, but you are welcome to ride the latest tech wave if that's what you want.
-LBJ
That means that it's all a gray area, so just open it up and get rid of the rat's nest of technicalities that we seem to be setting up for ourselves. As a bonus, a wetsuit is cheaper than the $500 tech suits, is fast and lasts a long time.
Apparently there can be no middle ground where we accept technology but place reasonable restrictions on it (material, thickness, coating, etc). If the USTA had adopted that approach, we would still be playing with wooden rackets (which were quite cheap, by the way).
I have worn my Blue Seventy in three meets thus far, and it is holding up very well. Whether is was worth the cost (my wife would say no, but then I don't agree with all of her purchases) is an individual value judgment.
