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
I think that for all practical purposes they will be gone from masters competitions once the current stock gets used up, though that may take some time.
Ricky Berens has a slightly used Jaked he'd probably be willing to sell for cheap. :banana:
I guess what I am asking is, what other sport has introduced technology that has played a role in significantly dropped times at the elite level, resulting in WR's dropping like flies?
Sure, you can make tennis equipment made from unobtanium and it allows you to hit the ball harder and with more accuracy. But at the end of the day, it's still just people on either side of the net and one side wins. Right?
The point is that most other sports have incorporated new technology and have done so without compromising the spirit or integrity of the sport, and their respective federations/governing bodies have managed to regulate said technology without turning back the clock twenty years.
True..... but there's can still be a trade-off. Cycling may have weight limits on their bikes, but the differentiating and advanced technology has taken the form of supplements instead of equipment.
Okay, I was partly right. The study was done by Joel Stager. I may have screwed up some of the details.
You can read a much better explanation here:
www.scienceblog.com/.../research-examines-elite-swim-times-youth-sports-age-groups-21796.html
An excerpt:
The study does not identify what caused the bias but describes the statistical modeling that has successfully predicted swim times during the previous Olympics, aside from the Olympic Games in 1996, when times were slower than predicted. The average error in predictions for 2008 Olympic swim times was three to six times greater than the errors in previous Olympics, said Joel Stager, professor in the Department of Kinesiology and director of the Counsilman Center for the Science of Swimming....
...No new advances in swimming techniques or training can account for the improved time, Stager said, so technology, such as swimsuits, or pharmacology could be responsible.
"Do we, as a community, want 'assisted performance?'" he asked.
---------
Jim's answer to Joel's rhetorical question:
No, we, as a community, do not want 'assisted performance.' But I, as an individual, sure as hell do.
Jim...I was being sarcastic...time and time again Chris has tried to tell us there has never been a study done that proves the suits improve times...
In 1896 the Olympic record for the pole vault was 10'6" using a bamboo pole. Today, with a carbon fiber pole, the record is 20'1 3/4". Better put an asterisk next to that one.
Well clearly they "regulate" masters in some senses. If USMS allowed stroke modifications that other national bodies did not (eg, you could do a forward start in backstroke, kick as far underwater as you want, do flipturns in butterfly, two pull-outs in breaststroke, etc), I doubt any of our times would be accepted for inclusion in FINA Top Ten or as WRs.
I think what they said is that, just as they do not enforce PED prohibitions through a drug-testing program in masters, they don't intend to regulate swimsuits in masters. I got the impression that it was partly a logistical thing, they didn't want to worry about suit inspections at the masters levels (like they do at the top international meets).
That was then, of course; I don't think it beyond the realm of possibility that they may change their mind...
Ramifications that I can think of:
-- FINA might not accept any times from USMS meets for inclusion in Top Ten lists or as WRs. I suppose we could have some sort of verification that a "FINA legal" suit was used but that would be a hassle to do for all possible TT swims or WRs, and FINA might decide not accept it anyway.
-- USA-S may decide not to accept any USMS times into the SWIMS database. Right now you can give prior notification for your intention to do so, but going against USA-S on the suit issue (especially since they initiated the current proposal) might be pushing it.
These two ramifications do indeed affect many of our members.
Like John, I am thoroughly sick of the new suits and all the associated baggage. Unlike him, it would bother me just a little to swim in jammers next to a competitor who was wearing cellophane (oops, I meant Jaked).
But it would bother me more than a little to basically have USMS strike out on our own. I would like, as closely as possible, the rules that we swim under in USMS to mirror those that Phelps, Lochte and co. compete with both nationally
and internationally. I'd like to feel like we are doing the same sport, though obviously at
completely different levels. I simply see no great compelling reason to part ways on this issue, but obviously I am not as attached to the suits as others.
Anyway, I think it is mostly a moot point. I don't think the suit manufacturers are going to make these suits just for masters swimmers. If/when FINA gets rid of them (and unlike Tim L, I think the rubber suits will soon be gone for good), I think that for all practical purposes they will be gone from masters competitions once the current stock gets used up, though that may take some time.
Uh, I just meant that FINA had stated that it had no current intent to ban or regulate tech suits for masters. Who knows what it will do going forward?
I'm thoroughly sick of hearing how the sport has been "ruined" by innovative gear.
If/when FINA gets rid of them (and unlike Tim L, I think the rubber suits will soon be gone for good), I think that for all practical purposes they will be gone from masters competitions once the current stock gets used up, though that may take some time.
The cynical part of me just thinks that for FINA going backwards will be very painful for the sport. What do you do with the records set in the rubber suits or I guess any tech suit? Now that they are going back to the mid-90s, do you set the world records to only include swims in jammers or less to be standing world records? If you keep the current world records are you willing to have the next world championship and Olympics with maybe only a handful of world records and will that have a negative effect on participation in the sport? How will some swimmers feel about continuing swimming if their times increase a lot? How will sponsorships be impacted? TV ratings for the Olympics? All these things are painful and sources of conflict and FINA seems to like to avoid that at all costs so my guess is they are going to flip-flop on this issue again. FINA obviously listened to the purists for their current decision, but now they will have to listen to the realists who will emphasize that you can't go backwards.
The thing with FINA is that you can't rely on them being consistent or well reasoned even after it appears they have made a decision.
However, I think it would be very interesting to go back to jammers to determine the real benefit of the tech suits and who benefited the most.
Tim
In 1896 the Olympic record for the pole vault was 10'6" using a bamboo pole. Today, with a carbon fiber pole, the record is 20'1 3/4". Better put an asterisk next to that one.
Very funny. How about some technology introduction that results in the magnitude of records that have fallen over the past 2 years in swimming? I'm not suggesting an example does not exist, but using your example which spans in excess of 100 years is not exactly what I am looking for.
Yes, USMS should follow suit .
USMS should follow FINA's lead and change the rules every few days.
I agree with Mr. Positive above that we should ignore FINA, even though Mr. Positive is probably poking fun at us again.
