High school swimming disqualifies advanced suits
By Thomas O'Toole, USA TODAY
High school swimmers will be banned from wearing high-tech suits under a rule announced Tuesday by the National Federation of State High School Associations.
The change, effective immediately, mirrors a recent decision by the sport's international governing body and puts more emphasis on the ability of the swimmer instead of the quality of the suit. Suits now must be of a woven/knit textile material, permeable to water and air and cannot aid buoyancy.
Boys suits can't go above the waist or below the top of the knee.
Girls suits can't go above the shoulders or below the top of the knee and can't cover the neck.
"Wow. It's a big deal," said David Marsh, coaching director and CEO at SwimMAC Carolina in Charlotte and a former coach at Auburn University. "Most purist coaches like myself are happy to hear that you are able to judge a swimmer by the performance of the athlete himself."
To emphasize his point, Marsh said all he had to do Tuesday was look around the Weyerhaeuser King County Aquatics Center in Federal Way, Wash., site of the Speedo Junior National Championships.
Many of the top high school swimmers are there, and the meet is scouted by hundreds of college coaches. He said he asked one coach if he was noting which suits the swimmers were wearing and was told yes.
High-tech suits generally prove more helpful to lower-level swimmers than Olympians. "Absolutely," said Marsh. He said college coaches need to know how much of a difference the suit makes when they "are looking at investing the amount they are investing in these high school swimmers.
"They are adding unnatural flotation to their bodies. The suit kind of covers technique flaws. It affects how you use your energy. You don't have to kick as hard. But the biggest thing might be the psychological impact of wearing them."
The ruling pertains to 250,000 swimmers at 13,000 schools nationwide.
"These high-tech suits had fundamentally altered the sport and become more similar to equipment, rather than a uniform," Becky Oakes, NFHS assistant director and liaison to the swimming and diving rules committee, said in a statement. "The rules of swimming have always prohibited the use or wearing of items that would aid in the swimmer's speed and/or buoyancy. The technical suits and styles had evolved to a point where there was little, if any, compliance with these basic rules."
Oakes added that the rule "will help guarantee fairness in competition."
According to Bruce Howard, spokesman for the national federation, state associations "in the strictest sense," don't have to follow the national rules, but they generally do. Howard said he believes that "because of the significance and nature of this rule" all the states will follow it.
Club teams such as Marsh's generally work with top high school athletes as well as Olympic-caliber swimmers. He said that puts him in a tricky position.
"Dialing back the rules in my purist sense is probably a good thing," he said. "In my efforts to coach elite swimmers, those guys are having fun in those suits."
from www.usatoday.com/.../2009-08-11-advanced-suits-ban_N.htm
Parents
Former Member
Would you have felt better if I said "and swimmers who buy them poorer (if purely from a cash flow perspective as the suits must have an a utilitarian benefit to the purchasers or they would not have bought them (assuming that the purchasers are rational and they do not feel compelled (wholly or in part) to purchase the suits in order to remain competitive))"?
That would have been awesome. I like this version much better. Thanks for taking the time to lay it out there.
In any event I agree that sentence is a bit of rabble rousing and has little to do with my principle argument, which is that tech suits have no other purpose than to make people faster and are therefore distinguishable from other improvements to our sport which have the fringe benefit of making people faster (and THEREFORE tech suits are not a legitimate innovation and it is reasonable to ban them).
This argument contains the underlying assumption that the intent to increase a swimmer's speed is sufficient justification for banning. This assumption is not shared by all. (Also: rabble rabble!)
And while we're on that topic, please explain how, given that FINA, USA-S and now high school swimming have all banned the tech suits, my statement that many people find the suits illegitimate is nonsense. If anybody's statements are "rabble rousing nonsense" I would say that yours so far qualify for that distinction much more than mine...:shakeshead:
Setting aside the ad hominem fallacy contained within, the fact that this forum has been absorbed by this topic for months indicates clearly that the common opinion is far from unanimous.
Would you have felt better if I said "and swimmers who buy them poorer (if purely from a cash flow perspective as the suits must have an a utilitarian benefit to the purchasers or they would not have bought them (assuming that the purchasers are rational and they do not feel compelled (wholly or in part) to purchase the suits in order to remain competitive))"?
That would have been awesome. I like this version much better. Thanks for taking the time to lay it out there.
In any event I agree that sentence is a bit of rabble rousing and has little to do with my principle argument, which is that tech suits have no other purpose than to make people faster and are therefore distinguishable from other improvements to our sport which have the fringe benefit of making people faster (and THEREFORE tech suits are not a legitimate innovation and it is reasonable to ban them).
This argument contains the underlying assumption that the intent to increase a swimmer's speed is sufficient justification for banning. This assumption is not shared by all. (Also: rabble rabble!)
And while we're on that topic, please explain how, given that FINA, USA-S and now high school swimming have all banned the tech suits, my statement that many people find the suits illegitimate is nonsense. If anybody's statements are "rabble rousing nonsense" I would say that yours so far qualify for that distinction much more than mine...:shakeshead:
Setting aside the ad hominem fallacy contained within, the fact that this forum has been absorbed by this topic for months indicates clearly that the common opinion is far from unanimous.
