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
Logical fallacy detected: appeal to ignorance. The burden lies on you to prove the assertion that the suits are of unequal benefit to different people, and even if that were proven, it would then be necessary to prove that this is unfair.
The burden lies on me? The burden lies with the governing bodies of the sport who have access to the appropriate science.
Frankly, I give up. If no one here thinks it's possible that one swimmer could be affected differently than another, then I am not going to try and convince you because I don't know.
Serving a tennis ball at a high speed may not be an equivalent argument, since the fastest server doesn't always win (in fact rarely). The fastest swimmer does and we are not sure whether or not that was because of the swimmer or the suit.
So how is unfair if you and I race in B70s? Where is the unfair advantage in that race?
None. It's just that both of our times are suspect because the suits likely made us faster. I don't want people saying "Paul and Keith had a great race, but they only went as fast as they did because of the suits."
Having said that, if we just permitted the suits I would guess that within a couple of years (maybe less) they probably would become part of the status quo and nobody would be making such a big fuss over them any more. I presume that is what you are advocating.
I understand that other innovations in our sport, such as starting blocks, wave canceling lane lines, goggles, etc. both impact my performance and are already part of the accepted status quo. My view is that, unlike those other innovations, everything was working just fine before the tech suits and there's no reason to change the status quo for them.
But that's my opinion. Fortunately for me, many governing bodies appear to share my viewpoint. I would like the governing body that I am a specific member of (USMS) to adopt a similar viewpoint. I understand that you are advocating for the opposite approach.
But most importantly, I'm looking forward to having this issue resolved and getting back to discussing training, racing techniques, swimming techniques and who Michael Phelps is or isn't dating.
As it has been mentioned multiple times on this forum, we are aided by many factors that we accept as part of the status quo--including pool design ("fast pools" vs "slow pools") and lane ropes, goggles and caps. Surprisingly, no one had addressed swim suit design in decades.
All other innovations had a reasonable primary purpose other than purely to make people faster.
Problem--Solution
Problem--Swimming causes wake and makes the water choppy. This is no fun. Solution--Deeper pools, better gutter design and better lane lines. Fringe Benefit--People swim faster, but this seems legit.
Problem--Chlorine hurts people's eyes and underwater is very blurry. Solution--Goggles. Fringe Benefit--people can swim faster because they can see where they are going, but this seems legit.
Problem--I love my hair but it gets in my eyes and definitely causes drag. I can shave my head, but that sucks. Solution--Caps. Fringe Benefit--People swim faster, but fair enough. They could have accomplished this by shaving their heads and that seems lame.
Problem--Diving off the side of the pool is awkward. There's nowhere to grip, etc. Solution--Starting blocks. Fringe Benefit--Makes people faster, but seems legit. By the way, the fact that swimming races start from a dive is SO ingrained in the history of the sport at this point as to be unassailable. Sure, we could start races from in the water, but that debate needed to happen in the 1800s or very early 1900s.
Problem--I just want to swim faster than I otherwise could. Solution--Jaked, Arena X-Glied, Blue Seventy, Speedo LZR, etc. Fringe Benefit--Makes swimsuit companies richer and swimmers poorer. Seems illegitimate to many.
So psychological boosts must be eliminated? Also soon to be outlawed: lucky pre-meet meals, teammates cheering you on, and a hug from your mom.
Pretty funny.
:applaud: I'm sure there will be many happy parents out there relieved that they no longer have to shell out several hundred dollars for their kids to have the best racing suits.
wookiee - My plans to go to LC Nationals were thwarted as was my chance to wear my B-70 in a race. Just to get my money's worth, I plan to wear mine as long as it is allowed in masters competition. I'm slightly tempted not to wear it as the times done will be unrealistic standards in the future.
I fixed that typo for you. :D
Please explain how, at $400-$500 a pop the suits are not making the manufacturers richer and swimmers poorer? 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))"? 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).
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:
"High-tech suits generally prove more helpful to lower-level swimmers than Olympians."
Enough said, ban all the high tech suit and make it fair for everyone. Even master swimmers…
And is it fair that some of us will always be mediocre no matter how much we train?
That having been said, it is a relief to know that as a result of the ban we will not be seeing lower level swimmers with flotation problems edging out elite swimmers for a spot on the Olympic team.
Actually, yes.
Thanks for clearing that up.
I could be mistaken, but the last time I checked their website, it appeared to me that Blue Seventy would sell one of their suits to anyone.
