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
Former Member
I only got a season and a half out of high school swimming before an inguinal hernia took me out. This was before tech suits though, males wore jammers and briefs, females wore one pieces.
Personally I'm going to swim because I love to swim. I want to know that my speed in relation to another person's depends solely on the difference in training, nutrition, and motivation.
If I had to deal with swimming my heats in high school and being the only person not in a tech suit it would have been very upsetting. My family didn't have a lot of money, $550 for a LZR would have been much better spent on food for the house.
I think this decision really levels the playing field for kids looking to pursue their love for swimming, and furthering their education that may not be as fortunate as others with their financial background.
Really, where? How do goggles fit into that unaided argument?
See my post above on why goggles were introduced and why they are an acceptable innovation to the basic premise of getting across the pool fastest.
Regardless, your comment was about fairness and there is a great possibility that a high tech swimsuit has a very different effect on different swimmers and different body types...Why not just let people wear fins? It will make them swim faster, some more than others.
Where is the proof that the tech suits aid certain swimmers more than others?
The "why not just let them wear fins?" argument is getting old, a version of the "slippery slope" line of reasoning. We are talking about swim suits, some form of which we all agree should be worn.
How many of us(masters) will use their tech(b70, xglide, jaked) or full body suit(fs pro, arena powerskin, tyr suits) until Jan. 1?
How many of us will start using a jammers/briefs at their next meet?
Anyone hazard a guess that the suit issue would pretty much go away if they were $35 -$50 a pop instead of $300-$500.
Ssh! You're saying sensible things. That won't do here! :D
(races in a $30 Yingfa bodysuit)
I think the issue is that we don't know that it is fair for 2 swimmers to have the same exact buoyancy aiding suit on. We don't know if that additional buoyancy affects one swimmer differently than it does another. From what I have seen, it seems to benefit some more than others.
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.
I think the issue is that we don't know that it is fair for 2 swimmers to have the same exact buoyancy aiding suit on. We don't know if that additional buoyancy affects one swimmer differently than it does another. From what I have seen, it seems to benefit some more than others.
Andy Roddick has the fastest serve in tennis. The graphite racket seems to benefit him more than everyone else. Makes you wonder why USTA would allow such an inequity rather than banning the rackets altogether.
Anyone hazard a guess that the suit issue would pretty much go away if they were $35 -$50 a pop instead of $300-$500.
I haven't been following it for very long, but it seems like the issue started at the elite level (olympic level swimmers), and has had a trickle down effect.
If there wasn't a trickle down, and tech suits were the same cost as a traditional suit I doubt there would be as many, if any issues at the lower levels of competition.
The pro athletes, and their coaches though have raised a lot of issues over the use of tech suits. If they give an edge to one athlete over another then naturally competitors at lower levels will seek that same edge. Unfortunately for many people the cost of the tech suit with such a limited life span is just not feasible.
There is no way to level the economic playing field for everyone. Some will have access to better facilities, coaching, etc. Others will prevail in spite of not having these advantages. One thing that can be "leveled" is the suit. I think the new requirements are a logical step in correcting a situation that got wildly out of control due to bureaucratic snafus.
The "why not just let them wear fins?" argument is getting old, a version of the "slippery slope" line of reasoning. We are talking about swim suits, some form of which we all agree should be worn.
Why is this argument getting old? I do not understand the difference between using the wet suits and using flippers or hand paddles. In another thread someone called the suits a 'Passive mechanical advantage' but I don't quite recall what he called paddles/fins. I would think a mechanical advantage is still a mechanical advantage. So it's ok to have a little advantage, wet suit. but it's not ok to have a little bit bigger one, fins.
