At one point track & field, manufacturers came out with spiked shoes. People with spiked shoes went faster. Athletes could choose to wear them or not.
I hear the "swimmers can choose not to wear them" a lot, and I have followed that advice just fine in the past, wearing both briefs and jammers to season-ending meets in the past two years. I have also worn the tech-suits on many occasions.
But pro-tech people who make this argument are trying to imply an assymetry to the sides that isn't there. As in: allow the suits and you satisfy everybody -- though that is manifestly not the case, hence the many threads devoted to the topic -- because those who like them can buy and wear them, and those who don't like them can compete in old-style suits.
But to anyone who is the least bit competitive but doesn't like the suits, the situation of "anything goes" lessens their enjoyment of the sport a little bit. I would argue that it does so to a roughly comparable extent as the situation where the pro-techies were forced to give up their suits and wear older suits. I know of at least one person who told me (unprompted) that she wasn't going to nationals this year because she didn't want to buy one of the suits but her competitors would all be wearing them.
It does no good to pooh-pooh this person as a luddite or an "overly serious" swimmer who should just get over it. You can make similar rebuttals to tech-suit lovers as people who just want to just buy their speed and tell them they are "overly serious" and should just get over it. Both arguments have some elements of truth but are largely unfair.
IMO if you ignore the pricing issue there is no moral certitude here, just personal preference.
I've heard of three basic choices at this point:
(1) Follow FINA and USS to the letter.
(2) Anything goes
(3) Some compromise, eg textile materials but with increased coverage, such as allowing men the same coverage as women. (As an aside, it still makes me smile to think of this. For many years women were at a disadvantage b/c their suits were more expensive and slowed them down more than men's suits. Now all of a sudden men want what women got, but without having to experience labor/delivery pains...)
Certainly there will be implementation issues with each potential choice (eg, the matter of enforcement, or the fact that manufacturers might not continue to make the suits even if we choose "anything goes).
So currently -- aside from my personal preference -- I am at the point where
-- I wonder which choice will be most beneficial to USMS in the long term, in the sense of increasing participation and maximizing enjoyment of meets (pure utilitarian reasoning).
-- I have to think that, for "purity of sport reasons" that there has to be reasonably strong arguments in favor of the suits for USMS to go its own way (throwing in an element of Kant here).
At one point track & field, manufacturers came out with spiked shoes. People with spiked shoes went faster. Athletes could choose to wear them or not.
I hear the "swimmers can choose not to wear them" a lot, and I have followed that advice just fine in the past, wearing both briefs and jammers to season-ending meets in the past two years. I have also worn the tech-suits on many occasions.
But pro-tech people who make this argument are trying to imply an assymetry to the sides that isn't there. As in: allow the suits and you satisfy everybody -- though that is manifestly not the case, hence the many threads devoted to the topic -- because those who like them can buy and wear them, and those who don't like them can compete in old-style suits.
But to anyone who is the least bit competitive but doesn't like the suits, the situation of "anything goes" lessens their enjoyment of the sport a little bit. I would argue that it does so to a roughly comparable extent as the situation where the pro-techies were forced to give up their suits and wear older suits. I know of at least one person who told me (unprompted) that she wasn't going to nationals this year because she didn't want to buy one of the suits but her competitors would all be wearing them.
It does no good to pooh-pooh this person as a luddite or an "overly serious" swimmer who should just get over it. You can make similar rebuttals to tech-suit lovers as people who just want to just buy their speed and tell them they are "overly serious" and should just get over it. Both arguments have some elements of truth but are largely unfair.
IMO if you ignore the pricing issue there is no moral certitude here, just personal preference.
I've heard of three basic choices at this point:
(1) Follow FINA and USS to the letter.
(2) Anything goes
(3) Some compromise, eg textile materials but with increased coverage, such as allowing men the same coverage as women. (As an aside, it still makes me smile to think of this. For many years women were at a disadvantage b/c their suits were more expensive and slowed them down more than men's suits. Now all of a sudden men want what women got, but without having to experience labor/delivery pains...)
Certainly there will be implementation issues with each potential choice (eg, the matter of enforcement, or the fact that manufacturers might not continue to make the suits even if we choose "anything goes).
So currently -- aside from my personal preference -- I am at the point where
-- I wonder which choice will be most beneficial to USMS in the long term, in the sense of increasing participation and maximizing enjoyment of meets (pure utilitarian reasoning).
-- I have to think that, for "purity of sport reasons" that there has to be reasonably strong arguments in favor of the suits for USMS to go its own way (throwing in an element of Kant here).
