Sure its not fair at all if a kid has to play golf with a $50 set from Walmart against rich kids with $400 drivers. Swimming doesn't have to be that way unless we want to make it that way. It used to always be in swimming that with a $20 suit and a pair of goggles it was a level playing field.
When all decent arguments on this subject are exhausted we see the old class warfare card played. And, here it is again.
The only argument more loco mcstupider is when a biker tells me that swimming should limit technology.
No argument on that, but I don't think the fact that the horse has left the barn is a good reason to not push him back in :)
I would agree if that's what FINA did but in this case they just shot it.
OK, here are my views on this:
1) Full body suits should be allowed but they must conform to strict specifications with regards to content (textiles only), permeability and bouyancy.
2) FINA should have drawn the line in the sand using what was legal in 2007 (a tip of the hat to Wookiee on that one, I happen to agree with him)
3) Jammers and tanks are the required swimming apparel for all swimmers 12&U. Other approved swim wear may be used by swimmers 13-18 but only in Open and/or National level championship meets
But in the end, I will swim in whatever is determined to be the current legal swim wear.
Heck, I was only off my PB in 50 back at LCM Nats by .10 and that was in a brief.
I just happen to believe that FINA is being way too draconian in hitting the reset button and will inflict both short term and lasting long term damage on the sport of swimming. I also feel that FINA has been sorely remiss in it's actions, especially with the economic challenges that swimming continues to face.
1) Full body suits should be allowed but they must conform to strict specifications with regards to content (textiles only), permeability and bouyancy.
My feeling is FINA would have allowed full body suits if they felt confident they could limit the technology. I think they were afraid the suit companies would find loopholes to get around whatever specs were put in place. By limiting coverage it gives the manufacturers much less to work with in this regard.
My feeling is FINA would have allowed full body suits if they felt confident they could limit the technology. I think they were afraid the suit companies would find loopholes to get around whatever specs were put in place. By limiting coverage it gives the manufacturers much less to work with in this regard.
I agree. I also wonder how expensive it was getting to do the testing, defend challenges from the manufacturers when their suits were left off the list, and just the general hassle and distraction. I would imagine that the additional testing and legal expenses might have influenced the decision a bit too. So, if no other organization allows tech suits other than masters swimming, who takes on the testing and approval burden? Or because it is only masters are we just going to trust the manufacturers and participants that their suits meet whatever guidelines USMS were to come up with? It just seems like you end up with allowing anything goes or following FINA.
Tim
My feeling is FINA would have allowed full body suits if they felt confident they could limit the technology. I think they were afraid the suit companies would find loopholes to get around whatever specs were put in place. By limiting coverage it gives the manufacturers much less to work with in this regard.
The problem is no one can/could agree on the material restrictions.
While I get everyone's feelings that FINA, USA and HS have already made their decisions so why not follow, maybe this is an opportunity for cooler heads to prevail and USMS can actually put some thought into a ruling rather than just making a snap decision to end the drama. Which is basically what FINA did.
The information and decisions out of USMS could be used to help create proper rules and regulations for FINA to keep this from ever being an issue again.
Swimwear is pretty much the last straw for swimming technology, or allowing you to synthetically go faster otherwise. They're racing against each other just as they did 100 years ago. Imagine the Tour de France with teams issued mandatory 37lb Huffy's to complete the tour so times can be comparable on some classic stages as they did 50 years ago. But again imagine swimming competitors wearing a torpedo shaped suits allowing them to coast 25 meters from the start.
No matter how you look at it, a happy medium needs to be made
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).
