If the suits remain legal for masters, then they are part of the equation to going as fast as I can. If FINA or USMS does ban them, then they won't be part of the equation to going faster, which won't necessarily be a bad thing. But I do hope we at least keep the textile ones legal. Another reason I would spend money on a bodysuit is that I really don't want to shave. Yea, I know there people who don't like that argument but unless you are somewhat hairy to really hairy, you have no idea how bad it is to shave. Someone said that even if you do wear a suit, you still have to shave. No, you really don't. Yea, some hair will stick through the suit but a bodysuit will still cut down on drastically on the drag created by the body hair.
Actually the shaving thing is one reason other than speed that sounds reasonably legit. But I don't see why masters swimmers are any different than other swimmers in this regard. "It's only masters," if you don't like shaving, don't do it.
Right, and all the speculation up until now that precipitated this irrational decision was inherently justified? For the purity of the sport?
You should know, this isn't about what's good for the sport. This is about the first time in history there has been a political challenger to the throne, and nepotism cut the heir off at the knees!
FINA originally adopted the suits because they were pressured to do so (by the manufacturers). Banning them was no different, they just went with the prevailing winds (this time blowing from coaches and swimmers).
Bottom line: FINA and many other bodies have made a decision. When FINA allowed dolphin kicks in breaststroke, should USMS alone refuse the new rules if they deem it a "wrong" decision? Same with any other rule change. I think there is a burden is on the pro-tech people to say why USMS shouldn't follow the same rules as other swimming orgnizations.
I readily admit that there are some ways that masters are unique. Allowing in-water starts or butterfrog are examples of "special" rules.
So: are there other reasons why should the suits be treated as a special case?
This is an honest question. If the suit thing comes up at Convention I want to represent my LMSC, not just my own personal preference, so I'd like to hear all the possible arguments. I'll definitely vote against my preference if I think it serves my LMSC better. I voted for a wetsuit category at national OW champs last year even thogh I would never wear one myself.
If other international masters organizations keep the suits, then that is another good argument for USMS to do so. Then the question is, should USMS advocate for an international suit ban, as USS did? Personally I would say yes b/c I like masters to be as similar as possible to "regular" swimming but I'll vote for what serves my LMSC best.
If the suits remain legal for masters, then they are part of the equation to going as fast as I can. If FINA or USMS does ban them, then they won't be part of the equation to going faster, which won't necessarily be a bad thing. But I do hope we at least keep the textile ones legal. Another reason I would spend money on a bodysuit is that I really don't want to shave. Yea, I know there people who don't like that argument but unless you are somewhat hairy to really hairy, you have no idea how bad it is to shave. Someone said that even if you do wear a suit, you still have to shave. No, you really don't. Yea, some hair will stick through the suit but a bodysuit will still cut down on drastically on the drag created by the body hair.
Actually the shaving thing is one reason other than speed that sounds reasonably legit. But I don't see why masters swimmers are any different than other swimmers in this regard. "It's only masters," if you don't like shaving, don't do it.
Right, and all the speculation up until now that precipitated this irrational decision was inherently justified? For the purity of the sport?
You should know, this isn't about what's good for the sport. This is about the first time in history there has been a political challenger to the throne, and nepotism cut the heir off at the knees!
FINA originally adopted the suits because they were pressured to do so (by the manufacturers). Banning them was no different, they just went with the prevailing winds (this time blowing from coaches and swimmers).
Bottom line: FINA and many other bodies have made a decision. When FINA allowed dolphin kicks in breaststroke, should USMS alone refuse the new rules if they deem it a "wrong" decision? Same with any other rule change. I think there is a burden is on the pro-tech people to say why USMS shouldn't follow the same rules as other swimming orgnizations.
I readily admit that there are some ways that masters are unique. Allowing in-water starts or butterfrog are examples of "special" rules.
So: are there other reasons why should the suits be treated as a special case?
This is an honest question. If the suit thing comes up at Convention I want to represent my LMSC, not just my own personal preference, so I'd like to hear all the possible arguments. I'll definitely vote against my preference if I think it serves my LMSC better. I voted for a wetsuit category at national OW champs last year even thogh I would never wear one myself.
If other international masters organizations keep the suits, then that is another good argument for USMS to do so. Then the question is, should USMS advocate for an international suit ban, as USS did? Personally I would say yes b/c I like masters to be as similar as possible to "regular" swimming but I'll vote for what serves my LMSC best.
