Rowdy's take on tech suits

That's like saying drug doping scandals are good for cycling, because they increase media coverage.

That's like saying drug doping scandals are good for cycling, because they increase media coverage. Except swimsuits is what we're actually discussing! That's good for the sport.

Is it easier for you to equate a swimsuit with PED use? I don't understand this comment. When did I say that? The idea that swimming "can't" flourish in mainstream media has dissolved! I'll believe that when swimming displaces -- or even comes close to competing with -- NASCAR in my local paper. But whatever popularity swimming DOES have in the US has much more to do with Mr. Phelps than Speedo. (In some other countries, swimming has greater popularity than here, and this happened well before any suit controversies.) The idea that the suits caused swimming to be a mainstream sport is just ludicrous. (Though Ricky Berens' suit malfunction probably did cause a large spike of interest among a certain demographic...)

(I guess I'm not at the point where I equate the two.) Is it easier for you to equate a swimsuit with PED use? So Rowdy's argument for why they were a good thing is interesting but moot. How's that? The media exposure that did occur is irrevocable. The idea that swimming "can't" flourish in mainstream media has dissolved!

I don't understand this comment. When did I say that? Hi Chris, sure we are misquoting each other, but the equivalence between the suits and PED use is being implied, and that is the moral imperative for why they are now actually banned. From this perspective, I see that as a Red Herring based on political interests that are ultimately disingenuous. I'll believe that when swimming displaces -- or even comes close to competing with -- NASCAR in my local paper. Wow, you are a tough sell! I'd be happy with market normalization for all sports, which in all fairness, doesn't have to be complete saturation!

the equivalence between the suits and PED use is being implied, and that is the moral imperative for why they are now actually banned. From this perspective, I see that as a Red Herring based on political interests that are ultimately disingenuous. I have no moral qualms with the suits -- well, maybe a slight one about their price, the whole "social justice" thing (and losing about $500 of suits to a thief at a meet sure didn't improve my outlook on the price issue). My personal position has always been that masters should follow the same rules wrt suits as the elites, no more and no less. That's why I said Rowdy's argument against banning the suit doesn't apply. The suits are banned, the question now is about what masters should do. I don't think TV coverage is really an issue in that debate. I don't get your political interests comment at all. If you look at this: reachforthewall.com/.../ you see that Australia and GB are pressuring FINA to allow body-suits for men, and one reason mentioned is that the sponsors aren't happy with jammers b/c there is little room to have those big logos. So exactly which side is being more accommodating to special interests?

So they want to increase suit size so the logos will be more visible.those who want swimming to be like NASCAR should be glad.

you see that Australia and GB are pressuring FINA to allow body-suits for men, and one reason mentioned is that the sponsors aren't happy with jammers b/c there is little room to have those big logos. So exactly which side is being more accommodating to special interests? Thanks for sharing that link Chris. Maybe there is still hope for business interests in our sport! Or, will we cut the flow off completely? Grown adults should be able to buy and race in any swimsuit they want! Anything less is unconstitutional!

Thanks for sharing that link Chris. Maybe there is still hope for business interests in our sport! Or, will we cut the flow off completely? Grown adults should be able to buy and race in any swimsuit they want! Anything less is unconstitutional! Unconstitutional? Lets not get carried away. The rules of competition are governed by whatever body sanctions the competition. It has nothing to do with US law or politics. In my opinion, the original FINA rules should have been interpreted to not allow most of the recent tech suits, because those suits are performance enhancing devices. Much like the Kitajima dolphin kick, the rules were bent as more and more swimmers pushed the limits with tech suits. Finally the backlash go to be too much and FINA specifically ruled against them. Right now it seems to us that the cat was out of the bag and maybe they waited too long, but only time will tell whether or not that is true. Maybe in hindsight this period will look like nothing more than a blip on the radar of swimming history. Personally I'm glad they put a stop to the ongoing slide toward wetsuits in the pool. As for business interests and swimming popularity, I think the only reason swimming gets any press at all is because of the leftover excitement from the Olympics. Even that isn't much. This stuff seems very important to all of us, but the majority of people don't really care. I can sympathize with your desire to make swimming more popular, but I don't agree that tech suits are the best way to achieve that end. I think the rivalry between Phelps and Cavic is more the type of thing that gets people interested (close finish, trash talking, etc.), but again that could be just me since I actually follow the sport anyway.

Unconstitutional? Lets not get carried away. Some people don't want to buy the suits, and that's entirely their choice! Legislating what everyone else in the world is able to purchase, that's incredulous! What is the real reason for the deflation of the largest market swimming has ever produced? How is that good for the sport?