What should USMS do about the suits?

The compromise makes an arbitrary distinction between tech suits (kneeskin in, bodyskin and legskin out; compressive textile in, compressive polyurethane out) and in so doing undermines both the spirit and the intent of the new FINA regulations. We all agree that any tech suit (be it an FSII, an FS Pro, an LZR, or a Jaked) is performance enhancing. Either we allow them, or we don't. Are we saying that we need chest coverage because we are a bunch of old swimmers? I find that insulting and would rather we just go with Lycra jammers and briefs without zippers or compressive panels. I own two pairs of FS I legskins, one FS II full bodyskin (included in a gift package to our team from Klete Keller a few years ago), and a Blue Seventy. None of these will be legal. Assuming FINA approves the proposed compromise, what is the likelihood that kneeskins will even be available moving forward? It isn't arbitrary, you just don't agree with (or are unaware of) the reasoning. The justification for the shape is that men have the same amount of coverage as women in the FINA specification for elites. The justification for zippers was twofold: masters are more likely to be "full bodied" and need the zippers, and some masters who have flexibility problems find the zippers helpful in getting into the suits. Sorry that you don't want a compromise of any sort. I'm sure that the men who don't like to shave their bodies are at least a little happy with the expanded coverage. As far as availability of the men's kneeskins: who knows. I think someone reported that Blueseventy would manufacture master-only suits. It is beyond USMS' control and is going to be a problem with any ruling that differs with FINA's specifications for elites. Besides kneeskins, it may be a problem to get women's suits with zippers too. Manufacturers and stores need to decide whether their is enough of a market to make and stock the suits for masters only. I don't see any way around this if you want tech suits. because the two suitin issue was found more in NCAA swimming, and even at that, it was not a very popular technique. The moment it spread to USA/international scene, fina banned it. Most people didn't know the benefits of it until it had already been banned. This reasoning doesn't pass the smell test. I know masters swimmers who used double suits. And just as with FINA's latest ruling on suits, USMS could have decided to go its own way. What about wetsuits? That's the best bang for your buck in performance-enhancing technology and they've been around for a long time. Why haven't the pro-tech people been pressing for their adoption? A little bit of performance-enhancement is okay but not too much? How much is too much? I'm just trying to figure out the reasoning here. By the way, USMS also adopted the following new Rule (slightly amended from USA-S): "102.14 SWIMWEAR 102.14.2 Swimmers are not permitted to wear or use any device or substance to help their speed, pace, buoyancy or endurance during a race (such as webbed gloves, flippers, fins, etc). Goggles may be worn, and rubdown oil applied if not considered excessive by the Referee. Any kind of tape on the body is not permitted unless approved by the Referee." The Rule differs slightly from USA-S' in that the first line of the USA-S Rule reads "...any device or substance or swimsuit to help their speed..." When asked about this, the Rule Committee chair said that the Rules Committee's interpretation is that the "swimsuit" portion is implicit in the ruling (which is describing Swimwear). There was some discussion about legitimite medical uses of tape. Also this so called "compromise" HEAVILY benefits men while adding virtually no benefits for women! Why should men have less performance-enhancement than women? (Keep in mind that I favor jammers for men, I'm just telling you what the argument would be.) The original FINA ruling for elites could be seen as more restrictive for men than women, and the compromise just addresses that. I don't think that the zippers are "virtually no benefit," though.

The compromise makes an arbitrary distinction between tech suits (kneeskin in, bodyskin and legskin out; compressive textile in, compressive polyurethane out) and in so doing undermines both the spirit and the intent of the new FINA regulations. We all agree that any tech suit (be it an FSII, an FS Pro, an LZR, or a Jaked) is performance enhancing. Either we allow them, or we don't. Are we saying that we need chest coverage because we are a bunch of old swimmers? I find that insulting and would rather we just go with Lycra jammers and briefs without zippers or compressive panels. I own two pairs of FS I legskins, one FS II full bodyskin (included in a gift package to our team from Klete Keller a few years ago), and a Blue Seventy. None of these will be legal. Assuming FINA approves the proposed compromise, what is the likelihood that kneeskins will even be available moving forward? It isn't arbitrary, you just don't agree with (or are unaware of) the reasoning. The justification for the shape is that men have the same amount of coverage as women in the FINA specification for elites. The justification for zippers was twofold: masters are more likely to be "full bodied" and need the zippers, and some masters who have flexibility problems find the zippers helpful in getting into the suits. Sorry that you don't want a compromise of any sort. I'm sure that the men who don't like to shave their bodies are at least a little happy with the expanded coverage. As far as availability of the men's kneeskins: who knows. I think someone reported that Blueseventy would manufacture master-only suits. It is beyond USMS' control and is going to be a problem with any ruling that differs with FINA's specifications for elites. Besides kneeskins, it may be a problem to get women's suits with zippers too. Manufacturers and stores need to decide whether their is enough of a market to make and stock the suits for masters only. I don't see any way around this if you want tech suits. because the two suitin issue was found more in NCAA swimming, and even at that, it was not a very popular technique. The moment it spread to USA/international scene, fina banned it. Most people didn't know the benefits of it until it had already been banned. This reasoning doesn't pass the smell test. I know masters swimmers who used double suits. And just as with FINA's latest ruling on suits, USMS could have decided to go its own way. What about wetsuits? That's the best bang for your buck in performance-enhancing technology and they've been around for a long time. Why haven't the pro-tech people been pressing for their adoption? A little bit of performance-enhancement is okay but not too much? How much is too much? I'm just trying to figure out the reasoning here. By the way, USMS also adopted the following new Rule (slightly amended from USA-S): "102.14 SWIMWEAR 102.14.2 Swimmers are not permitted to wear or use any device or substance to help their speed, pace, buoyancy or endurance during a race (such as webbed gloves, flippers, fins, etc). Goggles may be worn, and rubdown oil applied if not considered excessive by the Referee. Any kind of tape on the body is not permitted unless approved by the Referee." The Rule differs slightly from USA-S' in that the first line of the USA-S Rule reads "...any device or substance or swimsuit to help their speed..." When asked about this, the Rule Committee chair said that the Rules Committee's interpretation is that the "swimsuit" portion is implicit in the ruling (which is describing Swimwear). There was some discussion about legitimite medical uses of tape. Also this so called "compromise" HEAVILY benefits men while adding virtually no benefits for women! Why should men have less performance-enhancement than women? (Keep in mind that I favor jammers for men, I'm just telling you what the argument would be.) The original FINA ruling for elites could be seen as more restrictive for men than women, and the compromise just addresses that. I don't think that the zippers are "virtually no benefit," though.