I started a similar poll before,but time has changed things and I thought since USMS is going to have to do something definitive so they should have some input from the forumites
1. The "purist" label wasn't foisted on those favoring the ban. Most claimed it themselves and constantly used the word "pure" to defend their position and denounce others as inferior or cheaters or lazy.
2. The tech suit wasn't an unwritten legally dubious loophole. They were worn after they were explicitly approved by FINA.
3. What do you know of our motivations or times? Perhaps I want to swim in mine because it helps my damn shoulders, for all you know.
4. I just competed in a wetsuit. Before doing so, I compared my times in a pool with and without a wetsuit and noticed a HUGE difference. I already know what the difference between tank and B70 is. A wetsuit is a whole 'nother ballpark, dude. Yet, despite this huge advantage, I don't want to wear a fat squashy extraordinarily floaty wetsuit in a pool. Just a fast speed suit -- without it being cut off at the knees or ripping all the time or instantly stretching out.
5. Again, you don't know my motivations, and I have posted different ones than you list derisively above. As for the "fountain of youth," this is absurd and has no relationship to my masters swim career whatsoever. You are really presumptuous.
But you are right about one thing -- you're on a roll with the moral righteousness. What I find puzzling is why you think this is even remotely desirable.
The tech suits were indeed a humongous loophole. The existing rules didn't prohibit them (which was the loophole) and the envelope was pushed to the point where the suits made people faster than nature would allow. Nothing made suit stacking illegal until the loophole (the lack of a rule against them) was closed. Same is true with tech suits. Nothing made them illegal (and FINA had to admit that under existing rules they *were* legal) until they closed the loophole. You are clearly smart so I suspect you really understand this.
I really do think the only legit argument for or against the suits is that they make a person faster. As far as I have seen, no one else has been able to articulate an objectively rational argument for or against them other than speed. That is my reason for opposing them and I am trying to be very honest about that. I am not claiming cost, modesty, "shoulders" or any other red herring argument.
By the way people may be interested to know that some of the big non-USMS sanctioned open water competitions in the Bay Area that allow wetsuits share my view on tech suits (such as the RCP Tiburon Mile and the Alcatraz Sharkfest Swim). In those events, they lump all full-body tech suits into the "wet suits and other swim aid" category. They are not wrong. Wetsuits and tech suits are different degrees of the same thing.
1. The "purist" label wasn't foisted on those favoring the ban. Most claimed it themselves and constantly used the word "pure" to defend their position and denounce others as inferior or cheaters or lazy.
2. The tech suit wasn't an unwritten legally dubious loophole. They were worn after they were explicitly approved by FINA.
3. What do you know of our motivations or times? Perhaps I want to swim in mine because it helps my damn shoulders, for all you know.
4. I just competed in a wetsuit. Before doing so, I compared my times in a pool with and without a wetsuit and noticed a HUGE difference. I already know what the difference between tank and B70 is. A wetsuit is a whole 'nother ballpark, dude. Yet, despite this huge advantage, I don't want to wear a fat squashy extraordinarily floaty wetsuit in a pool. Just a fast speed suit -- without it being cut off at the knees or ripping all the time or instantly stretching out.
5. Again, you don't know my motivations, and I have posted different ones than you list derisively above. As for the "fountain of youth," this is absurd and has no relationship to my masters swim career whatsoever. You are really presumptuous.
But you are right about one thing -- you're on a roll with the moral righteousness. What I find puzzling is why you think this is even remotely desirable.
The tech suits were indeed a humongous loophole. The existing rules didn't prohibit them (which was the loophole) and the envelope was pushed to the point where the suits made people faster than nature would allow. Nothing made suit stacking illegal until the loophole (the lack of a rule against them) was closed. Same is true with tech suits. Nothing made them illegal (and FINA had to admit that under existing rules they *were* legal) until they closed the loophole. You are clearly smart so I suspect you really understand this.
I really do think the only legit argument for or against the suits is that they make a person faster. As far as I have seen, no one else has been able to articulate an objectively rational argument for or against them other than speed. That is my reason for opposing them and I am trying to be very honest about that. I am not claiming cost, modesty, "shoulders" or any other red herring argument.
By the way people may be interested to know that some of the big non-USMS sanctioned open water competitions in the Bay Area that allow wetsuits share my view on tech suits (such as the RCP Tiburon Mile and the Alcatraz Sharkfest Swim). In those events, they lump all full-body tech suits into the "wet suits and other swim aid" category. They are not wrong. Wetsuits and tech suits are different degrees of the same thing.
