What should USMS do about the suits?

I meant that the rules in effect were not designed for rubberized swim suits I found it interesting that you claim that "a suit is just a suit" and is distinguishable from a wetsuit but (to me) that's ridiculous and I'm sure you know it! If a "tech suit" was just a "suit" then we wouldn't even be having this argument. Like a wetsuit, the current generation of tech suits makes you faster than you are humanly capable of going. Please tell me if I'm wrong about this! You feel there's a difference but you, in fact, are are on the very slippery slope that lawyers love to talk about so much. Edit: Given the hooplah over the last two years, I'm not sure you can honestly say that tech suits are "perfectly legal". I think there has been a lot of controversy and questions about this since the moment the LRZ was first introduced. Take, for example, the lists of banned (and then unbanned) suits from earlier this year. 1. How do you know? Swimsuit material has evolved consistently over time. And the suits were approved right away pursuant to the rule. Real wetsuits have always been disapproved and have never been worn in meets. 2. I didn't say a "suit is just a suit." I said a "suit is a suit," which is to denote that it's not a "device." The word "suit" encompasses more than that which is necessary to cover bare skin. And they have been covering the entire body (and helping us go faster than humanly possible) for a decade now. I see no problem with experimenting with suit material, particularly if less than .4 mm thick. 3. I am a lawyer. I don't think the difference between a .4 mm thick swim skin and a 3-5 mm wetsuit is even remotely slippery. 4. I was using the phraseology "perfectly legal" sort of tongue in cheek in response to Chris. Didn't realize that? However, these suits have been and are currently approved for masters. So they are, in fact, quite legal. Suit stacking was promptly outlawed.

I meant that the rules in effect were not designed for rubberized swim suits I found it interesting that you claim that "a suit is just a suit" and is distinguishable from a wetsuit but (to me) that's ridiculous and I'm sure you know it! If a "tech suit" was just a "suit" then we wouldn't even be having this argument. Like a wetsuit, the current generation of tech suits makes you faster than you are humanly capable of going. Please tell me if I'm wrong about this! You feel there's a difference but you, in fact, are are on the very slippery slope that lawyers love to talk about so much. Edit: Given the hooplah over the last two years, I'm not sure you can honestly say that tech suits are "perfectly legal". I think there has been a lot of controversy and questions about this since the moment the LRZ was first introduced. Take, for example, the lists of banned (and then unbanned) suits from earlier this year. 1. How do you know? Swimsuit material has evolved consistently over time. And the suits were approved right away pursuant to the rule. Real wetsuits have always been disapproved and have never been worn in meets. 2. I didn't say a "suit is just a suit." I said a "suit is a suit," which is to denote that it's not a "device." The word "suit" encompasses more than that which is necessary to cover bare skin. And they have been covering the entire body (and helping us go faster than humanly possible) for a decade now. I see no problem with experimenting with suit material, particularly if less than .4 mm thick. 3. I am a lawyer. I don't think the difference between a .4 mm thick swim skin and a 3-5 mm wetsuit is even remotely slippery. 4. I was using the phraseology "perfectly legal" sort of tongue in cheek in response to Chris. Didn't realize that? However, these suits have been and are currently approved for masters. So they are, in fact, quite legal. Suit stacking was promptly outlawed.