What should USMS do about the suits?

I mentioned earlier that the new USA-S rules specifically forbid wearing any device OR SWIMSUIT that helps "speed, pace, buoyancy or endurance." USMS passed the same rule but deleted the "or swimsuit" part. But the USMS Rules Committee chair said that the deletion wasn't because such swimsuits are allowed but that they are implied by the placement of the Rule under "swimwear," and that the committee interprets it that way. If so, then I don't see how the B70 or similar suits can be consider legal at this time (the rule was approved), but no one talked about that...this was at the very end and everyone was eager to begin heavy drinking... How could this interpretation be correct? First, USMS has not announced any official change in policy since it last declared that the tech suits were legal. USMS just "proposed" a masters swimwear rule to FINA. That proposal recommends use of a performance enhancing suit (that would be illegal under the "implication" posited above). That proposal acknowledges that FINA has yet to revise its current policy on masters swimwear and will reconsider it on Sept 25-26. USMS will then have to assess and adopt a response. So USMS and FINA's last word on masters is that the suits are legal. Why on earth would USMS adopt a supposedly "new" swimwear rule -- with this hidden implication -- at convention, fail to announce this fact to its swimmers who are competing in meets every weekend, and then propose a completely contrary rule to FINA? Indeed, why propose anything to FINA if it had already promulgated a new "rule?" Nope, it's quite clear that USMS has made no new official ruling renouncing the particular suits in question, and thus I'm wearing my B70 next Saturday for sure. Second, some unexpressed interpretation/implication is not controlling in interpreting a regulation or rule. The plain language of the rule governs. By deleting the word "swimsuit," USMS deviated from USA-S policy in a clear way. The fact that the heading is "swimwear" doesn't change this analysis. Interpreting the existing rule under its current language would simply mean you can't "wear" a device like fins or watches or other external things which are not a "suit" to enhance performance. It must have been the heavy drinking ... which I can see as totally necessary after digesting all the minutiae!

I mentioned earlier that the new USA-S rules specifically forbid wearing any device OR SWIMSUIT that helps "speed, pace, buoyancy or endurance." USMS passed the same rule but deleted the "or swimsuit" part. But the USMS Rules Committee chair said that the deletion wasn't because such swimsuits are allowed but that they are implied by the placement of the Rule under "swimwear," and that the committee interprets it that way. If so, then I don't see how the B70 or similar suits can be consider legal at this time (the rule was approved), but no one talked about that...this was at the very end and everyone was eager to begin heavy drinking... How could this interpretation be correct? First, USMS has not announced any official change in policy since it last declared that the tech suits were legal. USMS just "proposed" a masters swimwear rule to FINA. That proposal recommends use of a performance enhancing suit (that would be illegal under the "implication" posited above). That proposal acknowledges that FINA has yet to revise its current policy on masters swimwear and will reconsider it on Sept 25-26. USMS will then have to assess and adopt a response. So USMS and FINA's last word on masters is that the suits are legal. Why on earth would USMS adopt a supposedly "new" swimwear rule -- with this hidden implication -- at convention, fail to announce this fact to its swimmers who are competing in meets every weekend, and then propose a completely contrary rule to FINA? Indeed, why propose anything to FINA if it had already promulgated a new "rule?" Nope, it's quite clear that USMS has made no new official ruling renouncing the particular suits in question, and thus I'm wearing my B70 next Saturday for sure. Second, some unexpressed interpretation/implication is not controlling in interpreting a regulation or rule. The plain language of the rule governs. By deleting the word "swimsuit," USMS deviated from USA-S policy in a clear way. The fact that the heading is "swimwear" doesn't change this analysis. Interpreting the existing rule under its current language would simply mean you can't "wear" a device like fins or watches or other external things which are not a "suit" to enhance performance. It must have been the heavy drinking ... which I can see as totally necessary after digesting all the minutiae!