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
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 on 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!
Don't shoot the messenger. USMS has a policy of adopting USA-S rules unless there is a reason not to do so. The Rules Committee had last minute meetings to discuss the new USA-S rules passed at Convention (most had to do with disabilities).
The interpretation was not unexpressed at all; when asked why the words were deleted, the Rules Chair said in front of 200 people that they are redundant b/c the Rules Committee interprets the rule to mean swimwear. I agree with you that is a little fishy b/c I am in favor of plain language over innuendo or interpretation; apparently USA-S is too.
The only thing I can think is -- if the interpretation is correct -- that the suits need to be proven to be an aid to speed/endurance etc before they are covered by this rule.
The main reason I brought it up is b/c "swimwear" is now explicitly covered in the USA-S rules. I think that is also true of the FINA rules but I have a hard time finding those.
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 on 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!
Don't shoot the messenger. USMS has a policy of adopting USA-S rules unless there is a reason not to do so. The Rules Committee had last minute meetings to discuss the new USA-S rules passed at Convention (most had to do with disabilities).
The interpretation was not unexpressed at all; when asked why the words were deleted, the Rules Chair said in front of 200 people that they are redundant b/c the Rules Committee interprets the rule to mean swimwear. I agree with you that is a little fishy b/c I am in favor of plain language over innuendo or interpretation; apparently USA-S is too.
The only thing I can think is -- if the interpretation is correct -- that the suits need to be proven to be an aid to speed/endurance etc before they are covered by this rule.
The main reason I brought it up is b/c "swimwear" is now explicitly covered in the USA-S rules. I think that is also true of the FINA rules but I have a hard time finding those.
