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
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.
Not shooting you -- you're always cogent, helpful, thoughtful and often funny in your posts.
I'm just calling BS on that "interpretation." Announcing a hidden/unwritten implication/meaning to a group is tantamount to legislative history -- not controlling or even considered given the plain language. And it is entirely illogical given the present set circumstances ... (BTW, "unexpressed" in legal terms means it is not expressed in the written rule; has nothing to do with something said orally.)
Really, can there be any doubt that everyone, including USMS, is awaiting a ruling from FINA and then, and only then, will USMS adopt an official stance or "rule"/clarification/policy on the tech suits?
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.
Not shooting you -- you're always cogent, helpful, thoughtful and often funny in your posts.
I'm just calling BS on that "interpretation." Announcing a hidden/unwritten implication/meaning to a group is tantamount to legislative history -- not controlling or even considered given the plain language. And it is entirely illogical given the present set circumstances ... (BTW, "unexpressed" in legal terms means it is not expressed in the written rule; has nothing to do with something said orally.)
Really, can there be any doubt that everyone, including USMS, is awaiting a ruling from FINA and then, and only then, will USMS adopt an official stance or "rule"/clarification/policy on the tech suits?
