What should USMS do about the suits?

Wetsuits and tech suits are different degrees of the same thing. Ironically, those who claim to be purists have a very small degree of separation from pomposity.

Ironically, those who claim to be purists have a very small degree of separation from pomposity. Hello Pot! I'm Kettle! In interest of full disclosure, I am probably by far the worst swimmer among the people arguing this on either side. I guess that makes me even more "pure" (and knowing that, I hope you find me less pompous)! :D

2. The tech suit wasn't an unwritten legally dubious loophole. They were worn after they were explicitly approved by FINA. I believe what Midas is referring to is that, when the suits were approved, there was a rule prohibiting the use of devices to increase buoyancy and speed. Since the suits were clearly designed to improve speed and are a little buoyant, FINA got around this by declaring that they were "costumes" and not "devices." At least, this is my understanding; I leave it to others to debate whether this was a loophole or not. (Done is done, as far as I'm concerned; I just want to know what to do from here on out.)

I don't think there is any "degree" about B70 swim skins and wetsuits. They are so fundamentally different it is immediately apparent that they are intended for different sports. And wasn't FINA going to regulate thickness? Isn't the B70 1 mm? Draw the line there, easy enough. And you are basing this on a comparison to a 3mm full wetsuit? You can get 1mm wetsuits. The high end ones are made from yamamoto rubber, same as the B70. Those are also marketed with as having hydrophobic properties much like the swim skins. Having seen both, there is very little that is different. The only difference is the way its marketed, swim skin vs wetsuit. Eliminate the wetsuit technologies (like yamamoto rubber) and you will have your line to draw.

I believe what Midas is referring to is that, when the suits were approved, there was a rule prohibiting the use of devices to increase buoyancy and speed. Since the suits were clearly designed to improve speed and are a little buoyant, FINA got around this by declaring that they were "costumes" and not "devices." You're likely right. I was scratching my head what he was talking about otherwise. A "suit" that is "approved" is a loophole?! I don't even want to get started on whether a tech suit is a "device." It's not a wetsuit and it ain't a device like fins. Just like the wetsuits, I likewise know my time differentials with fins. It's a whole different ballgame, folks. A suit is a suit. And it's one suit, singular, not two. FINA didn't have anything to "get around," since one suit is, in fact, "perfectly legal." The two suit phenomenon was immediately snuffed out. The tech suit has been around and evolving for some time now. I'm afraid I can't fathom Midas' comment about Geek being "pompous" either. I've always thought of Geek as anti-pompous and of attempting to squash signs of unbridled ego run amuck or indefensible statements run amuck as in the case of D2.

You're likely right. I was scratching my head what he was talking about otherwise. A "suit" that is "approved" is a loophole?! I don't even want to get started on whether a tech suit is a "device." It's not a wetsuit and it ain't a device like fins. Just like the wetsuits, I likewise know my time differentials with fins. It's a whole different ballgame, folks. A suit is a suit. And it's one suit, singular, not two. FINA didn't have anything to "get around," since one suit is, in fact, "perfectly legal." The two suit phenomenon was immediately snuffed out. The tech suit has been around and evolving for some time now. I'm afraid I can't fathom Midas' comment about Geek being "pompous" either. I've always thought of Geek as anti-pompous and of attempting to squash signs of unbridled ego run amuck or indefensible statements run amuck as in the case of D2. I meant that the rules in effect were not designed for rubberized swim suits, while they did prohibit rubberized wetsuits. People found a way to take wetsuit technology and apply it to swimsuits in a way that allowed people to swim faster than they could in bare skin (which I believe is at least part of the reason wetsuits and suit stacking are not allowed). That is the loophole. The fact that FINA has now banned the suits is the closing of the loophole. Hopefully now it's clear! While I don't care for the name calling, I sure hope Geek took my response to him as "tongue-in-cheek" as I believe he intended his response to me. Some people don't take these things so personally. 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.

As a "so-called purist" (and we are only "so-called" that by people who intend it as a derisive term), I hate the compromise. But I like the compromise about a million times more than permitting the continued use of the "tech suits". I believe that an FS Pro kneeskin will be allowed if the compromise is adopted by FINA. Is that not a tech suit also? And by the way, how are you planning to repurify yourself?

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.

Right. But my point is, did we make this recommendation 1). because we agree with FINA that tech suits are performance enhancing and should be strictly regulated (if not banned entirely), or 2). because we were trying to be proactive and secure permission to continue wearing tech suits before FINA extended the ban to Masters swimming? They did it to be proactive in trying to find a middle ground between members who really don't like the suits and those who really like them. I have been against suit stacking and in favor of a two suit ban since I learned people were doing this. I have always supported a one swimmer-one suit rule and the rule uses the word or phrase "suit" or "swim costume" in the singular. In fact, we had a discussion awhile back about the possible ethical dilemma of wearing two suits. You stated that it was technically ethical because the rules had an apparent loophole. I said it wasn't because rules and ethics aren't necessary co-extensive, and I thought the rule should have been interpreted to preclude suit stacking. So, one swimmer-one suit, but no reason it can't be a damn fast suit. I don't see runners and tris wearing basketball shorts and drag gear in races ... Despite your interpretation, Counselor, "suit stacking" was perfectly legal. Why else would they need to institute a separate rule prohibiting it? I remember the conversation well, and what I questioned then (and now) is the seeming inconsistency in your position. If you favor one suit, then why not two? Or a single wetsuit? Sure, both are currently against the rules. But for non-masters (after Jan 1, anyway), so is the LZR and Jaked, etc. You and others have argued that such rules shouldn't apply to masters because...well, I don't know exactly why. Something to do with shaving and "it's only masters" and swimming fast. But why stop there? Why not allow wetsuits? My conclusion then (as now) is that a person who has no problem with performance-enhancing suits should have no qualms wearing a wetsuit in pool competition (other than the small fact that, right now, that would be cheating). Blueseventy makes them too, right? Much more durable than FS-Pros or even swimskins. I am still not saying that a desire to wear a wetsuit in competition is morally repugnant. But IMO this road does lead to a different sort of sport than the one that Phelps et al will be doing.

I don't even want to get started on whether a tech suit is a "device." 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...