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!

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.

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?

For men, I don't see why they don't reduce the suits down to briefs (I will let FINA define brief). Then they can remove all of the other rules. If a suit company then wants to make high tech briefs of any high tech material, the effect on performance would be significantly reduced, thereby making the effort pointless. A brief with a zipper could be a little scary . . .

I would agree to follow the international Fina Masters into making their decsion next week. I think it is a mistake to follow usa swimming too closely. How serious are we as a body? Is competition our main function? If I were about 70 I'd love a suit that gave me a little boost. If they really do. And we will all find out in the next year if this is much ado about nothing. I personally have worn a fabric suit and a blue seventy in competition, and my results were about the same. I actually liked the fabric better. But again, the bigger question is; were are we going with all of this, and does it really matter? It is amazing how caught up we all get about things like suits. Five minutes after a swim, it is forgotten and we all get on with our lives. So, where do I stand? Just make it fair. If we go tech, Make the suits affordable. If we go fabric, for goodness sakes please cover up the wonderful masters bodies, I say head to toe.

Perhaps we should move on to a topic a little less divisive, like say, public health care...

A brief with a zipper could be a little scary . . . Especially on those occasions when, as we say here in Pittsburgh, "Kennywood's open."

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. Chris, you well know that something may be not be permissible in a rule without a direct explicit ban; it's all in interpreting the language. The intent of the USMS rule, and the use of the singular, means that only one suit was contemplated. The fact that some folks seized on the absence of an outright prohibition to find a loophole and wear two performance enhancing speed suits doesn't mean that it was "perfectly legal" or contemplated by the drafters (perhaps "dubiously" or "marginally" legal is more accurate). Indeed, this is confirmed by the fact that the vast majority of competitive masters swimmers have been wearing one tech suit forever. As Mike notes, though, finding loopholes is quite clever and also in the nature of human innovation. Thus, the so-called loophole was closed, and appropriately so in my view, when USMS and FINA said -- duh -- one suit was it. I don't see any inconsistency in my position. I told you my rationale -- one swimmer, one suit. This is probably the easiest "line" one could ever draw in the sand. Perfectly logical. And, in fact, I have been relatively silent until recently on whether I thought the FINA rules for elites should apply to masters. I didn't get on the bandwagon that masters were different right away. Nor have I ever given the reasons stated above -- shaving, "it's only masters," etc. I certainly have never said we should have the suits just because they're "cool," as Midas attributed to me. I've consistently said I think swimming, like other sports, should progress technologically. (Though I do like the speed, I admit. I'm a sprinter ... :)) My only recent comment on the matter was to agree with Patrick's post earlier in this and another thread. I would like there to be symmetry, but I would most prefer an international masters consensus. If Europe and other masters federations are competing in B70s, that would be my preference as well. I will admit that I'm not overly troubled by competing in a different suit than Michael Phelps. If the USMS compromise rule were adopted, that's what I'd be doing anyway. And if I'm doing that anyway, I'd rather have my B70 than some cobbled together "compromise" suit. More broadly, I've always believed (as many have stated) that regulation was the way to go. Regulation, line drawing, making distinctions are just part of the job of a regulatory/governing body. Total bans and sending the sport back in time is just punting. Since you've endorsed the USMS "compromise," you must agree that lines can be draw too (though you would prefer they not be). And speaking of being bored (as Mike did), I am beyond bored with the comparisons of B70 swim skins to wetsuits. And I would certainly have a "qualm" about wearing a wetsuit in a pool competition. I recently had a chance to wear a wetsuit for the first time. There is no similarity whatsoever between my 2XU wetsuit and my B70. One weighs about 50 pounds more than the other, is dramatically thicker, and is designed for warmth. B70s are NOT wetsuits. Just like OW swimming is not pool swimming. I guess the bottom line is that I don't accept the slippery slope argument, nor the proposition that swimming can only be basic or "pure" with an old fashioned suit. And I am likewise weary of the "cheating" allegations, or the fact that some think people wear these suits to avoid/reduce training. As anyone who reads my blog knows, this is certainly not the case for me. I embrace training and technology.

I am nearly bored of the whole tech suit issue, but I like a good loophole as much as the next off-shore investor. One of my USA-S swimmers asked me, "will the old Nike jammers with the silicon gasket be legal?" Hmm, I thought, "probably not, because the gasket is not a 'textile'." He then asked can suits have elastic in them? Hmm. Not sure. I believe that jammers traditionally use an elastic at the thigh, but that is not a textile. Is that going to be allowed going forward? I am only asking because I find it humorous when FINA "thinks things through" and misses loop holes and is forced to come up with new rules. For men, I don't see why they don't reduce the suits down to briefs (I will let FINA define brief). Then they can remove all of the other rules. If a suit company then wants to make high tech briefs of any high tech material, the effect on performance would be significantly reduced, thereby making the effort pointless. Sure, this doesn't solve the problem of women's suits and it doesn't help Masters swimmers who reportedly like the coverage of the tech suits, but I will let FINA solve those problems, and then unsolve them, and then solve them again and...

So, USMS, ya got screwed by FINA. You made a recommendation on the assumption that it would be acted on at the FINA meeting scheduled a couple weeks hence, but FINA -- in its infinite wisdom -- punted it off until January at the earliest. And it is reasonably foreseeable, if not downright likely, that FINA will -- in its infinite wisdom -- announce in January (or whenever, in its infinite wisdom, it damn well feels like it) that FINA, being focused exclusively on "elites" and "real swimming," doesn't give a fig about masters and what we wear in our silly, cute little "competitions", thereby leaving USMS in the lurch yet again. In the meantime, some of us who do care about our silly, cute little competitions would like to know what exactly we may wear in our silly, cute little competitions. Oh yeah, and it would be really cool if the official pronouncement as to what we could wear wasn't in a complete state of flux on a daily basis. I'm guessing a couple/few of our sponsors would like that, too. Even a rule good for a limited, discrete block of time -- say 6 months -- would be a vast improvement over the current state of affairs. I don't know what it would take at this point for USMS to adopt its own rule. Special session of our legislative body? Executive fiat? Bloody coup? Whatever is required, I urge USMS to get it done. Waiting for FINA has proven to be more existentially pointless than waiting for Godot (or, if you prefer, Guffman). Oh, and about that silly compromise position, with us boys wearing cute little zippered shoulder to knee shorties? If we're cutting the FINA cord, how about revisiting that to allow the use of suits that are actually manufactured and that we actually own? By my count, the percentage of men wearing shortys at any meet is somewhere in the vicinity of .00003. If you want to limit tech suits while equalizing coverage between boys and girls, give us our waist to ankle legskins. At least a few of us actually own those. Thanks, I feel better now. Did USMS really expect FINA to act immediately? Didn't USMS know that the FINA recommendation would have to be approved by the Bureau? (More cynically, maybe USMS made the compromise recommendation to attempt to placate its divided constituency, but knowing it would be rejected?) I think it's clear at the moment -- we can wear our B70s/LZRs unless and until the FINA Bureau rules in January or thereafter. Since USMS seems committed to following FINA, I doubt a bloody coup is contemplated at this juncture. It is rather interesting that FINA appears poised, possibly, to blow off the recommendations from both Europe (anything goes) and USMS (stupid shorty johns for everyone) and impose a more onerous rule, when it showed no interest in regulating our cute little competitions before. I think most chicks want their ankle legskins too ... I wonder if the manufacturers have actually started designing and producing cute little shorty johns with no zippers for men?