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
True,thats why the size restrictions are important as long as they want to limit technology.For men there is just not that much difference that a Jammer can make.
True ... but, really, why are they even allowing Jammers if their intention is to have suits be truly about modesty only and not performance enhancement? A jammer will have a slight performance enhancement over a brief.
As masters swimmers we have a major issue with FINA and many other swimming federations where masters are represented as a small part of aquatic sports generally - as a result, masters are an afterthought, and not taken very seriously in comparison,eg, with elite. In contrast USMS is a very large and exclusively masters organization. Therefore I believe it is important that USMS takes a strong lead internationally representing masters swimmers' views on the suits, perhaps starting with a survey to strengthen the case being made.
Agreed, although even saying that masters swimming is an afterthought gives FINA too much credit. Consequently, I remain unconvinced that USMS should unquestioningly adopt the new regulations, particularly in light of the fact that FINA's handling of the tech suit controversy has been and continues to be inept. As for USA Swimming, Mark Schubert was the one who advised the American swimmers to switch to the LZR in the spring of 2008: "I'm not saying this just because they pay part of my salary. I'm all about performance and I believe in the product." And what about Bob Bowman, also paid by Speedo, who had this to say: “Everything in the world evolves. You just can’t go back to that simpler time.”
True ... but, really, why are they even allowing Jammers if their intention is to have suits be truly about modesty only and not performance enhancement? A jammer will have a slight performance enhancement over a brief.
Good point. There is a lot of talk about the "purity of the sport" but how are jammers part of this? The didn't even become popular until tech suits started to come out in 2000. So then the only thing that would be "pure" is a brief. Or maybe the wool farmer john that my grandpa wore!
Chris, I'm a little confused by the Rules Committee's proposal (I understand the post's a summary, not the full text). "Knee to shoulder" is the maximum coverage -- they're not saying that body suits would be mandatory, right? They're not saying no briefs and jammers allowed?
(I really don't care what anybody else wears, but I don't want to wear a body suit -- I'm not against them, I just don't like them for myself.)
Briefs and jammers are fine as long as they are textile. And the swimmer is male...
Their timeline is so vague ... How soon after the Sept 25-26 meeting will FINA make its announcement of masters rules? Will USMS then convene a meeting and make their own announcement? What do you mean by implement precisely? That the "suit rule" will be effective at the time of announcement? So the suits may NOT be legal through the end of the year for masters even though they are for USS swimmers? I have to admit I'll be pissed if I can't wear/wear out my tech suit through the end of the year and SCM season while the rest of Europe does ...
Interesting "process" ...
I'm not terrifically impressed with the"compromise" proposal ... So we ideally want to be a kinda like a USS swimmer but not really?
The timeline is vague b/c no one is sure how soon FINA will act after their meeting. And, again, there is no guarantee that they will follow the USAS recommendation. It isn't as if they've been entirely predictable to this point.
In the afternoon meeting with the Rules Committee the big concern was SCY. After all, it is the longest season and we are not obligated to follow FINA's rules for SCY. People are concerned if there will be a couple months of swims with the suits, followed by a ban. Recommendations included ran the gamut: ban them now, allow them for the whole season, and everything in between. No consensus was reached.
The general consensus (Rules and Coaches) was that USMS will probably do whatever FINA recommends, certainly for LCM/SCM and probably also for SCY. (Personally, I think the rules should be uniform.)
I did learn that there are currently rules in place whereby we automatically adopt FINA and USS rules, unless we specifically specify otherwise. Currently USS is going for a Jan 1 deadline (though this is "soft" right now too).
I also really believe that the Rules committee -- who are EXTREMELY conscientious -- didn't like having to bypass the HOD but were constrained to do so by the timeline.
As far as the nature of the suggestion itself...I think it is a fairly "Solomon-like." The purists won't be completely happy and neither will the tech-people. Probably the sign of a good compromise.
I don't understand the rationale for proposing shoulder to knee coverage, which breaks from the FINA/USA Swimming regulations, but not leg skins or full body suits.
The rationale is "compromise."
Last update on suits from Convention. As someone else posted, USA-S has given Oct 1 as their deadline to ban the suits. I asked a friend on the Rules Committee if that means USMS had to consider that, too -- there is, I think, language to the effect that USMS adopts USA-S rules unless we specifically vote otherwise. But he responded that we have already deviated from USA-S on our suit rules, so we didn't need to consider it. (At least, that's what I *think* he said. Sigh...)
As I mentioned before, USMS had submitted a proposal (thru USAS) to FINA about the suits. Any decision FINA makes -- which would have to be approved (or not, or modified) by USMS -- would obviously only apply to SCM and LCM.
The Rules Committee is not sure exactly what to do for SCY. They presented 3 possible options to the House of Delegates (HOD) and wanted a vote to get a sense of what to do. No action was being proposed.
For SCY competitions:
Option 1: adopt FINA Masters swimwear rules as soon as FINA adopts them, but no earlier than Oct 1.
Option 2: adopt FINA Masters swimwear rules, effective on the same date as FINA decides for SCM.
Option 3: adopt FINA Masters swimwear rules on June 1, 2010, or later if FINA Masters adopts no standard (ie, tech suits legal for entire 2009-2010 SCY season no matter what FINA decides).
Spirited debate ensued. People argued both sides but my sense (which may be wrong) is that more anti-tech people spoke than pro-tech.
The vote was: 101 for option 1, 5 for option 2, and 90 for option 3.
I voted for option 3 (despite my personal preference for option 1 or 2, and the earliest ban possible) b/c I think people in my LMSC -- on both sides of the issue -- long for as much certainty as possible. The dates on options 1 & 2 are more fluid than on option 3 and depend too much on FINA. (I would have preferred a date of Jan 1 on option 3, personally).
So there you have it. No change in rules at convention, as I suspected: tech suits are still legal for now. A compromise position submitted to FINA thru USAS. Waiting for word from FINA about the suits, and it may come as early as in a couple weeks or a few months (the process is apparently convoluted) and may come in any form. No firm rule about SCY yet either (again, the vote was for polling purposes only; it was non-binding).
It is within the right of the Rules Committee and the Executive Board to pass a swimsuit rule between meetings of the HOD (as they have already done this year). I suspect that will happen at some point once they hear back from FINA, and it may happen wrt SCY even before then. Though the members of the Rules Committee certainly have opinions about the suits, they have gone to lengths to measure member sentiments on the suits, including browsing thru forum posts. I am pretty confident that they will come up with something that is equitable. I have little confidence in FINA's decision-making process, but hopefully I'm wrong.
I also really believe that the Rules committee -- who are EXTREMELY conscientious -- didn't like having to bypass the HOD but were constrained to do so by the timeline.
As far as the nature of the suggestion itself...I think it is a fairly "Solomon-like." The purists won't be completely happy and neither will the tech-people. Probably the sign of a good compromise.
:agree:
