What should USMS do about the suits?

I own two pairs of FS I legskins, one FS II full bodyskin (included in a gift package to our team from Klete Keller a few years ago), and a Blue Seventy. None of these will be legal. Assuming FINA approves the proposed compromise, what is the likelihood that kneeskins will even be available moving forward? I also have a brand new, never been opened FS1 suit that goes from the shoulders to the ankles. Can i cut this off at the knees with pinking sheers and have it be legal?

Men & women wear the same amount of material. That is how I would word the last line.

Heather, I am not sure how you reach this conclusion. The more that guys like me are covered over with suit material, the more women like you benefit. That much seems obvious. Otherwise, you might not be able to help yourselves. Oh yes Jim you are right! I won't be able to focus on my races with all of those bare chested men running around!

The compromise makes an arbitrary distinction between tech suits (kneeskin in, bodyskin and legskin out; compressive textile in, compressive polyurethane out) and in so doing undermines both the spirit and the intent of the new FINA regulations. We all agree that any tech suit (be it an FSII, an FS Pro, an LZR, or a Jaked) is performance enhancing. Either we allow them, or we don't. Are we saying that we need chest coverage because we are a bunch of old swimmers? I find that insulting and would rather we just go with Lycra jammers and briefs without zippers or compressive panels. I own two pairs of FS I legskins, one FS II full bodyskin (included in a gift package to our team from Klete Keller a few years ago), and a Blue Seventy. None of these will be legal. Assuming FINA approves the proposed compromise, what is the likelihood that kneeskins will even be available moving forward? It isn't arbitrary, you just don't agree with (or are unaware of) the reasoning. The justification for the shape is that men have the same amount of coverage as women in the FINA specification for elites. The justification for zippers was twofold: masters are more likely to be "full bodied" and need the zippers, and some masters who have flexibility problems find the zippers helpful in getting into the suits. Sorry that you don't want a compromise of any sort. I'm sure that the men who don't like to shave their bodies are at least a little happy with the expanded coverage. As far as availability of the men's kneeskins: who knows. I think someone reported that Blueseventy would manufacture master-only suits. It is beyond USMS' control and is going to be a problem with any ruling that differs with FINA's specifications for elites. Besides kneeskins, it may be a problem to get women's suits with zippers too. Manufacturers and stores need to decide whether their is enough of a market to make and stock the suits for masters only. I don't see any way around this if you want tech suits. because the two suitin issue was found more in NCAA swimming, and even at that, it was not a very popular technique. The moment it spread to USA/international scene, fina banned it. Most people didn't know the benefits of it until it had already been banned. This reasoning doesn't pass the smell test. I know masters swimmers who used double suits. And just as with FINA's latest ruling on suits, USMS could have decided to go its own way. What about wetsuits? That's the best bang for your buck in performance-enhancing technology and they've been around for a long time. Why haven't the pro-tech people been pressing for their adoption? A little bit of performance-enhancement is okay but not too much? How much is too much? I'm just trying to figure out the reasoning here. By the way, USMS also adopted the following new Rule (slightly amended from USA-S): "102.14 SWIMWEAR 102.14.2 Swimmers are not permitted to wear or use any device or substance to help their speed, pace, buoyancy or endurance during a race (such as webbed gloves, flippers, fins, etc). Goggles may be worn, and rubdown oil applied if not considered excessive by the Referee. Any kind of tape on the body is not permitted unless approved by the Referee." The Rule differs slightly from USA-S' in that the first line of the USA-S Rule reads "...any device or substance or swimsuit to help their speed..." When asked about this, the Rule Committee chair said that the Rules Committee's interpretation is that the "swimsuit" portion is implicit in the ruling (which is describing Swimwear). There was some discussion about legitimite medical uses of tape. Also this so called "compromise" HEAVILY benefits men while adding virtually no benefits for women! Why should men have less performance-enhancement than women? (Keep in mind that I favor jammers for men, I'm just telling you what the argument would be.) The original FINA ruling for elites could be seen as more restrictive for men than women, and the compromise just addresses that. I don't think that the zippers are "virtually no benefit," though.

I have never been in a sport that tells tells its paying members what they can wear and how much skin must be visible at a given time .... womens beach volley ball...not sure how many of them wear the tiny bikini's because it helps them perform better. soccer and basketball, tell players to tuck their shirts in at the begining of the game, but don't care about 30 secs later baseball socks...one year most players pants stop at the knee and they have the leggings that come up....other years the pants go down to the feet. in soccer, you can't take off your shirt after a goal with out getting a card or fine.

Let's recap: 1. FINA banned the tech suits because they are performance enhancing (or, if you are a cynic, because someone invented a suit that was better than the LZR). 2. FINA indicated that the new regulations do not apply to Masters swimming. So really we are under no obligation to change our rules. If, however, we as an organization agree with FINA's assessment, then all tech suits (kneeskin, legskin, or bodyskin, textile or polyurethane) should be prohibited from Masters swimming. I can accept that and will wear Lycra jammers. But if the proposed compromise allows us to continue wearing an FS Pro kneeskin (which is most definitely performance enhancing), what exactly have we accomplished? What are we trying to prove? That I do not understand. We haven't changed any rules; at least, not since June 1. We (or, technically, USAS) made a recommendation to the FINA masters technical committee. That's it. The ball is out of our court. FINA has to decide whether it wants to follow our recommendation, do something different, or do nothing at all except possibly reissuing a statement of "it doesn't apply to masters." It might do this in the next two weeks, or in the next few months. Whatever FINA does, USMS has to act in response. I strongly suspect that USMS will do whatever FINA says, including if FINA does nothing but reaffirm its previous position. If FINA does deviate from that position, then USMS will have to decide both if and when to implement its decision. SCY presents a problem b/c (a) FINA doesn't regulate it and (b) the season has already started. As far as the reasoning behind the recommendation the Rules Committee actually made, I've already stated it as best as I can (I am not actually ON that committee; I did attend all the public meetings, and one person from our LMSC is on the committee). I get that you don't like it or understand it.

I can't believe that FINA will end up saying that masters can do whatever it wants to. If they opt for this, it will be one less control mechanism they have over a fairly sizable (though hardly gargantuan) number of peole--50,000 in the US alone. Bureaucracies, by and large, do not cede power. They consolidate and expand it. Wasn't FINA headed by some guy from Tunisia or some other desert country, a guy that doesn't barely know how to swim and insists of 5 star hotel accommodations whenever he Leer jet-sets himself around to various swimming venues around the world? I may have some of the details wrong here. Maybe I am confusing FINA with the House of Saud or the Corporation of Goldman Sachs. But I don't think so! And these guys do not give anything away! With the possible exception of their seed.

I wouldn't recommend it. The cut edge will either roll up into a really tight curl, Dead Sea scroll fashion, or stretch out and flop around loosely. Find someone who has a sewing machine with a zig-zag stitch, buy him/her a #10 ball-point twin needle with a spacing of about 3/16", and ask to have it hemmed. If this person is experienced with stretch material - a local mother of a gymnast or dancer might be perfect - they'll know how to adjust the thread tension to do it. Come to think of it, you don't even need the twin needle - I've used a basic z-z stitch to hem lycra and poly knits. You might even be lucky enough to find someone who has a cover-hem machine, or a serger with a cover-hem option. Rhoda, thanks a million. Perhaps you could launch your own new cottage industry: retrofitting ankle length suits to kneeskins?

I also have a brand new, never been opened FS1 suit that goes from the shoulders to the ankles. Can i cut this off at the knees with pinking sheers and have it be legal? I wouldn't recommend it. The cut edge will either roll up into a really tight curl, Dead Sea scroll fashion, or stretch out and flop around loosely. Find someone who has a sewing machine with a zig-zag stitch, buy him/her a #10 ball-point twin needle with a spacing of about 3/16", and ask to have it hemmed. If this person is experienced with stretch material - a local mother of a gymnast or dancer might be perfect - they'll know how to adjust the thread tension to do it. Come to think of it, you don't even need the twin needle - I've used a basic z-z stitch to hem lycra and poly knits. You might even be lucky enough to find someone who has a cover-hem machine, or a serger with a cover-hem option.

It isn't arbitrary, you just don't agree with (or are unaware of) the reasoning. Let's recap: 1. FINA banned the tech suits because they are performance enhancing (or, if you are a cynic, because someone invented a suit that was better than the LZR). 2. FINA indicated that the new regulations do not apply to Masters swimming. So really we are under no obligation to change our rules. If, however, we as an organization agree with FINA's assessment, then all tech suits (kneeskin, legskin, or bodyskin, textile or polyurethane) should be prohibited from Masters swimming. I can accept that and will wear Lycra jammers. But if the proposed compromise allows us to continue wearing an FS Pro kneeskin (which is most definitely performance enhancing), what exactly have we accomplished? What are we trying to prove? That I do not understand.