What should USMS do about the suits?

I'm also curious why you techies weren't all up in arms about the ban on the double suits some time back. Professor, I admire your brainpower, however, the minutiae of convention has addled your memory. 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 ... And Tony Austin is right ... it's ridiculous that the rules have see-sawed back and forth all year! I spent months wondering WTH suit to wear in various meets and ended up wearing different ones and purchasing unnecessary ones to comply. And that seemingly random flip flopping is the much of the focus of the techie indignation/ire. (And it is annoying to be called a "cheater" quite frequently by the so-called "purists"). That, and our contrary position that progress and innovation is affirmatively good and normal -- not a hellacious abomination -- for the sport. And, yes, I still like the Pro, but I abhor kneeskins. However, as I said in response to Midas, I believe the more durable B70 is much more economical than the Pro. Talk to a swim retailer -- they'll tell you the Pro is done and stretched out after a meet or two.

I'm also curious why you techies weren't all up in arms about the ban on the double suits some time back. Or did that somehow cross some line that I'm unaware of? 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.

Bring back the Speedo Aquablade kneeskin, the first and still best of all the abominations we have come to love so much! Who can forget that hydrophobic-hydrophilic alternation of stripes and the putative creation of little swirling vortexes close to the body that kiboshed form drag! Who indeed! forums.usms.org/picture.php

That was my initial reaction as well. The "compromise" seems most designed so guys don't have to shave their chests. The zipper? Hmm ... Ice heard more people interested in bodysuits than zippers ... Chris, so option 1 and 2 presuppose a ban, though you have couched it as a "swimwear rule"? Sounds like that's where people think FINA is going despite its prior statements? Option 3, tellingly the last one, is the only one that contemplates that FINA won't ban tech suits. The so-called "purists" seem to engage in indignation and denunciation of us tech suit fans and the horrific state of the sport so it doesn't surprise me that they were more vociferous at convention. I don't know that they were more vociferous, just more numerous. Having heard and read both sides, I think there is plenty of indignation to go around. If there is no FINA swimsuit regulation, then nothing will happen this SCY season based on all the options presented. The three options are trying to deal with the question of what to do with the SCY season -- already in progress -- if FINA decides to regulate the suits for masters, given that their rules are only intended for meters. And I guess I don't really see it as a complete "ban" when, even if FINA adopts the USMS suggestion, I can wear a suit that was first invented something like two years ago and was supposedly the best thing since sliced bread...until the LZR came around. You once liked FS-Pros pretty much too, and fairly recently; now they are just one step up from drag suits? I did forget to mention that the Coach's committee in their report made a statement that they think USMS should follow whatever FINA says. If the suit regulations for USMS are going to differ from those of FINA/USA Swimming, why bother with a "compromise"? Allow us to continue to wear what we have been wearing (and using to set personal bests, top ten times, national and world records). So if FINA agrees: you get body coverage, zippers, only have to shave your calves, get to wear material that was cutting edge two years ago...and that's not enough? Even though you disagree, is it really so hard to understand that there are a lot of people who would prefer for USMS to follow the rules FINA issued for elites? How exactly would it be fair to them to say "anything goes" just because the Rules Committee is trying to strike a middle ground? Heck, just look at the results of this poll: almost 40% want to follow the most stringent rules (FINA & USA-S), and a plurality want to do whatever the FINA masters committee decides. Only 25% want "anything goes." Just like SCAQ Triathlete will pout and refuse to compete with any kind of regulation, there are some who don't want to compete in nationals right now because of the suits. One is not any more right than the other. You might not like the compromise but things could be much worse from your point of view (and who knows what FINA will decide to do). I'm also curious why you techies weren't all up in arms about the ban on the double suits some time back. Or did that somehow cross some line that I'm unaware of?

I guess that men would likely have to buy female suits with straps since I'm not sure how many manufacturers are going to make chest to knee suits for men since they're neither legal for USS or FINA elite. Also seems kind of silly to allow zippers since these likely won't be manufactured anymore either. This is the most important consideration. If male chest to knee suits are manufactured, there will be very few and they likely will be very expensive. The low supply will mean that very few will have access. This must be a very difficult issue at Convention. So many strong opinions on both sides.

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. 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?

So if FINA agrees: you get body coverage, zippers, only have to shave your calves, get to wear material that was cutting edge two years ago...and that's not enough? Even though you disagree, is it really so hard to understand that there are a lot of people who would prefer for USMS to follow the rules FINA issued for elites? How exactly would it be fair to them to say "anything goes" just because the Rules Committee is trying to strike a middle ground? Heck, just look at the results of this poll: almost 40% want to follow the most stringent rules (FINA & USA-S), and a plurality want to do whatever the FINA masters committee decides. Only 25% want "anything goes." Just like SCAQ Triathlete will pout and refuse to compete with any kind of regulation, there are some who don't want to compete in nationals right now because of the suits. One is not any more right than the other. You might not like the compromise but things could be much worse from your point of view (and who knows what FINA will decide to do). 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?

Chris, you well know that something may be not be permissible in a rule without a direct explicit ban.... 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. ... Double-suits have been worn in competition for decades, at the expense of speed. I've worn them in in-season meets even as a teen when my practice suits were too transparent. Any official will tell you that DQs are for breaking the rules, not for any purported advantage in the race, so if they were against the rules then I should have been DQ'd even though I was going slower. I'm not really trying to put you or anyone on the spot. I'm trying to understand where the line -- necessary for the regulation you desire -- gets drawn and why among the pro-tech crowd. Once you allow performance-enhancement, innovations such as double-suits and wetsuits are different from Jakeds and other swimskins only as a matter of degree, not fundamentally. I also don't hear clamoring for arm-coverings.

Double-suits have been worn in competition for decades, at the expense of speed. I've worn them in in-season meets even as a teen when my practice suits were too transparent. Any official will tell you that DQs are for breaking the rules, not for any purported advantage in the race, so if they were against the rules then I should have been DQ'd even though I was going slower. I'm not really trying to put you or anyone on the spot. I'm trying to understand where the line -- necessary for the regulation you desire -- gets drawn and why among the pro-tech crowd. Once you allow performance-enhancement, innovations such as double-suits and wetsuits are different from Jakeds and other swimskins only as a matter of degree, not fundamentally. I also don't hear clamoring for arm-coverings. I wasn't refering to the practice of wearing a second drag or modesty suit. I was refering to the practice of wearing two performance enhancing suits, and edited my post to reflect that fact. I have no issues with the former. The ban on two suits was designed to preclude the practice of stacking of tech suits. I view that new "ban" as an interpretation of the previous rule, not as a new rule. 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 guess that's a point. I've never seen a 1mm wetsuit though. Do many wear them? I've only seen the 3mm or 5mm in tri stores. In the race I just swam Sunday, I don't recall seeing any super thin ones that looked like B70s at all. The 3 mm or 5 mm are obviously more performance enhancing because they're so buoyant. So OW swimmers can have performance enhancing wetsuits and performance enhancing B70s in the non-wetsuit division, but pool swimmers don't get speed suits?!