What should USMS do about the suits?

Chris, thanks for all the updates and for being so responsive to comments on this thread. 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". If my choices were either to keep the tech suits or take the compromise option, it's a easy choice for me. I think most of the "performance enhancers" out there would similarly choose the compromise over the FINA "elite" standard. That's what makes it a good compromise. With regards to the arguments I have read for keeping the tech suits, I think the tech suits were as much a "loophole" that got out of control as the whole "two suits" phenomenon. I think most people agree that the technology overwhelmed FINA and they let through more suits than they really wanted. They opened pandora's box with the LZR and didn't shut it before the B70s and the Jakeds and the Arena X-Glides got through. The "suit ban" is just a matter of putting everything back into pandora's box and shutting it. This is as hard to do as the fable makes it out and many people are obviously very upset about it. I'm sure everyone realizes that the only honest reason the "performance enhancers" want to continue to use the "tech suits" is that they are enamored with the times they have swum in them. They don't want their times to be 1-2 seconds slower per hundred (or more). They don't favor suit stacking or wetsuits because they have never competed in them and don't realize how much, if at all, faster those things would make them. Conversely, the only honest reason the "purists" favor the ban is that the suits allow people to go faster than they otherwise humanly could. For years, suit technology was about reducing the drag caused by having to wear a suit at all (which we do for modesty above all other reasons). Purists want to return to the time when the suits did not make people go faster than they could naturally because purists do not think that the sport should be about the "technology".

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. You are no more a purist that someone who embraces the suits and technology. Matter of fact I will claim the purist title because I want to see the sport move forward, not languish. I think saying you are a purist just makes you feel better about being a cheap skate. I have respect for those the past few years who show up at meets in a brief. I have respect for those who show up at bike races on some old steel jalopy. But, mostly I just wonder why you'd train hard and then fail to take advantage of that training.

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. What should intentions have to do with anything? There is a huge difference between polyester or lycra suits and a B70 Nero Comp. They are "fundamentally different," to use your words. So why is this jump okay in your mind, but not from B70 Nero Comp to B70 wetsuit? Completely arbitrary. As far as your "easy" choice of 1mm -- why this choice is better than 2mm or 5mm is a mystery to me -- of course FINA isn't regulating anything right now wrt masters.

You are no more a purist that someone who embraces the suits and technology. Matter of fact I will claim the purist title because I want to see the sport move forward, not languish. I think saying you are a purist just makes you feel better about being a cheap skate. I have respect for those the past few years who show up at meets in a brief. I have respect for those who show up at bike races on some old steel jalopy. But, mostly I just wonder why you'd train hard and then fail to take advantage of that training. Remember that the "purist" label was foisted upon me, but is one that I actually wear with moral righteousness. You are not a purist, but a technologist. The suits do not move the sport forward. The sport moves forward through things like better training, nutrition and stroke technique. By the way, I reject the cost argument, and in fact own a B70. I didn't always wear it, preferring to see how fact I "really" was at least some of the time. I too was very enamored with the times I was swimming with my tech suit. I understand why people want to keep them so passionately. The whole "recapturing of youth" angle is not something the elites even have to factor in. We do. In fact, I reject all arguments on either side of the debate other than the argument that the suits make people go faster. Some people like this. Others, like me, do not. I do not see the tech suits as progress. I see them as a regression from the whole point of the endeavor (which is to see how fast I can get from one end of the course to the other).

Isn't the B70 1 mm? Actually, it's a little less than .5mm (.016 inches - just measured mine), 1mm equals approximately .0394".

Actually, it's a little less than .5mm (.016 inches - just measured mine), 1mm equals approximately .0394". Thank you. Let's use that as the guide then. Seems fundamentally different than a 3 mm or 5 mm wetsuit to me. You and I just look at things different on that score, Chris. I would have preferred that the LZR and B70 stay legal. If technology happened too fast, it was the Jaked/Arena X-Glide that really pushed things over the line. I've never understood why the B70 was banned when it was less performance enhancing (and more durable and economical) than the LZR.

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. With regards to the arguments I have read for keeping the tech suits, I think the tech suits were as much a "loophole" that got out of control as the whole "two suits" phenomenon. I'm sure everyone realizes that the only honest reason the "performance enhancers" want to continue to use the "tech suits" is that they are enamored with the times they have swum in them. They don't favor suit stacking or wetsuits because they have never competed in them and don't realize how much, if at all, faster those things would make them. Conversely, the only honest reason the "purists" favor the ban is that the suits allow people to go faster than they otherwise humanly could. 1. The "purist" label wasn't foisted on those favoring the ban. Most claimed it themselves and constantly used the word "pure" to defend their position and denounce others as inferior or cheaters or lazy. 2. The tech suit wasn't an unwritten legally dubious loophole. They were worn after they were explicitly approved by FINA. 3. What do you know of our motivations or times? Perhaps I want to swim in mine because it helps my damn shoulders, for all you know. 4. I just competed in a wetsuit. Before doing so, I compared my times in a pool with and without a wetsuit and noticed a HUGE difference. I already know what the difference between tank and B70 is. A wetsuit is a whole 'nother ballpark, dude. Yet, despite this huge advantage, I don't want to wear a fat squashy extraordinarily floaty wetsuit in a pool. Just a fast speed suit -- without it being cut off at the knees or ripping all the time or instantly stretching out. 5. Again, you don't know my motivations, and I have posted different ones than you list derisively above. As for the "fountain of youth," this is absurd and has no relationship to my masters swim career whatsoever. You are really presumptuous. But you are right about one thing -- you're on a roll with the moral righteousness. What I find puzzling is why you think this is even remotely desirable.

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? Yeah, I know. I don't love the compromise but I guess "its only masters" so I will live with it. As for purification, I went out and bought myself a speedo racing brief. I will just put an asterisk next to my B70 times in my log book. I think that's the best I can do. Fortunately, I have shaved times from this last year to use as my comparative times going forward.

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). I could be mistaken, but I believe that every swimmer in every Olympic final in Beijing was wearing a performance enhancing suit.

1. The "purist" label wasn't foisted on those favoring the ban. Most claimed it themselves and constantly used the word "pure" to defend their position and denounce others as inferior or cheaters or lazy. 2. The tech suit wasn't an unwritten legally dubious loophole. They were worn after they were explicitly approved by FINA. 3. What do you know of our motivations or times? Perhaps I want to swim in mine because it helps my damn shoulders, for all you know. 4. I just competed in a wetsuit. Before doing so, I compared my times in a pool with and without a wetsuit and noticed a HUGE difference. I already know what the difference between tank and B70 is. A wetsuit is a whole 'nother ballpark, dude. Yet, despite this huge advantage, I don't want to wear a fat squashy extraordinarily floaty wetsuit in a pool. Just a fast speed suit -- without it being cut off at the knees or ripping all the time or instantly stretching out. 5. Again, you don't know my motivations, and I have posted different ones than you list derisively above. As for the "fountain of youth," this is absurd and has no relationship to my masters swim career whatsoever. You are really presumptuous. But you are right about one thing -- you're on a roll with the moral righteousness. What I find puzzling is why you think this is even remotely desirable. The tech suits were indeed a humongous loophole. The existing rules didn't prohibit them (which was the loophole) and the envelope was pushed to the point where the suits made people faster than nature would allow. Nothing made suit stacking illegal until the loophole (the lack of a rule against them) was closed. Same is true with tech suits. Nothing made them illegal (and FINA had to admit that under existing rules they *were* legal) until they closed the loophole. You are clearly smart so I suspect you really understand this. I really do think the only legit argument for or against the suits is that they make a person faster. As far as I have seen, no one else has been able to articulate an objectively rational argument for or against them other than speed. That is my reason for opposing them and I am trying to be very honest about that. I am not claiming cost, modesty, "shoulders" or any other red herring argument. By the way people may be interested to know that some of the big non-USMS sanctioned open water competitions in the Bay Area that allow wetsuits share my view on tech suits (such as the RCP Tiburon Mile and the Alcatraz Sharkfest Swim). In those events, they lump all full-body tech suits into the "wet suits and other swim aid" category. They are not wrong. Wetsuits and tech suits are different degrees of the same thing.