Some Aging Competitors Call High-Tech Swimsuits Dirty Pool

I was thinking the same thing, but maybe we should give Clay the benefit of the doubt. Well, maybe, but the tone of the article is such that it certainly demeans Mike's accomplishments and certainly alludes that Clay has fallen behind the times because he didn't wear a tech suit and that he was upset by the race outcome. Clay didn't write the article, but as an ex-Olympian you would think he might have a clearer view and would hesitate to single someone out in any case. I am generally not a tech suit proponent myself, but they don't distort the outcomes substantially especially in masters swimming where there isn't much on the line. Tim

Maybe most of Mike's advantage over Clay is that he currently works a lot harder at his swimming and fitness than Clay. Exactly. The real unfair advantage is that Michael Mann is able to devote so much time and attention to swimming. Competition won't be "fair" until USMS imposes a training limit of, say, 7 hours a week to limit the economic advantage that Mann has over those of us who cannot or don't want to overcome the opportunity costs to our incomes and time. Of course, that’ll never happen. Nor should it. Which makes the rules on tech suits all the more puzzling. (oh, by the way, I was standing behind the blocks in Thousand Oaks when Michael Mann set his record in the 200 free, as The Journal noted today. I concluded that, if I were to work out with him every day, I still wouldn't be fast enough to see his feet at the end of a 200. How about a rule that requires the fast guys to wear sneakers when they swim?).

Of course, that’ll never happen. Nor should it. Which makes the rules on tech suits all the more puzzling. Wait a minute here. What exactly is puzzling? You seem to be comparing bans on tech suits to putting a limit on training time. The two aren't remotely similar.

So, two things: came out to the meet to support the team and to score points for our team to win the meet. He was well aware that he is not in great swimming condition - but came out anyway At that meet, Evans actually was near the top of the age group in points scored (Michael Mann, with his string of world records, was just impossible to top). I thought he set a really good example for everyone to just get in the pool ... And Evans' team did win the team trophy. A reader of the WSJ might get an exaggerated view of Evans' real feelings. Put more bluntly, I don't think the report was really fair to Evans - I'm guessing he sort of got used by the reporter. You seem to be comparing bans on tech suits to putting a limit on training time. The two aren't remotely similar. One of the compelling arguments against the suits is that they cost too much and thus give a competitive advantage to swimmers who are economically blessed. By the same token, a workout limit would remove the advantage that allows economically blessed swimmers to spend more time training. If I could afford to, I would swim two-a-days, I would get hours of coaching from top-notch coaches, I would spend half an hour a day refining my stroke, I would go to sleep on time and wake up when I wanted to, and I would stop running through airports before sitting (without a cool-down) for hours in cramped airplane seats. By the way, I think both ideas - a ban on suits or a training limit - are stupid beyond belief.

Gawwd, this whole tech suit controversy just keeps burning like a wild fire in Southern California. The only difference is that wild fires eventually burn themselves out. D2

Well, maybe, but the tone of the article is such that it certainly demeans Mike's accomplishments and certainly alludes that Clay has fallen behind the times because he didn't wear a tech suit and that he was upset by the race outcome. Clay didn't write the article, but as an ex-Olympian you would think he might have a clearer view and would hesitate to single someone out in any case. I am generally not a tech suit proponent myself, but they don't distort the outcomes substantially especially in masters swimming where there isn't much on the line. Tim As I've said before, one of the small benefits of the tech suit ban will be that going forward nobody will be able to question or demean a swimmer's accomplishments based on the suit worn.

One of the compelling arguments against the suits is that they cost too much and thus give a competitive advantage to swimmers who are economically blessed. I guess that's an argument, but not very compelling.

Well - I coach and swim with SCAQ, which is the team that Clay Evans owns and runs. In his swimming times defense - he came out to the meet to support the team and to score points for our team to win the meet. He was well aware that he is not in great swimming condition - but came out anyway, I know many Olympians would not do the same. Of course I could not disagree more with him about the suits. I saw Micheal Mann swim at that meet - I saw a very good swimmer with a great stroke swimming fast times - he happened to be 55 years old and wearing a Blue 70 - but that does not change my first impression. Thanks for the information on Clay Evans. It sounds like he does a lot for masters swimming. I think that is great that he swam even though he wasn't in great swimming condition. It was nice of him to apologize to Mike as well although it sounds like the WSJ "journalist" is probably the one that should apologize for taking a harsher angle on the story than was warranted. Tim

One of the compelling arguments against the suits is that they cost too much and thus give a competitive advantage to swimmers who are economically blessed. By the same token, a workout limit would remove the advantage that allows economically blessed swimmers to spend more time training. If I could afford to, I would swim two-a-days, I would get hours of coaching from top-notch coaches, I would spend half an hour a day refining my stroke, I would go to sleep on time and wake up when I wanted to, and I would stop running through airports before sitting (without a cool-down) for hours in cramped airplane seats. I agree with knelson that an economic argument against the suit isn't all that compelling. It may have been one reason that it was banned for the elites but I do not think it was even close to the main one. I think it was because the nature of the suit was becoming a dominating (or at least "very significant") factor in times and races. Whenever someone did an eye-popping swim, the first question was always and immediately "what suit?" It made me pine for the days of good old-fashioned doping scandals. (Just kidding.) Certainly people have different situations wrt ability to devote time to training. With some notable exceptions (think Dara Torres) I don't believe it is usually strictly economic but commitments like family and job; they aren't always quite the same thing. Some people have no children and flexible hours for work; others have a number of school-age children and/or heavy work commitments or travel time. You may be an exception, but I don't think it is universally true that freeing up (say) 3-4 hours in the day will mean that a typical masters swimmer will spend that time training or getting massages. And many swimmers don't have too much time and go to some trouble to carve out their training time. It isn't unusual for me to be lifting weights after 10pm, after ferrying my son around, helping him with schoolwork, fixing him dinner, putting him to bed, and waiting for my wife to get home from work (she puts in late hours). Sometimes I'm up at 3am, working -- usually grading -- and still go to morning practice. (I'm a fan of Warren Zevon: I'll sleep when I'm dead.) I have no problem if person X swims a lot faster because s/he is training longer/harder/smarter. Hasn't that always been the case in swimming? Doesn't it make sense? Effort and training savvy SHOULD be rewarded with superior performances. But getting faster because of a purchase...eh, I don't really see much connection to one's talent or dedication. I guess you have to be dedicated enough to forego whatever else you would have bought with that money.

One of the compelling arguments against the suits is that they cost too much and thus give a competitive advantage to swimmers who are economically blessed. By the way, I think both ideas - a ban on suits or a training limit - are stupid beyond belief. I guess that's an argument, but not very compelling. I believe "too much" is a relative term and not likely to be of valid use in an argument since some (me included) are more than willing to pay that kind of money for one or more tech suits. I, in no way, feel that paying 300 bucks or thereabout for a suit puts me in the "economically blessed" category. Now, if you want to state something to the tune of "more costly than a brief or jammer", then I might tag along.