Some Aging Competitors Call High-Tech Swimsuits Dirty Pool

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 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.