Some Aging Competitors Call High-Tech Swimsuits Dirty Pool

Cost had nothing to do with the ban. Speedo was eclipsed by other manufacturers, which is when the tech suit "problem" surfaced (pun intended). Now the company may rightfully take back its place at the top of the swimming world.

I really did intend to leave alone the dead horse. But I think it just moved, so: beat it I shall. There's a joke from the middle ages of a traveler who comes upon a castle that is surrounded by people with levers. They say they are trying to move the walls of the castle. Some animal had left something smelly by the walls, and the king wanted a solution. The sensible traveler, of course, asked: why not move the small and smelly thing, rather than the castle? By the same token, solving the small problem with a huge "solution" of setting new standards for suit design and changing all the swimming businesses from top to bottom - is all out of proportion to what's required to fix the stated and ostensible problem. It's like a bad joke. Unless, of course, people aren't saying what really bugs them about the suits (which is what I think). Okay, I had to smile at a pro-suit person who equates the suits with a pile of cow manure; personally I think that's just a little harsh. But it is hard to believe in the hundreds -- thousands? -- of posts on the topic here and elsewhere that the anti tech-suit people haven't said what's truly on their (our) minds. So I'll bite: what is it that you think REALLY bugs us about the suits?

I really did intend to leave alone the dead horse. But I think it just moved, so: beat it I shall. There's a joke from the middle ages of a traveler who comes upon a castle that is surrounded by people with levers. They say they are trying to move the walls of the castle. Some animal had left something smelly by the walls, and the king wanted a solution. The sensible traveler, of course, asked: why not move the small and smelly thing, rather than the castle? By the same token, solving the small problem with a huge "solution" of setting new standards for suit design and changing all the swimming businesses from top to bottom - is all out of proportion to what's required to fix the stated and ostensible problem. It's like a bad joke. Unless, of course, people aren't saying what really bugs them about the suits (which is what I think). Tech suits are cow manure? An interesting argument from a suit supporter. I think it is a little harsh, but whatever. Personally I don't think that, when a sport regulates itself, the first consideration should be its effects on businesses. If the NFL decides that current helmets are not safe enough, I hope they don't say "oh, no! What about existing stock and production lines? We shouldn't change a thing." (Having said that, I admit FINA bungled badly in this respect. They could have achieved the same result in a much more business-friendly manner if they had handled things differently.) But it is hard to believe in the thousands of posts on the topic here and elsewhere that the anti tech-suit people haven't said what's truly on their (our) minds. So I'll bite: what is it that you think REALLY bugs us about the suits?

So in an attempt to refocus, the Wall Street Journal currently has the largest circulation of any newspaper in the country. To those of you who had access to the hard copy it was a front page story, albeit below the fold. Does the story and PR help or hurt masters swimming? online.wsj.com/.../SB125721159786824325.html So it was the day's "off the beaten path" article then? I'm not sure how I feel about that...

goodness, I forgot all about that thread. I do remember lobbying to have it closed down... We won't let this die just yet! Well, I don't think it is improper since you can even find references to "former Olympians" on the USOC website although they are hard to find. Surely, someone would lose their job if there was some sort of Olympic mandate. The only thing I can see that even hints at discouraging references to "former" or "past" Olympians is this - http://teamusa.org/pages/926 from the U.S. Olympian Association and their motto: "Once an Olympian, Always an Olympian" and "Never Former, Never Past" (note no references to "Ex-"). Now, the main purpose of this organization is not proper Olympic titles or grammar, but to keep ex-Olympians (damn, there I go again) involved in the Olympic movement. I have a lot of respect for Olympians (present and past), but I can't possibly put them on the same pedestal as a former president of a country and I have seen former presidents introduced as former presidents so they must not be too hung up on it. This thread has gone way off track now. Tim

So in an attempt to refocus, the Wall Street Journal currently has the largest circulation of any newspaper in the country. To those of you who had access to the hard copy it was a front page story, albeit below the fold. Does the story and PR help or hurt masters swimming? online.wsj.com/.../SB125721159786824325.html I thought it was neutral to positive. Maybe masters swimmers appeared to be somewhat crazy to the average Joe, but publicity is usually a good thing. It was a quirky story that non-swimmers read and were amused by. I had someone at work stop by and ask me if I knew that cheater, Michael Mann, because it mentioned he was from Colorado. You just have to laugh sometimes. Tim

Boy has this thread gone off the rails! So in an attempt to refocus, the Wall Street Journal currently has the largest circulation of any newspaper in the country. To those of you who had access to the hard copy it was a front page story, albeit below the fold. Does the story and PR help or hurt masters swimming? online.wsj.com/.../SB125721159786824325.html

i think in a lot of cases its just boils down to "some swimmer beats me and they were wearing a different suit than me that is the new top of the line technology. i hate when i get beat." its then easy to just go ahead and say you hate them for any of the miriad of reasons there are to hate the suits (cost, moral issues with "cheating", etc). Not saying that is the case with you Chris. with all the hatred towards the tech suit, i find myself wondering now why i wear one (on the rare occasions that i do...i have to draw a line. i dont show up to every meet in a tech suit, its only for a taper meet, maybe once or twice a year). for me, buying a b70 was just another step up on the technological suit ladder. a natural progression for me. the same way i turned in my regular practice suits for a paper suit and then the paper suit for an aquablade, and then from the aquablade to a FSI and then on the the FSII and from there to the b70. never really thought much of it.

So I'll bite: what is it that you think REALLY bugs us about the suits? 1) Costs pt1: though I think this is irrelevant on the elite level, but anything that creates a financial obstacle for the sport is a bad thing. 2) Availability: slightly irrelevant on the elite level. JS got to wear a LZR at Nationals a full year before anyone else because he kissed Rowdy's ass. In fact, some might argue that creating demand by shortening supply is smart business. Is there a place for that in sports? 3) Historical: yeah, it bothers me that my swim heroes growing up are completely obliterated. 4) Reliability of the suit: Alshamer didn't final at the Olympics because her LZR busted. That sucks. I don't think anyone could tear my FINIS amphibian, but it has huge threading/more drag. 5) Contracts pt 1: Germans had to wear Adidas in the Olympics. Someone said something to the effect of "if a swimmer makes a bad business decision too bad for them." Was it too bad Beidermann that he was relegated to an Adidas and thus didn't medal in Beijing? Do we really hold him accountable for that? 6) Contracts pt 2: It is good for the entire sport of swimming that people can actually make a living doing it. A "bad" business decision implies that there are hundreds of sponsorships available and millions of dollars. That is the case with Phelps but not for others. For the sport to be a viable profession, there needs to be no risk that signing with a major suit manufacturer will inhibit your performance. 7) Dolphin2 would literally have nothing to contribute without the techsuit debate. 8) Cost pt2: I have no problem with an adult dropping $600 on a suit. I did it myself. I swam next to a guy wearing jammers. That was his choice. Maybe I have more money to burn than him, maybe he has different priorities who knows who cares. The level I am at is 99% about oneself: doing your best and living with your own choices. But for that other 1% I wish that we all had the same suit and therefore, honestly, I don't think paying $300 or $600 is a good thing.

Gail Roper explains this best in the 5th post of the link below on Olympian Masters, like a doctor's degree. She must be using the royal "we" because I could give a flip about being addressed as "Dr. Stevenson" either. But everyone is different and it is nice to respect that. PS At our Continuing Ed school, it is possible to earn a masters degree in Disaster Science (I am not making this up). How cool would it be to earn that degree? I would do an about-face and DEFINITELY insist that everyone address me as "Chris Stevenson, Master of Disaster."