USMS final decision on tech suits for masters

I don't give a hoot what the swimmers on either side of me wears, it has no impact on how fast I swim. Jihadists seem to obsess about what everyone else is wearing whereas those of us pristine and perfect tech suit wearers wear them to benefit our own race times and training. No one has ever explained clearly to me why they prefer to swim slower. I don't care what people wear either. I just don't want to wear a tech suit myself. I thought many people have explained why. Full body girdle = discomfort and a hassle at a higher cost. Not something I actively seek out in my life generally. If those detriments outweigh your personal need to swim slightly faster a few times a year, then you don't use tech suits. I would bet there are more USMS members that have made a similar value judgement than those that will wear anything legal to swim the fastest time possible. It is just a practical and personal decision, not a jihad. No different than not buying the most expensive bike or shoes when competing in those sports. I assume you must always buy the best and most expensive gear to squeeze out every last second in other sports too? Me, I don't buy the best bike, golf clubs, shoes, skis, etc. In my book, you are what you are regardless of the accessories. The non-tech suit wearers are not the ones who are taking away your tech suits. Have fun the next 4 months because it is back to the stone age June 1. If it were up to me, I would not have taken the tech suits away from anyone. I was just warming up to seeing the anything goes competition at the world level when they yanked them back. Tim

Steam droplets are vapor and are also smaller then water droplets. I don't think there's such a thing as a steam droplet. You can condense steam and get a water droplet, but the idea of a droplet of gas doesn't make sense to me. edit: I think I see the confusion here. This is from the entry on steam in Wikipedia: "In common speech, steam most often refers to the visible white mist that condenses above boiling water as the hot vapor mixes with the cooler air. This mist consists of tiny droplets of liquid water. Pure steam emerges at the base of the spout of a steaming kettle where there is no visible vapor." en.wikipedia.org/.../Steam

How does a suit make me go artificially faster? That's ridiculous, I'm still swimming the race. Sounds like something McGwire might say. I swung the bat so it wasn't the steroids. O.K., tech suits are legal and steroids are not, but it really isn't ridiculous to say your swim result was enhanced by a tech suit. Tim

After 6/1 it may take awhile for the griping to stop so by about 7/1/10 what are we going to talk about?

If we are getting picky then, we should go to meets without any training. Sign-up for events, race them, go home. That is the only way that our results won't be enhanced by anything other than our own abilities. Everything that we do...swim practices, dryland training, sleep, nutrition, stroke changes, goggles, starts, turns, they all ENHANCE our swims. Suits are just one more part of the equation. Swim results are enhanced by alot of stuff...not just one item. Ridiculous. Swimming -- or any athletic endeavor -- SHOULD be decided by how hard & smart one trains, how efficiently one swims, and how talented s/he is. IMO it shouldn't be decided by who happened to pick the best suit or sponsor. Or whether a suit rips behind the blocks before a race. That feeling is where I differ from the suit-lovers, who are (again IMO) overly enamored with gear. No other piece of swimming equipment has such an impact on the results. Do you think the brand of goggles you use makes a difference? No, you choose it based on personal preference. That's pretty much how it used to be with suits back in the day. Is Biedermann faster than Phelps in the 200 free with equal suits? I don't know, and anyone who says they do is lying. It is too bad, because before the latest round of suit idiocy, a head-to-head race would have decided such a thing. All this doesn't matter. FINA, USA-Swimming, the NCAA, all agree on one thing: the suits are bad. Good riddance, don't let the door hit you on the way out. It hasn't resulted in mass defection from the sport either. At the age-group level I'm still seeing tons of best times and amazing swims. I have heard the following statement -- sometimes as a joke, sometimes not -- among quite a few masters swimmers about the suit ban: time to get fit and lose weight (Ahelee Sue posted this very comment on FB. Not that she needs to worry about either...). Too bad it took a ban to bring out such sentiments.

After 6/1 it may take awhile for the griping to stop so by about 7/1/10 what are we going to talk about? Title IX, VO2 Max, Early Bloomers, Dara Torres, and wookie.

When we started arguing about this back in 1983 (it seems) the knock on the suits was the price and availability. When that issue went away it was about the sport's integrity. The integrity argument only gained a foothold when, ironically, Speedo couldn't keep up with the technology. There has never been any sort of consistent argument against the suits, just a moving target of whining, which, ironically, has now been assumed by those of us who love the suits. The whole thing is circular, kind of like how the sport has circled back to 1983. And, yes, I like gear and toys.

But to claim that a suit is the sole reason for someone doing a particular time, without knowing how they prepared is ridiculous. Who's claiming this? If anything last year's suit race encouraged this train of thought. All you ever heard was "it's the suit." There was no way you could make an apples to apples comparison anymore. And when that happens the sport is drifting into joke territory, IMO.

www.ansys.com/.../tm-steam-turbines.asp "Condensation of steam" = water Why do we have to make apples to apples comparisons? When they went from full body wools suits to skimpy suits, one can't make comparsions due to fabric fifferences. I'm talking about comparing two swimmers who are swimming in the same heat.

It's not ridiculous either. Everything that we do that revolves around swimming does enhance our performance. I didn't say the suits don't enhance performance. But to say that the only reason a swimmer did this time or that time is because of a suit is ridiculous. My point is that if people can't give credit to other things that we do to improve in the sport, then we should stop training and just show-up at meets. Those that are naturally more athletic or more fit will still prevail over everyone. But to claim that a suit is the sole reason for someone doing a particular time, without knowing how they prepared is ridiculous. I am really looking forward to seeing how I do when I go back to jammers. I have taken a lot that I have learned about body position from the suits and been working on getting the same feelings in practice everyday for months now. So, I am excited about what I can do in a jammer based on everything else that I have been doing in and out of the pool. Swimming isn't about one piece of equipment. It's about all that goes into the pot. The "problem" is that -- by perception if not in reality -- the suit technology began to dominate those other considerations. And not just with journalists. To paraphrase Dr. McCoy: "This is swimming, not NASCAR!" Kirk is right: when swimmers heard about some incredible new time, the first question was almost always, "what suit was s/he wearing?" Naturally, I pine for the good old days when the first question was "what drugs was s/he on?" (You don't hear about PEDs much anymore.) Don't mind me, I'm just cranky b/c of a toothache and the Heels' dismal performances. Those two dull throbbing pains just kind of blend together...