The following has appeared on a swim forum in the UK
_______________________________________________
I’ve been looking at recent masters results. It’s clear that swimmers are producing much slower times without bodysuits. Furthermore, many swimmers are disillusioned and are on the verge of giving up completely. It would be a travesty if these swimmers (they are mostly the over 45s) were lost to the sport altogether.
The majority of masters swimmers prefer to compete in bodysuits. Of that there is no doubt, as witnessed at masters meets up and down the country. It is a disgrace that masters swimmers have been included in the ‘new rules’ concerning elite swimming. I find it quite sad that many swimmers are talking about cutting up their suits, taking out zips and even asking whether they are allowed ‘modesty panels’ in their suits any more.
As always, we are getting no advice, guidance or even leadership from the toothless Masters Committee, whose gingivitic and malocclusive tendencies are attracting Big Nev’s interest, but that’s to be expected.
But it doesn’t have to be like this. Masters swimmers in Italy are not accepting this farce. They are still holding meets where swimmers can choose to wear bodysuits.
There was a recent questionnaire sent out to 4,000 masters swimmers in France. 2,700 swimmers replied, stating they wished to keep their bodysuits for competition.
Masters swimmers in Germany are on the verge of revolution! They accept that masters swimmers are not going to be a threat to any Olympian’s records. Many have now entered masters meets in Italy where they can wear their suits if they want. Also, some meet organisers in Germany are holding similar meets.
Instead of following any directive from our anaemic and tedious Masters Committee, I’d like to see masters swimmers in the UK make a stand against the stupidity surrounding the banning of bodysuits. It will cost me time and money but I’m prepared to organise this.
We need meet organisers in the UK to hold ‘optional suit’ masters meets. Swimmers can choose whether to wear a suit or not. If they are going for a record then the suitless option is a must - but only for a while. I believe that if we boycott masters meets where suits are now allowed, meet organisers, the Masters Committee and the ASA would have to take notice. At the moment they don’t give a toss. At the forefront of the ASA’s mind would be the loss of revenue. Believe me, they see masters swimming as a joke anyway, they would happily let masters swim in bodysuits if it meant they could keep the revenue pouring in.
Getting meet organisers to run ‘bodysuit’ meets would be easy. They would be oversubscribed, every time. Not only from our swimmers but from overseas entries too. I can see one-day meets turning into weekend ones. The organisers could make a lot of money from these well-attended meets. Pulling the plug on masters meets because of low entries would be a thing of the past.
These meets would be the thin end of the wedge in bringing about a change of rules. It‘s the boycotting of ‘non-suit’ meets that would bring a change of rule overnight.
The decathlon would be meaningless because ‘suited’ swims wouldn’t count towards it - but in reality, it is a meaningless competition anyway for all but ten swimmers in the UK who have a chance of winning it.
Don’t underestimate what can be done. Masters swimmers are a powerful group in swimming. The Government is putting very large amounts of money into the greasy hand of the ASA to promote health and fitness for adults. The ASA wouldn’t like the kind of publicity we can give them.
If you feel you can support this initiative I’ll make a start. Masters swimmers in Italy, France and Germany are ready to come on board. Many masters swimmers in America are also willing to make a stand against their governing body. Naturally, support from suit manufacturers is there already. I’ve spoken to four of the biggest.
Just to clarify my position, my issue with USMS is that one can attend sanctioned meets and then not have any swims from that meet count for Top 10 due to a variety of reasons including the pool not being measured; officials not knowing the rules; there is a shortage of officials; officials must leave the meet early; results not submitted in a correct form or in a timely manner or at all and the list goes on and on. This has happened to me numerous times at many meets including travel meets where I've forked over some $$$$'s to compete. This issue in and of itself is enough for one to seek an organization in which retroactive DQ's are not the norm - like at USA-S. If USMS decided to keep the suits, I would be tempted to compete even at the cost of my times never counting simply for the sake of variety and to take advantage of something that USAS does not offer currently.
For me - retroactive DQs (with NO notification to the swimmer) AND tech suit ban combined are not a very appealing combination.
...
I've been swimming USMS meets since 2001 and haven't experienced any of this; the only absence of times appearing in T10 was from some events swum at a dually-sanctioned USAS/USMS meet (once). Granted, most of them have been in Arizona, a few in California and then Nationals, but I've always found USMS meets very well run. As far as Top 10 times, pool measurements, etc., it's certainly cool to get into the Top 10 and I'd be lying if I said that I didn't try to train to get higher, beat certain times and certain people, BUT, if my times didn't happen to get in there (e.g., my 400 LCM free and 100 LCM fly from the same USAS meet where my 200 free and 200 IM were recorded), that's no big deal. I generally race in the same pools that the USAS meets are in, so I know the courses are 'legit.' I'm also first and foremost comparing my times to my other times.
Although I use it too, I don't like the term "fitness swimmer." It's just easier to say than "swimmers who like to work out but don't like to compete in meets." Since fitness is my own primary motivation for swimming, it applies to me too; it is just that competition and things like goal times help motivate me to train harder and be more fit. The presence or lack of tech suits just means an adjustment on those goals, it's just not that big a big deal.
Agreed, though I'm trying not to even adjust goals and just train harder to go faster post-tech suit. I kind of look at the ban (though I'll race till the end in my B70) as further training motivation.
Your argument seems to be that there are some people who competed b/c of the tech suits, and they will now let their membership lapse because they won't be motivated to compete without it. Okay, though I should say that at most of the masters practices in my town, USMS membership is required even to practice with the team( for insurance purposes). The vast majority -- at least 80% by my estimate -- of registered USMS swimmers in Richmond do not compete in any meets. Quite a few are triathletes who couldn't give a fig what the USMS tech suit rules are.
But I have often thought the same as Kirk: that the presence of tech suits is a deterrent to the newbie swimmer, certainly as far as participating in meets. I can't tell you the number of times I've heard the question, "do I need one of THOSE SUITS to go to a meet?"
Face it, this sport can be intimidating to those who did not grow up swimming competitively. Seeing a bunch of people in slick, expensive suits does nothing to make it seem more accessible, IMO.
And yes, there are those who simply didn't feel like buying one of those suits but also don't want to compete at a disadvantage. I've heard from those people too. They'll compete again after June 1.
I don't know which group is more numerous, but I don't think one can just assume that the recent jump in USMS membership was due to the suit, and that they'll leave after this year. Very true. I doubt we'll see any measurable defection because of the tech suit ban. Conversely, though, I doubt will see any measurable uptick in membership either. I think there's a heated minority of us USMS people who really actually care strongly about this.
Just to clarify my position, my issue with USMS is that one can attend sanctioned meets and then not have any swims from that meet count for Top 10 due to a variety of reasons including the pool not being measured; officials not knowing the rules; there is a shortage of officials; officials must leave the meet early; results not submitted in a correct form or in a timely manner or at all and the list goes on and on. This has happened to me numerous times at many meets including travel meets where I've forked over some $$$$'s to compete. This issue in and of itself is enough for one to seek an organization in which retroactive DQ's are not the norm - like at USA-S. If USMS decided to keep the suits, I would be tempted to compete even at the cost of my times never counting simply for the sake of variety and to take advantage of something that USAS does not offer currently.
For me - retroactive DQs (with NO notification to the swimmer) AND tech suit ban combined are not a very appealing combination.
...
I've been swimming USMS meets since 2001 and haven't experienced any of this; the only absence of times appearing in T10 was from some events swum at a dually-sanctioned USAS/USMS meet (once). Granted, most of them have been in Arizona, a few in California and then Nationals, but I've always found USMS meets very well run. As far as Top 10 times, pool measurements, etc., it's certainly cool to get into the Top 10 and I'd be lying if I said that I didn't try to train to get higher, beat certain times and certain people, BUT, if my times didn't happen to get in there (e.g., my 400 LCM free and 100 LCM fly from the same USAS meet where my 200 free and 200 IM were recorded), that's no big deal. I generally race in the same pools that the USAS meets are in, so I know the courses are 'legit.' I'm also first and foremost comparing my times to my other times.
Although I use it too, I don't like the term "fitness swimmer." It's just easier to say than "swimmers who like to work out but don't like to compete in meets." Since fitness is my own primary motivation for swimming, it applies to me too; it is just that competition and things like goal times help motivate me to train harder and be more fit. The presence or lack of tech suits just means an adjustment on those goals, it's just not that big a big deal.
Agreed, though I'm trying not to even adjust goals and just train harder to go faster post-tech suit. I kind of look at the ban (though I'll race till the end in my B70) as further training motivation.
Your argument seems to be that there are some people who competed b/c of the tech suits, and they will now let their membership lapse because they won't be motivated to compete without it. Okay, though I should say that at most of the masters practices in my town, USMS membership is required even to practice with the team( for insurance purposes). The vast majority -- at least 80% by my estimate -- of registered USMS swimmers in Richmond do not compete in any meets. Quite a few are triathletes who couldn't give a fig what the USMS tech suit rules are.
But I have often thought the same as Kirk: that the presence of tech suits is a deterrent to the newbie swimmer, certainly as far as participating in meets. I can't tell you the number of times I've heard the question, "do I need one of THOSE SUITS to go to a meet?"
Face it, this sport can be intimidating to those who did not grow up swimming competitively. Seeing a bunch of people in slick, expensive suits does nothing to make it seem more accessible, IMO.
And yes, there are those who simply didn't feel like buying one of those suits but also don't want to compete at a disadvantage. I've heard from those people too. They'll compete again after June 1.
I don't know which group is more numerous, but I don't think one can just assume that the recent jump in USMS membership was due to the suit, and that they'll leave after this year. Very true. I doubt we'll see any measurable defection because of the tech suit ban. Conversely, though, I doubt will see any measurable uptick in membership either. I think there's a heated minority of us USMS people who really actually care strongly about this.
