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.
What am I missing?
Rule 102.14.6 states, "Swimmers are not permitted to wear or use any device or substance to help their speed, pace, buoyancy or
endurance during a race..."
Manufacturers claim that many of the 'approved' suits decrease drag (surface effect and compression effect) and more than imply that these suits will increase performance, ie speed/pace/endurance. Isn't that why we often buy one brand/style over another, the one that will give us an speed advantage?
actually, don't all suits do this, especially jammers etc since Mark Spitz? Actually, even his 1972 suit probably decreased drag compared to no suit at all?
(I may have an answer to my own question. Earlier, this rule number included the words "any device or substance or swimsuit...". The current language may exclude suits as devices. Apparently, whatever suit that FINA thinks is not too performance enhancing will be ok, a rather gray line.)
Well, a suit is required by the rules for modesty reasons (I forget which one and I'm too lazy to look it up right now; Kathy C is probably shuddering :)). I would argue that, since SOME suit is required, that suit should not inhibit performance. For example, drag suits shouldn't be our baseline of comparison, saying any suit that is better is a performance aid.
IMO, the tricky part is when coverage exceeds what modesty proscribes. There are some believe that jammers are more than necessary. And since "modesty" is culture-specific, it is kind of a mess. But now FINA's specifications say what coverage is allowed, so I guess that issue is avoided to a certain degree. (USMS does allow exceptions, eg for religious beliefs. Maybe tech-lovers will start their own cult and claim exceptions?:))
The rule number never included "...or swimsuit..." It was mistakenly included in an early post on the USMS website but then corrected. The "swimsuit" term IS explicitly in the corresponding USA-S rule but was taken out before being adopted at the USMS Convention.
The interesting part is, I asked about this decision and the answer at the time was that the Rules Committee interprets the "swimsuit" part to be implicit in the other language. I would argue that recent history suggests otherwise, but oh well. I'll be curious to see if "swimsuit" is put back in at the next fall convention, after the FINA rules have been adopted for all courses. It doesn't really need to be, since there are other rules that explicitly cover swimsuits; 102.14.4 for example states that the suit must be FINA-approved.
Some time ago, FINA used to argue that a swimsuit is a "costume" and not a "device" and so was not covered by a rule such as the one you mention.
What am I missing?
Rule 102.14.6 states, "Swimmers are not permitted to wear or use any device or substance to help their speed, pace, buoyancy or
endurance during a race..."
Manufacturers claim that many of the 'approved' suits decrease drag (surface effect and compression effect) and more than imply that these suits will increase performance, ie speed/pace/endurance. Isn't that why we often buy one brand/style over another, the one that will give us an speed advantage?
actually, don't all suits do this, especially jammers etc since Mark Spitz? Actually, even his 1972 suit probably decreased drag compared to no suit at all?
(I may have an answer to my own question. Earlier, this rule number included the words "any device or substance or swimsuit...". The current language may exclude suits as devices. Apparently, whatever suit that FINA thinks is not too performance enhancing will be ok, a rather gray line.)
Well, a suit is required by the rules for modesty reasons (I forget which one and I'm too lazy to look it up right now; Kathy C is probably shuddering :)). I would argue that, since SOME suit is required, that suit should not inhibit performance. For example, drag suits shouldn't be our baseline of comparison, saying any suit that is better is a performance aid.
IMO, the tricky part is when coverage exceeds what modesty proscribes. There are some believe that jammers are more than necessary. And since "modesty" is culture-specific, it is kind of a mess. But now FINA's specifications say what coverage is allowed, so I guess that issue is avoided to a certain degree. (USMS does allow exceptions, eg for religious beliefs. Maybe tech-lovers will start their own cult and claim exceptions?:))
The rule number never included "...or swimsuit..." It was mistakenly included in an early post on the USMS website but then corrected. The "swimsuit" term IS explicitly in the corresponding USA-S rule but was taken out before being adopted at the USMS Convention.
The interesting part is, I asked about this decision and the answer at the time was that the Rules Committee interprets the "swimsuit" part to be implicit in the other language. I would argue that recent history suggests otherwise, but oh well. I'll be curious to see if "swimsuit" is put back in at the next fall convention, after the FINA rules have been adopted for all courses. It doesn't really need to be, since there are other rules that explicitly cover swimsuits; 102.14.4 for example states that the suit must be FINA-approved.
Some time ago, FINA used to argue that a swimsuit is a "costume" and not a "device" and so was not covered by a rule such as the one you mention.
