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.
Parents
Former Member
The erroneous suit rule confused me.
The rules are confusing us in the UK too. This was posted by a lawyer (and masters swimmer) on a British swim forum:
_____________
The problem stems from the FINA rules and the fact that the rules are most probably the result of a committee discussion rather than any prior legal analysis as to whether the rules are enforceable. This means that the rules are often amended piecemeal rather than considering the effect of any amendment on other rules and regulations. There is also the problem that, daft as it may sound, the use of everyday language in the wording of the rule may not be the most appropriate as such language may be more open to ambiguity and multiple interpretations.
There is therefore conflict within the FINA rules regarding swimwear. For example:
Rule GR 5.4 provides
Before any swimwear of new design, construction or material is used in competition, the manufacturer of such swimwear must submit the swimwear to FINA and obtain approval of FINA.
The rule is not limited to FINA or Olympic competitions but would appear to cover only "new" designs etc. Thus this rule would not prevent the use of the space age suits we saw last year.
The next ambiguity comes in relation to By-law 8. Is it to be construed as a whole or is it actually 3 distinct by-laws? If it is construed as a whole, the by-law only applies to FINA and Olympic competitions and thus bodysuits are not banned. Even if the by-laws are distinct laws, BL8.3 is ambiguous as regards the material. "Textile Material" is wide enough to cover the materials used in the super suits. The requirements for swimwear approval are expressly stated to apply only to FINA and Olympic Games and so cannot be used to interpret BL8.3 restrictively. The only qualification on this is that FINA will not recognise World Records in other competitions unless "approved swimwear" is used. This is the subject of an express rule in the Swimming Rules which refers to a FINA approved swimsuit (12.7). However, the reference to world records in rule 12.7 is clearly a reference to the world records contemplated by the rest of Rule 12 and the Masters World Records are the subject of their own rules which do not expressly impose the same requirement of a FINA approved swimsuit.
While rule 12.7 is obviously designed to meet the problem of elite swimmers breaking world records in unapproved "textile" suits outside the world championships or Olympic Games, it is less clear that the intention behind the rule was that Masters World Records would be subject to the same requirements.
This still leaves the question of what is meant by a FINA approved suit? Is it the simply the new suits caught by GR 5.4? or have the rules for swimwear approval been incorporated into the FINA rules despite expressly stating that they apply only to FINA competitions?
If it is the latter, then zips are banned as this is expressly stated in the swimwear approval rules.
The erroneous suit rule confused me.
The rules are confusing us in the UK too. This was posted by a lawyer (and masters swimmer) on a British swim forum:
_____________
The problem stems from the FINA rules and the fact that the rules are most probably the result of a committee discussion rather than any prior legal analysis as to whether the rules are enforceable. This means that the rules are often amended piecemeal rather than considering the effect of any amendment on other rules and regulations. There is also the problem that, daft as it may sound, the use of everyday language in the wording of the rule may not be the most appropriate as such language may be more open to ambiguity and multiple interpretations.
There is therefore conflict within the FINA rules regarding swimwear. For example:
Rule GR 5.4 provides
Before any swimwear of new design, construction or material is used in competition, the manufacturer of such swimwear must submit the swimwear to FINA and obtain approval of FINA.
The rule is not limited to FINA or Olympic competitions but would appear to cover only "new" designs etc. Thus this rule would not prevent the use of the space age suits we saw last year.
The next ambiguity comes in relation to By-law 8. Is it to be construed as a whole or is it actually 3 distinct by-laws? If it is construed as a whole, the by-law only applies to FINA and Olympic competitions and thus bodysuits are not banned. Even if the by-laws are distinct laws, BL8.3 is ambiguous as regards the material. "Textile Material" is wide enough to cover the materials used in the super suits. The requirements for swimwear approval are expressly stated to apply only to FINA and Olympic Games and so cannot be used to interpret BL8.3 restrictively. The only qualification on this is that FINA will not recognise World Records in other competitions unless "approved swimwear" is used. This is the subject of an express rule in the Swimming Rules which refers to a FINA approved swimsuit (12.7). However, the reference to world records in rule 12.7 is clearly a reference to the world records contemplated by the rest of Rule 12 and the Masters World Records are the subject of their own rules which do not expressly impose the same requirement of a FINA approved swimsuit.
While rule 12.7 is obviously designed to meet the problem of elite swimmers breaking world records in unapproved "textile" suits outside the world championships or Olympic Games, it is less clear that the intention behind the rule was that Masters World Records would be subject to the same requirements.
This still leaves the question of what is meant by a FINA approved suit? Is it the simply the new suits caught by GR 5.4? or have the rules for swimwear approval been incorporated into the FINA rules despite expressly stating that they apply only to FINA competitions?
If it is the latter, then zips are banned as this is expressly stated in the swimwear approval rules.
