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.
But as it is, I am not emotionally attached to the issue. Like I said, it has no affect on me what others are doing. But yeah, I view the whole tech suit saga as pretty much ridiculous.
If you're not emotionally attached to the issue, how can you work up to an extreme opinion of ridiculous and pathetic? And, uh, that has been our sport for over a decade, dude. It wasn't a saga or some quickie dramatic act. It was the norm.
To my knowledge, suits have never been considered "devices." I don't think it's legal defensible to assert that it's implied in that existing language either.
And the relevance of "modesty" in formulating a rule on racing suits escapes me (beyond the basic of not being see through, etc.)
And the relevance of "modesty" in formulating a rule on racing suits escapes me (beyond the basic of not being see through, etc.)
Perhaps in a nutshell, the difference between pro-tech people and anti-tech is the role that they believe the suit should play in swimming. The anti-tech people think that the main purpose is modesty; the pro-tech people think the suit should also make you faster. I'm not really sure there is a way to reconcile these two views.
Must be interesting meetings with lots of slides used to wrangle over how much a suit can cover and not cover.
LOL. But in the case of masters swimmers, it might not be as pleasurable a job as you might think... :)
Perhaps in a nutshell, the difference between pro-tech people and anti-tech is the role that they believe the suit should play in swimming. The anti-tech people think that the main purpose is modesty; the pro-tech people think the suit should also make you faster. I'm not really sure there is a way to reconcile these two views.
Perhaps not. I can't think of another sport where modesty is relevant to racing though. Modesty is relevant to school dress codes and pubic indecency laws. Speed is relevant to racing. Maybe I'll become a speed skater since speed swimming is outlawed.
There are none. Perfectly legal. Perfectly asterisk-less.
You are correct. As I have stated all records should stand. But, the comparisons won't be from only me.
Do you remind your teammate of this on a daily basis too?
Sounds like you're having enough fun beating him in practice, calling yourself a faster swimmer, and claiming we're all owed asterisks.
No. I never claimed you are all owed asterisks. You earned them.
It will really be annoying if he beats you after June 1.
True. I could become czar of USMS swimming also. The probabilities are about the same.
These are used by people that don't want to see things advance in sport. They feel the need to degrade accomplishments of current athletes following the rules because they don't like seeing their heroes replaced in the record books. They feel that their records should always remain and never be broken by the next generations of athletes to come.
Sit wookie. Stop humping Bill's leg or I'll be rolling up the newspaper. I know that's why you have a distorted perspective of the facts.
Perhaps not. I can't think of another sport where modesty is relevant to racing though. Modesty is relevant to school dress codes and pubic indecency laws. Speed is relevant to racing. Maybe I'll become a speed skater since speed swimming is outlawed.
I don't understand your riff against modesty. Tech-lovers generally want more coverage, not less.
One of the earliest "speed suit" controversies was women's use of skirt-less racing suits. Until about 15 years ago, getting a faster suit was about less coverage, and modesty was maybe more relevant. (I still remember a college teammate who would buy briefs in size 24 for conference champs. Believe me, modesty was an issue. :))
I only brought up modesty since makesense talked about a suit improving over wearing no suit at all, which isn't an option. SOME suit coverage is necessary and it doesn't make sense to have it create unnecessary drag.
I don't understand your riff against modesty. Tech-lovers generally want more coverage, not less.
I dislike that modesty is now resurrected as an excuse/rationale to ban body suits. Who decided that the only purpose of a swimsuit in competition is modesty?! Why are we all harking back to this only now? Modesty is misplaced in determining what gear to race in. We are racing, not in finishing school.
Who decided that the only purpose of a swimsuit in competition is modesty?!
I'm not trying to be smug about it, but I suppose FINA did, under pressure from others (including USA-S).
I'm not trying to be smug about it, but I suppose FINA did, under pressure from others (including USA-S).
I wouldn't be too smug about invoking schizophrenic FINA.
My point is that the "swimsuits are only for modesty" seems like a conveniently and recently trumped up excuse. As for USA-S, I've always said it was arguably appropriate to regulate kids, just not elites and adults.
I think the new version of purism is a fun sucker. That's just me. Swimming needs to be more fun. See, e.g., interview with Peter Marshall in Splash magazine. And I'm just feeling cranky about being told how to pursue my hobby and passion. (So please excuse my Monday morning b*tchiness. lol)
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.)
