Well, I'm coming back to swim at Master's meets after a 5 year hiatus (surgeries, etc) and find that I cannot wear my "Farmer John" suit bought in 2000 and worn in 4 previous national meets (except this spring). Not a "tech" suit by any means but a hell of a beer-gut bra! Not sure I would get on the blocks without it so the hiatus may continue. Is it worth alienating us "plus-sized" guys over this silly rule? I suppose it will give me yet another reason to dump some weight. Looks like those other 50+ breaststrokers won't get beat by this fat guy any time soon.
Anyone else out there feel the same? I know most of you out there don't have this problem but to have a rule that reduces participation seems counterproductive.
Lee Rider
Fort Bragg, CA
Parents
Former Member
No, there really isn't any difference. Of course, your logic has also been employed by some of our greatest athletes - Ben Johnson, Floyd Landis, Roger Clemens, A-Roid - those are the first few stellar examples that come to mind.
Calling someone a cheater is a moral judgment. The only way one can conclude that asking if it is okay to swim a race in a LZR expecting to be DQ'd is the moral equivalent of hiding and denying steroid use is if you defer to authority and "rules" as your moral guide. I am not saying you are right or wrong about those being equivalent, I am just illuminating where you stand on moral guidance.
The reason that I view things differently than you is because I do not defer to rules as my moral guide. I think there are plenty of times when an individual can use their own judgment to determine what is right and wrong even if society or the "rules" disagree with them.
(and) As it turns out, there is a philosopher named Kohlberg who theorized on morality and the conclusion he would draw is that I operate at a higher level of morality than you. Don't kill the messenger Geek, I am just reporting what an expert has to say on the matter. See for yourself:
en.wikipedia.org/.../Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development
No, there really isn't any difference. Of course, your logic has also been employed by some of our greatest athletes - Ben Johnson, Floyd Landis, Roger Clemens, A-Roid - those are the first few stellar examples that come to mind.
Calling someone a cheater is a moral judgment. The only way one can conclude that asking if it is okay to swim a race in a LZR expecting to be DQ'd is the moral equivalent of hiding and denying steroid use is if you defer to authority and "rules" as your moral guide. I am not saying you are right or wrong about those being equivalent, I am just illuminating where you stand on moral guidance.
The reason that I view things differently than you is because I do not defer to rules as my moral guide. I think there are plenty of times when an individual can use their own judgment to determine what is right and wrong even if society or the "rules" disagree with them.
(and) As it turns out, there is a philosopher named Kohlberg who theorized on morality and the conclusion he would draw is that I operate at a higher level of morality than you. Don't kill the messenger Geek, I am just reporting what an expert has to say on the matter. See for yourself:
en.wikipedia.org/.../Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development
