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
does it make sense to have a rule against non-tech "farmer john" suits, especially if the rule discourages some from participating?
I suppose one way that it makes sense is if it is difficult to distinguish a "non-tech" from a "tech" suit. For men, anyway, the rule as written is relatively easy to enforce. You can also argue that even non-tech body suits provide a competitive advantage by making a flabby person more streamlined through compression.
As far as discouraging participation, based on the heated arguments from both camps I think you can argue that any rule regulating or allowing swim suits will do that one way or another.
To be blunt (and I'll probably catch grief about this) I'm just not that impressed by this statement from someone who hasn't competed in five years. Just saying.
Most people who suffer from "modesty" issues (or whatever you want to call it) don't seem to have a problem wearing much more revealing suits in practice; few of them wear full-coverage suits in practice. So why is it an issue for meets? The strangers who are present? This is an honest question, not a put-down.
There are definitely times where I'm not always proud of my physique, but the bottom line is that swimming is simply not the sport of choice for those who are ashamed of their bodies.
I think the other issue of fairness for "equal coverage" for men and women is silly. Life isn't fair, and I think generally women get the short end of the stick more than men, so I don't mind a reversal here. Aside from the issue of modesty (which requires upper body coverage for women), it is harder for most fit women to be streamlined than fit men, for obvious reasons, so unequal coverage seems warranted.
does it make sense to have a rule against non-tech "farmer john" suits, especially if the rule discourages some from participating?
I suppose one way that it makes sense is if it is difficult to distinguish a "non-tech" from a "tech" suit. For men, anyway, the rule as written is relatively easy to enforce. You can also argue that even non-tech body suits provide a competitive advantage by making a flabby person more streamlined through compression.
As far as discouraging participation, based on the heated arguments from both camps I think you can argue that any rule regulating or allowing swim suits will do that one way or another.
To be blunt (and I'll probably catch grief about this) I'm just not that impressed by this statement from someone who hasn't competed in five years. Just saying.
Most people who suffer from "modesty" issues (or whatever you want to call it) don't seem to have a problem wearing much more revealing suits in practice; few of them wear full-coverage suits in practice. So why is it an issue for meets? The strangers who are present? This is an honest question, not a put-down.
There are definitely times where I'm not always proud of my physique, but the bottom line is that swimming is simply not the sport of choice for those who are ashamed of their bodies.
I think the other issue of fairness for "equal coverage" for men and women is silly. Life isn't fair, and I think generally women get the short end of the stick more than men, so I don't mind a reversal here. Aside from the issue of modesty (which requires upper body coverage for women), it is harder for most fit women to be streamlined than fit men, for obvious reasons, so unequal coverage seems warranted.
