I Can't Use My Suit?

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

It sounds like you don't want to draw attention to yourself. That's understandable. If you swim in a jammer or speedo, you'll feel uncomfortable. If you swim in your farmer john, you'll feel better, swim faster, but be DQ-ed. This might draw attention to you as well, especially if the ref comes over to your lane to tell you about the rules, to which you reply, "I know. Look, it's a long story, and I have put much thought into it, I'll spare you the details, so let's just start the race." If I were in your shoes, I guess I would just keep training until you feel comfortable on the blocks.

Next time you get DQ'd for a 1-hand-touch, tell the official that you shouldn't be DQ'd because your moral guide said it was OK for you to do a 1-hand-touch and that your moral guide supersedes their "rule book". Let me know how that goes. -Rick Morality is useful for determining what is MORAL not for determining how rules should be enforced. If I knowingly 1-hand touch (for a legit reason... I don't know let's say I jammed my finger) I would expect to be DQ'd. I would not expect to be labeled a cheater (actually I would expect to be labeled a cheater by some because I recognize that there are people out their who can only operate on a rules based level of morality.).

Calling someone a cheater is a moral judgment. Not according to my dictionary: cheat v. intr. 2. To violate rules deliberately, as in a game or 5. to violate rules or regulations

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. Right on! Men have been downright whiney on this subject! And, aside from the "obvious" issues, they don't even have to worry about AF ruining a meet. :bolt:

You can wear whatever you want to practice No. See Swim Rant thread. The man in the pink thong. It's much worse than I've described. There are things I wish I didn't know.

You can wear whatever you want to practice, where you will spend the vast majority of your time. And, considering 99.99% of swimmers wear some style of speedo, your argument falls very flat. Wow, you've polled Masters swimmers across the country? I counted four swimmers today wearing "rash guards" (not me, by the way -- I just wear an ordinary women's suit). I don't mean to argue this to death -- I'm just a little surprised at why there is so much resistance to the idea of allowing people to wear suits with more coverage, and why people seem to think you need to wear the appropriate suit or hit the road. Again, this isn't about tech suits -- I'm not a proponent of tech suits, although I can see the argument on both sides.

Wow, you've polled Masters swimmers across the country? I counted four swimmers today wearing "rash guards" (not me, by the way -- I just wear an ordinary women's suit). I don't mean to argue this to death -- I'm just a little surprised at why there is so much resistance to the idea of allowing people to wear suits with more coverage, and why people seem to think you need to wear the appropriate suit or hit the road. Again, this isn't about tech suits -- I'm not a proponent of tech suits, although I can see the argument on both sides. Four swimmers wearing rashguards to a masters workout on the same day? Where was this? In 12+ years of swimming with masters teams, I have yet to see a single person wear a rashguard or other top for modesty reasons. I have however seen people wear wetsuits, in preparation for open water swimming.

If I were in charge of a meet and some guy who hasn't competed in five years asked for a lane to do his own thing, I'd firmly but politely tell him to go away, because I have a meet to run. Of course, if it were a really, really small and intimate meet where there's just a dozen or so competitors total and we planned to have the whole thing knocked out in just an hour or so, I might find a way to make it happen, but just once as an extra-special favor. If the meet were any larger, hell no.

It is a little difficult to separate the issue of "body coverage" for modesty purposes, and performance-enhancing suits. There are lots of men's body suits out there, and I believe all of them have claimed to make you swim faster. So people are going to object to them on that basis. But let's consider a thought experiment for a minute. Let's just say that, for one large regional meet (say, a Zone Championship), t-shirts were allowed for modesty purposes. I doubt anyone would worry about performance enhancement, and a t-shirt would seem to be as good as any body suit in covering whatever parts causes people to be uncomfortable. How many swimmers do you think would show up and compete in a t-shirt? My guess would be zero. I don't even know what a "rash guard" is, so I don't think I've ever seen someone wear one to a masters practice (in over 20 years of participating in them). The only time I've ever seen body suits (tech suits, wetsuits) in practice is when people are trying them out, pre-race. People who are apt to wear "rash guards" or t-shirts or whatever to swim practices for modesty purposes -- the same sort of person who might wear swim trunks to practice -- are very unlikely to compete in a swim meet no matter what the suit rules are. That's just my opinion, of course. And without real data, that's all anyone has to offer on this thread as far as I can tell.