I think coverage is the real issue. Attracting Olympians is nice, to be sure, but I agree that should hardly be the sole incentive for changing masters rules since masters is for us all.
Well, I think it's a flip, not a flip flop. :D Everyone is entitled to one "motion for reconsideration." I think FINA issued a lot more contradictory rules -- total ban, partial ban w/specific criteria after "study," every suit in the known universe allowed, every single real tech suit and bodysuit (even those legal under the partial ban and legal since 2000) banned. So far, tech suits have still been legal in USMS. And, as SwimsWithAFist notes, there are other rules where USMS diverges from FINA. So USMS cares about FINA, but not slavishly so apparently. I find it encouraging that our ED is not slavish and can think independently about marketing USMS. Go Rob!
If coverage is such a big issue that SCM & LCM will truly be marginalized, then that argument suggest the suits are truly popular. To the extent that is relevant, that weighs in favor permitting them in SCY. In any event, SCY has always been the most popular course in the US and there has traditionally been fewer competitors in the other courses. I'm not sure whether that's because everyone likes SCY or because the vast majority of meets are in SCY.
I don't much like the idea that we have "awful" bodies either. But, let's face it, most of us don't look much like Cullen Jones or other 20 somethings.
Chris, I thought you were against equal coverage? Seems like a one way advantage to the guys to me. I still think bodysuits and zippers should be allowed with or without "rubber."
I am against equal coverage, personally. But I will vote for what I feel is in the best interest of USMS and of my LMSC. And "coverage" doesn't have to be tech suits; there are cheaper alternatives that do not confer a competitive advantage. Problem solved.
I think Rob is doing a good job, but I disagree with his reasoning on this one. And I don't think marketing should drive the rules of competition.
By the way, since when do you think "coverage is a real issue?" I recall you saying that the whole "modesty" thing wrt suits was bogus.
I think coverage is the real issue. Attracting Olympians is nice, to be sure, but I agree that should hardly be the sole incentive for changing masters rules since masters is for us all.
Well, I think it's a flip, not a flip flop. :D Everyone is entitled to one "motion for reconsideration." I think FINA issued a lot more contradictory rules -- total ban, partial ban w/specific criteria after "study," every suit in the known universe allowed, every single real tech suit and bodysuit (even those legal under the partial ban and legal since 2000) banned. So far, tech suits have still been legal in USMS. And, as SwimsWithAFist notes, there are other rules where USMS diverges from FINA. So USMS cares about FINA, but not slavishly so apparently. I find it encouraging that our ED is not slavish and can think independently about marketing USMS. Go Rob!
If coverage is such a big issue that SCM & LCM will truly be marginalized, then that argument suggest the suits are truly popular. To the extent that is relevant, that weighs in favor permitting them in SCY. In any event, SCY has always been the most popular course in the US and there has traditionally been fewer competitors in the other courses. I'm not sure whether that's because everyone likes SCY or because the vast majority of meets are in SCY.
I don't much like the idea that we have "awful" bodies either. But, let's face it, most of us don't look much like Cullen Jones or other 20 somethings.
Chris, I thought you were against equal coverage? Seems like a one way advantage to the guys to me. I still think bodysuits and zippers should be allowed with or without "rubber."
I am against equal coverage, personally. But I will vote for what I feel is in the best interest of USMS and of my LMSC. And "coverage" doesn't have to be tech suits; there are cheaper alternatives that do not confer a competitive advantage. Problem solved.
I think Rob is doing a good job, but I disagree with his reasoning on this one. And I don't think marketing should drive the rules of competition.
By the way, since when do you think "coverage is a real issue?" I recall you saying that the whole "modesty" thing wrt suits was bogus.
