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.
Isn't it a little silly to urge people to wear socks in the pool? Body suits have been around for a decade and are perfectly normal competition attire.
Yeah, I agree with you that swimmers are not generally in a position to be modest given the nature of our sport. I guess I've just heard enough swimmers raise it as an issue now, that I can't dismiss it as bogus.
I didn't mean to suggest that marketing USMS was the only reasoning behind Rob's "stirring it up" suggestion. But do you think, as you suggest, that popularity should be the driving force behind setting competitive rules? Purists wouldn't like that!
Would it be legal for a person with modesty concerns to wear a super compressive waterproof t-shirt? Or are t-shirts of any sort banned by the rule that goes into effect in June? I thought they were ...
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.
Isn't it a little silly to urge people to wear socks in the pool? Body suits have been around for a decade and are perfectly normal competition attire.
Yeah, I agree with you that swimmers are not generally in a position to be modest given the nature of our sport. I guess I've just heard enough swimmers raise it as an issue now, that I can't dismiss it as bogus.
I didn't mean to suggest that marketing USMS was the only reasoning behind Rob's "stirring it up" suggestion. But do you think, as you suggest, that popularity should be the driving force behind setting competitive rules? Purists wouldn't like that!
Would it be legal for a person with modesty concerns to wear a super compressive waterproof t-shirt? Or are t-shirts of any sort banned by the rule that goes into effect in June? I thought they were ...
