Tech Suit Proposal - How about a vote?

Here is the text of letter sent today by swimmer, John Quinn, to the leadership of SPMA. Basically, he is calling for a vote on tech suits, something that should have been done prior to USMS decision to join in FINA's ban of techsuits: June 23, 2010 Via Electronic Transmittal Executive Committee Southern Pacific Masters Association United States Masters Swimming Re: Proposed Amendment to USMS Rules To the Executive Committee: Please consider this submission as a request to the SPMA Executive Committee to formally propose an amendment to USMS Rule 102.14, SWIMWEAR. The purpose in submitting a formal proposal is to 1) ensure a full and complete debate and discussion regarding the use by U.S. Masters swimmers of so-called tech suits in competition events and 2) amend the rules to allow the use of tech suits in certain competitions to be established following the canvassing of the member body. There has been a fair amount of discussion and electronic correspondence recently regarding the tech suit ban, likely precipitated by the positive experience of a number of swimmers who competed at the recent short course yards Nationals at which tech suits were permitted and the realization that even as to the short course yards competition, a uniquely American invention, the tech suits are no longer authorized for any pool competition as of June 1, 2010. There is an underlying thread to much of the discussion and correspondence, a belief that the decision to bar tech suits was made without an opportunity for the membership, those who compete regularly and to which the decision mattered most, to be heard. There are even those who would vote to continue the bar who agree that an adequate opportunity to air all views, or to provide input to the organization representatives, never occurred. They are correct. SPMA should, by this proposed amendment, initiate the process to have this important issue considered in an orderly and thorough fashion. A. The Decision to Bar Tech Suits Was Made Hastily and Without Full Consideration. The amount of time between when the controversy regarding the use of tech suits developed and the actions barring their use was inadequate to afford an opportunity for informed debate. FINA announced its ban of tech suits on July 25, 2009. On September 19, 2009 at the USMS Convention in Chicago there was apparently some discussion of the impact of the FINA ruling but no formal action was taken since FINA had not addressed the issue of tech suits as to Masters competitions and did not do so until January 16, 2010. Jessica Seaton of SPMA, in an e mail of June 21, 2010, indicated that the next step in the process, following FINA’s action, on January 19, 2010 was the issuance of an “Emergency Rule Change” (document itself is undated); an action undertaken by: ”The USMS Rules Committee based on a sense of the House of Delegates at the 2009 USMS Convention in Chicago.” . Thus, no formal action was taken at the Convention in September of 2009 and none was taken by the Rules Committee until late Jnauary 2010, based on the undated “Emergency Rule Change”. However, the issue was deemed important enough during discussion at the Convention, on September 19, 2009, to prompt this entry in the Minutes: "10. The Chair wrapped up the swim suit discussion by reminding the audience that she had directed the Rules Committee members to poll their local swimmers and to review the USMS discussion forums to gain insight as to the wishes of the USMS members." It does not appear that any poll of SPMA members was ever conducted. Nor do the several Newsletters issued by SPMA following the Convention in September of 2009 solicit any input on the topic from the Members. The USMS Press Release following the September Convention, issued September 19, 2009, is silent on the topic of a possible tech suit ban and does not solicit Member comment or “poll” on the topic. The Executive Committee of USMS voted 4-3 on January 19, 2010 and “approved the recommendation of the Rules Committee to allow Technical Suits through the end of the short course season”. There is no evidence then or later that the Executive Committee did anything to follow up on the directive to “poll” members issued to the Rules Committee on September 19, 2009. It is believed few if any of the LMSCs conducted a poll of their respective members. Under the circumstances, it seems clear that: 1) there was little time to engage the membership in the discussion of tech suits for Masters between FINA’s action on July 25 and the September 19, 2009 convention; 2) no time to do so between FINA’s ban on January 16, 2010 and the USMS 4-3 vote of January 19, 2010, and 3) little to no effort to engage the membership at any time. B. Proposed Amendment to USMS Rule 102.14, SWIMWEAR. It has been suggested that to effect a change to allow tech suits a rationale for the change or amendment must be provided. There may be no better rationale than many of the members want the change and were never afforded the opportunity to voice that strong preference before the action was taken by the Rules Committee, within three days of FINA’s action on January 16, 2010. And there is substantial evidence that among those SPMA members who actually compete tech suits remain highly popular. The proponents of tech suits seek first a modest amendment to the Rules to continue to allow the use of tech suits in short course yards competition. Since short course yards competition is unique to the United States allowing such has no effect on any FINA actions, especially since FINA, the current governing body for international swimming, only recognizes times performed in meters based pools for world record consideration. Thus, it is proposed that Rule 102.14.4 be amended as follows, by the following language added in bold text: “Only swimsuits complying with FINA swimsuit specifications may be worn in any U.S. Masters Swimming sanctioned or recognized competition except that swimwear that was approved for pool use in 2009 may be worn in any short course yards competition. “ As a second modest amendment the use of a tech suit should be permitted in any open water competition that does not qualify for FINA recognition or record, as is currently permitted for 2010 by USMS. These two modest amendments would allow the use of a tech suit in any USMS sanctioned or recognized event that does not also constitute a FINA sanctioned or recognized event. What difference would or should that make to FINA? C. Request for Special Meeting of SPMA. Since it appears that the procedure for proposing an amendment to the USMS Rules must be advanced by the LMSC, which may require a meeting of the Executive Committee and it appears that there is no SPMA meeting scheduled prior to the July 10, 2010 deadline for consideration by the Rules Committee please consider this submission a request for such a meeting, on an emergency basis, in addition to a request to formally make the proposed amendment in time for submission by the July 10 deadline. Finally, at the meeting the Committee should delegate a sub committee of no more than three members to meet and agree on a procedure for the SPMA to conduct a survey, poll or vote of the members regarding the topic of tech suits. Dan Wegner of Club Assistant should be one of the three members and is well suited to conduct such electronically. Respectfully submitted. /S/ John J. Quinn