PDA

View Full Version : TYR sues Speedo



Paul Smith
May 15th, 2008, 12:59 PM
And here we go!!

http://www.latimes.com/sports/printedition/la-sp-swim15-2008may15,0,5658125.story

scyfreestyler
May 15th, 2008, 01:06 PM
Hmm. I don't see this lawsuit getting much traction. Perhaps Vendt gets nailed for breach of contract.

pwolf66
May 15th, 2008, 01:07 PM
Well, it was only a matter of time but I hope this actually helps decouple Speedo from USA Swimming and FINA. IMO there just seems to be a _small_ conflict of interest when a swimsuit manufacturer is a major sponsor of a body that governs the legality of swimsuits.

Paul

ande
May 15th, 2008, 03:00 PM
I'm not sure which suit is better
TYR or LZR
swimmers have done very fast times in both
more records were broken with swimmers wearing LZR's

USMSarah
May 15th, 2008, 03:18 PM
Well, I'm not surprised. I think it was Shubert who made a good point in a previous article, either go for a big paycheck or go for the gold (something along those lines)... obviously what may be happening in Vendt's case. I'm guessing he signed w/ TYR before the LZR came out? I don't think the lawsuit will get anywhere, TYR didn't "keep up" with the competition. Speedo made a faster suit. Are we going to see Nike get on the lawsuit bandwagon as well? As for Vendt, he'll definitely get sued for breach of contract. That totally stinks for him. Maybe Speedo should back him now (in the lawsuit) since he wants to wear their suit.

Ken Classen
May 15th, 2008, 03:33 PM
Ahh, the great American way, if you can't beat them, sue them.


One may avoid reality, but one cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality.
(Ayn Rand)

hofffam
May 15th, 2008, 03:36 PM
Very few elite swimmers have raced in the new TYR suit. So it is too early to say how it compares to the LZR. Speedo dominates so far more athletes race in their suits. I also think the LZR came out first.

FWIW - A top 20 Div 1 men's swimming coach told me the TYR suit was as fast as the LZR. He also told me he wished it would go back to the old days where the suit was not a factor.

I do think Schubert's comments were blatantly pro-Speedo and were out of line with a person representing USA Swimming and the USA Olympic team.

knelson
May 16th, 2008, 02:52 PM
As for Vendt, he'll definitely get sued for breach of contract. That totally stinks for him.

Does it? If he wore a Speedo suit when he was under contract for TYR I think he's got it coming (If) he was contractually obligated to wear TYR's suits. If he had a problem with that, he should not have signed the contract and he shouldn't have taken TYR's money.

The Fortress
May 16th, 2008, 02:58 PM
Does it? If he wore a Speedo suit when he was under contract for TYR I think he's got it coming (If) he was contractually obligated to wear TYR's suits. If he had a problem with that, he should not have signed the contract and he shouldn't have taken TYR's money.

That's right, Kirk! In any event, he must have been aware that both TYR and Speedo were developing new suits. Aren't they always?

I don't know about the comment that the lawsuit "won't go anywhere" either. Haven't read the complaint and I'm not an antitrust lawyer, but I think TYR may have a case.

scyfreestyler
May 16th, 2008, 03:23 PM
http://www.latimes.com/sports/olympics/la-sp-swim16-2008may16,0,6665208.story



In the lawsuit, TYR is alleging Vendt breached his contract by wearing a Speedo suit. But Morgenstein denied that.

"It is unconscionable to think that a company such as TYR has so badly misread their own contract," he wrote.

knelson
May 16th, 2008, 04:00 PM
From a layman's perspective it seems like the case against Vendt would be pretty clear-cut. Either his contract specifically stated he must wear TYR suits in competition or it didn't. The case against Schubert seems much more complicated.

scyfreestyler
May 16th, 2008, 04:02 PM
From a layman's perspective it seems like the case against Vendt would be pretty clear-cut. Either his contract specifically stated he must wear TYR suits in competition or it didn't. The case against Schubert seems much more complicated.

I agree, but given what Vendt's agent is saying, perhaps what seems clear cut is much more jagged.

USMSarah
May 16th, 2008, 05:43 PM
Does it? If he wore a Speedo suit when he was under contract for TYR I think he's got it coming (If) he was contractually obligated to wear TYR's suits. If he had a problem with that, he should not have signed the contract and he shouldn't have taken TYR's money.

It was just a side comment, because it stinks to get sued. That's all I meant.

He is contractually obligated to wear TYR.

KeithM
May 16th, 2008, 05:52 PM
Vendt and his agency seem taken by surprise.

There was an announcement that Erik left Speedo back in January before he competed at the Long Beach Grand Prix. Why have they waited to pursue this? Was it only predicated on the proceedings against USA Swimming and Wamaco? Even though they're separate cases? The separation back then was described as "mutual"

If it has been an ongoing disagreement about the contract for the last five months then why are they treating it like a bolt from the sky? It's also important to note that according to his agent that Vendt never signed a contract with Speedo. Often athletes can get a release from a sponsor as long as they don't sign a contract with a competitor.

USMSarah
May 16th, 2008, 05:54 PM
Vendt and his agency seem taken by surprise.

There was an announcement that Erik left Speedo back in January before he competed at the Long Beach Grand Prix. Why have they waited to pursue this? Was it only predicated on the proceedings against USA Swimming and Wamaco? Even though they're separate cases? The separation back then was described as "mutual"

If it has been an ongoing disagreement about the contract for the last five months then why are they treating it like a bolt from the sky? It's also important to note that according to his agent that Vendt never signed a contract with Speedo. Often athletes can get a release from a sponsor as long as they don't sign a contract with a competitor.

Since looking at Vendt's web page, and reading some recent articles... I'm now just plain confused. We'll see how all of this pans out.

scyfreestyler
May 16th, 2008, 05:55 PM
Vendt and his agency seem taken by surprise.

There was an announcement that Erik left Speedo back in January before he competed at the Long Beach Grand Prix. Why have they waited to pursue this? Was it only predicated on the proceedings against USA Swimming and Wamaco? Even though they're separate cases? The separation back then was described as "mutual"

If it has been an ongoing disagreement about the contract for the last five months then why are they treating it like a bolt from the sky? It's also important to note that according to his agent that Vendt never signed a contract with Speedo. Often athletes can get a release from a sponsor as long as they don't sign a contract with a competitor.

This could shed some light upon what Vendt's agent has said about TYR not being familiar with it's own contract.

KeithM
May 16th, 2008, 06:11 PM
From a layman's perspective it seems like the case against Vendt would be pretty clear-cut. Either his contract specifically stated he must wear TYR suits in competition or it didn't.
But was he still under contract when he wore Speedo?

If it turns about to be a debate about the terms of getting a release from his contract it may not be so clear.

Would Vendt really be so callous and careless as to wear another suit in competition while knowingly under contract to another manufacturer? It's not a decision an athlete is likely to make without clearance from an agent. Again, before he swam at Belmont Plaza back in January it was announced that Vendt had split from TYR.

scyfreestyler
May 16th, 2008, 06:20 PM
But was he still under contract when he wore Speedo?

If it turns about to be a debate about the terms of getting a release from his contract it may not be so clear.

Would Vendt really be so callous and careless as to wear another suit in competition while knowingly under contract to another manufacturer? It's not a decision an athlete is likely to make without clearance from an agent. Again, before he swam at Belmont Plaza back in January it was announced that Vendt had split from TYR.

I would like to think the answer to that question is no. But as we are all working with very limited information, we will just have to wait and see.

knelson
May 16th, 2008, 07:06 PM
Again, before he swam at Belmont Plaza back in January it was announced that Vendt had split from TYR.

Yes, I remember that. Jensen also left TYR around the same time.

Dolphin 2
May 19th, 2008, 02:54 PM
I really gotta love this!!!

Now a lawsuit has broken out between Tyr and Speedo over one company allegedly mudslinging the other manufacturer's product (just as if either of them had any credibility in the first place). :bouncing:

Then there’s the issue of the conflict of interest involving USA Swimming and FINA contorting and twisting the rules to appease the suit makers. Just as many have predicted all along, this suit issue is turning into yet another sports scandal. :lmao:

Hopefully even more embarrassing (and costly conflicts) will ensue between Speedo, Tyr, Nike, etc. and I just can’t wait until suit "technology" craze finally bites the dust!!! :applaud:

Happy swimming

Dolphin 2

hofffam
May 19th, 2008, 03:25 PM
Read the legal filing at http://www.swimnetwork.com/articles/article/news/20080515/the_tyr_lawsuit_document_broken_down-11699.html.

It is interesting to read. Much of the suit (!) is directed at Schubert. TYR says Schubert abused his position as a USA-S coach and figure to openly promote Speedo. It also claims USA-S is unreasonably influenced by Speedo - to the point of even editing pictures in Splash magazine to remove non-Speedo logos!

I read it as TYR expects to battle Speedo all the time - but it isn't a fair fight when USA-S and its employees use their position to promote Speedo.

swimcat
May 20th, 2008, 05:01 PM
I'm not sure which suit is better
TYR or LZR
swimmers have done very fast times in both
more records were broken with swimmers wearing LZR's


Ande,
i wore the fspro kneeskin at ynats this week and dropped alot of time, considering i haven't raced in 4 years or trained much 400-200im or 200 br in practice. for the 100 breast i wore the tracer lite tank and believe me girls, you might want to wet down the suit if you do a track start.:laugh2:
btw, swimming the 200br after 1 hour of 400 im was a mistake.:doh: i had sooo much lactic acid build up in my thighs, but hey this one was for fun, no expectations.

ehoch
May 20th, 2008, 05:26 PM
Maybe somebody will also sue FINA and Speedo about the rule to have all suits available for all competitors. Here is the response I got from Speedo about the LZR:

"Thank you for shopping with SpeedoUSA.com.

We apologize for the extended delay in the shipping of the LZR Racer.
The correct date of shipping is now September 30, 2008. We are unable to
ship these prior to this date. Again, we apologize for the
inconvenience."

I asked them to ship me the suit, so I could make Olympic Trials cuts (which I can't - but that's not the point).

ehoch
May 20th, 2008, 05:29 PM
Here is something else - an LZR sold on EBAY for over $800 ....

USMSarah
May 20th, 2008, 05:36 PM
I asked them to ship me the suit, so I could make Olympic Trials cuts.

Did you really say that to them? :laugh2:

The Fortress
May 20th, 2008, 05:49 PM
Maybe somebody will also sue FINA and Speedo about the rule to have all suits available for all competitors.

This isn't an actual rule, is it? Or are you arguing for equitable treatment?

ehoch
May 20th, 2008, 06:58 PM
Here is the FINA rule from the FINA website:

GR 5.6 The manufacturers must ensure that the approved new swimsuit will be available for all competitors.


Here is the e-mail I sent to them:
I pre-ordered a LZR racer (see copy of order confirmation below), it
said that the suit will be available on July 30th - (now it says "LZR
RACER will be available for delivery on or about September 30, 2008,
just in time for the Beijing Olympics. " on the website - which can not
be correct, because the Olympics start earlier than that.)
I was hoping to make an Olympic Trials Cut PRIOR on June 5/6 - Is there
any way to receive the suit before that date. I swim unattached, so I
don't belong to any sponsored team.
Thank you for any help you can provide -

How are they complying with the rule ?

knelson
May 20th, 2008, 07:31 PM
How are they complying with the rule ?

I think you're absolutely right. They aren't complying with the rule. The rule doesn't say "available for all competitors at the Olympic Games" or "all competitors at World Championships," it says all competitors.

The Fortress
May 20th, 2008, 07:46 PM
Here is the FINA rule from the FINA website:

GR 5.6 The manufacturers must ensure that the approved new swimsuit will be available for all competitors.


Here is the e-mail I sent to them:
I pre-ordered a LZR racer (see copy of order confirmation below), it
said that the suit will be available on July 30th - (now it says "LZR
RACER will be available for delivery on or about September 30, 2008,
just in time for the Beijing Olympics. " on the website - which can not
be correct, because the Olympics start earlier than that.)
I was hoping to make an Olympic Trials Cut PRIOR on June 5/6 - Is there
any way to receive the suit before that date. I swim unattached, so I
don't belong to any sponsored team.
Thank you for any help you can provide -

How are they complying with the rule ?

Nice email!

I wonder how the rule will be interpreted though? There might be an element of reasonableness and reasonable efforts implied? Perhaps they can argue that they could not anticipate demand based on prior suit launches? The rule's pretty clear though -- "must" and "will."

Do FINA rules apply across the board to all meets? (Don't know much about FINA.)

ALM
May 20th, 2008, 08:16 PM
Here is the FINA rule from the FINA website:

GR 5.6 The manufacturers must ensure that the approved new swimsuit will be available for all competitors.


Here is the e-mail I sent to them:
I pre-ordered a LZR racer (see copy of order confirmation below), it said that the suit will be available on July 30th - (now it says "LZR RACER will be available for delivery on or about September 30, 2008, just in time for the Beijing Olympics. " on the website - which can not be correct, because the Olympics start earlier than that.) I was hoping to make an Olympic Trials Cut PRIOR on June 5/6 - Is there any way to receive the suit before that date. I swim unattached, so I don't belong to any sponsored team. Thank you for any help you can provide -

How are they complying with the rule ?


Ehoch - I'm not an expert on FINA rules, but look at the statements at the top of the General Rules section (the bold type emphasis is mine):



http://www.fina.org/project/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=43&Itemid=119

These General Rules are basic regulations for FINA competitions in all kinds of Swimming, Open Water Swimming, Diving, Water Polo, Synchronised Swimming, and Masters Competitions as well as for uniform regulations for the development of competition facilities.

In these Rules, competitors shall include swimmers, open water swimmers, divers, water polo players, synchronised swimmers, or masters swimmers, either male or female.

FINA recognises that these Rules may be adjusted for competitions within a given Federation but recommends that all Members adhere to these Rules as closely as possible.


An example of a "federation" would be United States Swimming. So it sounds like USA-S wouldn't have to follow rule GR 5.6 if it didn't want to.

ehoch
May 20th, 2008, 08:28 PM
Well - I am not going to sue anybody, but I still don't think this is fair. A company should not be able to say - this suits is 2% better than anything else - and then not make it available to everybody.

They are getting around this by having "stands" at the big US meets where you can borrow an LZR (not sure, but I am guessing TYR is doing the same).

I am guessing they will not come to USMS meets - lol

USMSarah
May 20th, 2008, 09:43 PM
Well - I am not going to sue anybody, but I still don't think this is fair. A company should not be able to say - this suits is 2% better than anything else - and then not make it available to everybody.

They are getting around this by having "stands" at the big US meets where you can borrow an LZR (not sure, but I am guessing TYR is doing the same).

I am guessing they will not come to USMS meets - lol

Maybe they mean that the suits will only be ready for all Olympians. Didn't that happen when they first came out with the fastskin? Would you borrow a LZR if they did come to any USMS meets? Oh, ps - wasn't laughing at you in my above post, I thought you were being sarcastic to see if they'd get you a suit asap. Sorry.

:o

LindsayNB
May 21st, 2008, 10:59 AM
As was mentioned in another thread there were a couple swimmers at Masters Worlds that were wearing LZRs and won their events. No one can say whether they would have won anyway but it seems very wrong to me that they had a significant advantage. As far as I know Speedo was not lending suits to all comers at Worlds, correct me if I'm wrong. I don't see how the rule has any meaning at all if it isn't even applied at FINA Worlds.

aquageek
May 21st, 2008, 11:04 AM
Lindsay - why does that bother you? It seems to me if you have the money and connections, you should maximize your potential. I'm not at all down with this lowest common denominator approach to gear and apparel.

LindsayNB
May 21st, 2008, 12:52 PM
Lindsay - why does that bother you? It seems to me if you have the money and connections, you should maximize your potential. I'm not at all down with this lowest common denominator approach to gear and apparel.

I tend to think about what the basic principals are and at this point I don't understand what the potential being maximized is here. Are swimming competitions supposed to be about swimmers competing on swimming ability or about suit makers competing on technology or about swimmers competing on disposable income?

The rule about suits being available to all competitors makes sense to me as it creates a more level playing field. There has to be a trade off between the idea of a level playing field and the inherently unequal nature of the world so you have to decide where you can make it level and where you can't. That's what rules are for. The lanes should all be the same length for example. Or perhaps you should be able to maximize your potential by buying a 2% shorter lane? The Texas Sr Circuit meet pool was short by 3cm or 0.06% which is minuscule compared to the 2% advantage the LZR is supposed to give but they are throwing out all the results from the Texas meet. How do you reconcile that?

Off the cuff I can't come up with any argument for expensive high-tech suits that doesn't apply to using, for example, fins. I don't like that inconsistancy. But rules are often arbitrary, so as long as the rules are applied universally I'm ok with that.

And I don't like the accessibility implications of expensive suits. So I would prefer to see more standardized suits and perhaps even a requirement that they have to be available to anyone at a maximum price. But that's a personal preference, I would be satisfied if the current rules were adhered to.

And don't bother with the wool suit argument, progress is fine with me as long as it doesn't gratuitously result in an unlevel playing field. As soon as anyone can buy an LZR without having to have a connection at Speedo then I won't get upset. I just don't understand how one can argue that the FINA availability rule was being observed at FINA Worlds.

aquageek
May 21st, 2008, 01:09 PM
Anyone who thinks sports are about a level playing fields is naive. You can't level any playing field in sports. Sports that try that are roundly lampooned, like gull's NASCAR for example. As an adult I intend to use my resources as I see fit and that does not mean I need some people who can't afford a suit to tell me what to do.

What about an athlete that trains longer, harder, smarter. Maybe we should tell him not to train too much. What about the athlete that has access to a better coach and facilities. Maybe we should tell her she can't participate and has to swim in a dumpy pool. What about people who have genetic abilities that predispose them to better swimming. Maybe we shoudn't let them compete. It's all about a level playing field, after all.

Communists rule!

ehoch
May 21st, 2008, 01:29 PM
Aquageek --- all good points, but only for after September 30th. You can not get the suit - it is that simple. I will give you my size and an extra $20, and you can get us the suits for the next meet.

aquageek
May 21st, 2008, 01:54 PM
You can not get the suit - it is that simple. I will give you my size and an extra $20, and you can get us the suits for the next meet.

OK, I understand, but why does that make people all crazed? There are lots of things I can't get but that doesn't mean I don't want you to get them. Makes no difference to me at all.

hofffam
May 21st, 2008, 02:16 PM
There are probably not enough FSII or FSPro suits for every competitor that might participate in FINA competition. Do you believe there are 150,000 of these suits in stock right now? I don't. Even fewer TYR suits.

The LZR is in very limited supply right now. As long as Speedo doesn't ration them in a discriminatory way they probably comply with the intent of the FINA rule.

As for fins -there is a huge difference between fins and swimsuits. Fins are an active device that increases propulsion. There is every reason to prohibit them, just like paddles or any similar device. A suit is passive. You wear it. Some say the LZR creates flotation (which I consider active behavior) but that hasn't been proven at all.

imspoiled
May 21st, 2008, 02:17 PM
I agree with ehoch on this point. Nothing at all against tech suits, or the crazy price tags on the new ones. Sure, it will be a while before I'm ready to drop $500 on a suit, but that's a personal choice. Economic considerations for using/ not using a tech suit do not come into play here.

The fact is, the LZR is NOT available to everyone (for purchase & immediate use). Level playing field is not the point--perceived equity is.

At USMS SC nationals Josh Davis had some awesome swims. He also wore an LZR. No doubt, his swims would have been awesome without the suit and the final standings in his age group would be the same. Given the LZR was only available to a select few swimmers, and not the general swimming public, was it fair for him to be allowed to use the suit? Do other swimmers in his age group feel cheated out of equitable competition?

If the suit were available to everyone for purchase and use, I don't think we would be having this discussion at all. People could make their own decision about the value of any performance benefit the suit may provide. Since it is not, Speedo/ FINA is fueling controversy by allowing its use.

knelson
May 21st, 2008, 02:34 PM
There are probably not enough FSII or FSPro suits for every competitor that might participate in FINA competition. Do you believe there are 150,000 of these suits in stock right now?

Apples to oranges in my mind. If you want an FSII or FS Pro right now you can order one online and probably have it within a day or two if you pick the right shipping options. If every member of USA Swimming tried to order one at once, then, yes, there wouldn't be enough, but that's beside the point. The fact is these suits are available to the general public right now and the LZR is not.

LindsayNB
May 21st, 2008, 02:35 PM
OK, I understand, but why does that make people all crazed?

People get upset because of the appearance that the rules are not applied fairly.

Basically your argument confuses a level playing field with identical players. A level field doesn't imply or require that all the players are identical.

aquageek
May 21st, 2008, 02:40 PM
There are very few high tech equipment items that are available to all in every sport, fact of life. Even if they are generally available, their price tag excludes many. I wonder if the next logical step in this argument is affordability. Seems if you can't afford it, that could be yet another playing field to level, to some anyway.

aquageek
May 21st, 2008, 02:41 PM
People get upset because of the appearance that the rules are not applied fairly.


No, people get upset because they don't have the resources or skill to get what they need, then they get jealous, then they whine and say the field isn't level.

My argument confuses nothing. There are vast differences between pools and coaches and facilities throughout the nation. That is no different that a swimsuit.

LindsayNB
May 21st, 2008, 02:53 PM
There are probably not enough FSII or FSPro suits for every competitor that might participate in FINA competition. Do you believe there are 150,000 of these suits in stock right now? I don't. Even fewer TYR suits.

The LZR is in very limited supply right now. As long as Speedo doesn't ration them in a discriminatory way they probably comply with the intent of the FINA rule.

As for fins -there is a huge difference between fins and swimsuits. Fins are an active device that increases propulsion. There is every reason to prohibit them, just like paddles or any similar device. A suit is passive. You wear it. Some say the LZR creates flotation (which I consider active behavior) but that hasn't been proven at all.

While intent is arguably unknowable the obvious intent for the rule would be to prevent suit makers or federations from creating competitive advantages for one swimmer over another. I think if AUSSI Swimming had struck a deal with Speedo for exclusive access to the LZR at the Olympics that the rest of the world would rightly take issue with that. What happened at FINA Worlds doesn't seem fundamentally different than that to me.

If the manufacturer can't meet demand the suit should not be in use until they have enough stock that everyone who wants one (or minimally can afford one) can get one.

In what sense are fins active devices? They just passively sit on your feet.

LindsayNB
May 21st, 2008, 03:00 PM
My argument confuses nothing. There are vast differences between pools and coaches and facilities throughout the nation. That is no different that a swimsuit.

Actually it does and it is. When you show up at a meet your lane is the same width and length as all the other lanes in that competition. The conditions under which you have to compete are the same as everyone else's so the "field is level". There is a difference between saying that the conditions of competition should be the same and saying that all the players have to have trained under the same conditions.

aquageek
May 21st, 2008, 03:02 PM
If the manufacturer can't meet demand the suit should not be in use until they have enough stock that everyone who wants one (or minimally can afford one) can get one.

So much for capitalism, this pretty much sums it up. Insanely anti-American argument. I can't believe anyone can actually argue this type of lunacy.

Let's figure this out. A manufacturer has a product people want but can't keep up with demand so they stop sending the product out until they have enough to supply. Of course, the subsequent total lack of supply erodes all demand and the manufacturer is subsequently put out of business or forced to unload the product at any price. That's some kind of system, benefits no one, harms everyone.

aquageek
May 21st, 2008, 03:05 PM
Actually it does. When you show up at the pool your lane is the same width and length as all the other lanes in that competition. The conditions under which you have to compete are the same as everyone else's so the "field is level". There is a difference between saying that the conditions of competition should be the same and saying that all the players have to have trained under the same conditions.

Another bogus argument. I guess if you exclude the 99.9% of the time you actually spend training versus competing, then your point is valid. I can't stand this mess - you feel that we should all have equal shots, I obviously feel you do what it takes to win.

The Fortress
May 21st, 2008, 03:38 PM
If the suit were available to everyone for purchase and use, I don't think we would be having this discussion at all. People could make their own decision about the value of any performance benefit the suit may provide. Since it is not, Speedo/ FINA is fueling controversy by allowing its use.

Even if the suit were available, people would be byatching about it just like wet suits.

Controversy is good for swimsuit sales and driving up demand.

Hard to ever have a level playing field, as Geek notes. Even on race day, there are huge differences. What if someone is sick or injured or couldn't sleep that night or their plane got in late or they had no chance to get used to the bulkhead or their suit ripped or ballooned or their coach wasn't there or they had to swim back to back events or they drown in the wake of sandbaggers or they swam in an outside lane or whatever ... So while the pool itself might be the same, other conditions of competition are inherently unequal.

hofffam
May 21st, 2008, 04:29 PM
While intent is arguably unknowable the obvious intent for the rule would be to prevent suit makers or federations from creating competitive advantages for one swimmer over another. I think if AUSSI Swimming had struck a deal with Speedo for exclusive access to the LZR at the Olympics that the rest of the world would rightly take issue with that. What happened at FINA Worlds doesn't seem fundamentally different than that to me.

If the manufacturer can't meet demand the suit should not be in use until they have enough stock that everyone who wants one (or minimally can afford one) can get one.

In what sense are fins active devices? They just passively sit on your feet.

As soon as the feet move you know that fins multiply propulsion compared to bare feet. So I suppose they are passive in that they don't have batteries or another power source - but they are clearly a performance enhancement.

I disagree that the suit should not be in use until everyone who wants one can have it. How do you define "wants one?" I want a FSPro but I'm not willing to pay how much they ask for it. Who knows exactly what FINA meant by that rule. But I assume Speedo has enough LZRs to provide to all swimmers at elite level events who want to use the suit. Only if Speedo overtly denies the suit at such a meet is it a problem.

FS Pros were in short supply for a while too. Is FINA supposed to say "a new suit can't be used until there a 100,000 available?"

aquageek
May 21st, 2008, 04:33 PM
FS Pros were in short supply for a while too. Is FINA supposed to say "a new suit can't be used until there a 100,000 available?"

Yes, they should say this...in progressive countries like Cuba, N. Korea and Burma, or whatever they call it these days.

imspoiled
May 21st, 2008, 04:39 PM
Even if the suit were available, people would be byatching about it just like wet suits.

Controversy is good for swimsuit sales and driving up demand.

Hard to ever have a level playing field, as Geek notes. Even on race day, there are huge differences. What if someone is sick or injured or couldn't sleep that night or their plane got in late or they had no chance to get used to the bulkhead or their suit ripped or ballooned or their coach wasn't there or they had to swim back to back events or they drown in the wake of sandbaggers or they swam in an outside lane or whatever ... So while the pool itself might be the same, other conditions of competition are inherently unequal.

Fortress-
Agreed, on all points.

What I will say is there are aspects of competition that give the strongest/fastest a benefit, those are not unavailable to everyone in the competition. ANYONE can get the inside lanes by entering the fastest time. ANYONE can have suit issues--technical suit or basic brief or tank. If a competitor chooses to fly in on the red-eye for a meet, then he/she must contend with the impact of the decision made. That is not unfair advantage to other competitors, it is an individual choice. Things that are inherently individual do not make competition unequal--they are the reason we compete in the first place.

Agreed that controvery drives demand. Agreed that demad drives cost (just for you Geek!). No one is claiming that the controvery and demand are bad for Speedo. They can charge what they want for the suit, and if people see it as a value (to them) they have every right to buy it, use it, and win or loose races in it.

If the price is prohibitive to some, so be it (yes, this is America & I love capitalism)--but the opportunity for everyone to buy it and use it in competition (not just pre-order) should be there. Currently, it is not. If everyone at Olympic Trials gets one to wear, then the choice to use it or not is their own. Masters do not have that option today.

The Fortress
May 21st, 2008, 04:51 PM
Fortress-
Agreed, on all points.

What I will say is there are aspects of competition that give the strongest/fastest a benefit, those are not unavailable to everyone in the competition. ANYONE can get the inside lanes by entering the fastest time. ANYONE can have suit issues--technical suit or basic brief or tank. If a competitor chooses to fly in on the red-eye for a meet, then he/she must contend with the impact of the decision made. That is not unfair advantage to other competitors, it is an individual choice. Things that are inherently individual do not make competition unequal--they are the reason we compete in the first place.

Agreed that controvery drives demand. Agreed that demad drives cost (just for you Geek!). No one is claiming that the controvery and demand are bad for Speedo. They can charge what they want for the suit, and if people see it as a value (to them) they have every right to buy it, use it, and win or loose races in it.

If the price is prohibitive to some, so be it (yes, this is America & I love capitalism)--but the opportunity for everyone to buy it and use it in competition (not just pre-order) should be there. Currently, it is not. If everyone at Olympic Trials gets one to wear, then the choice to use it or not is their own. Masters do not have that option today.

I think you should be kicked off the island because you have too many fastskins already. :joker:

Personally, I'd like to sue Speedo for not having a big bold disclaimer that the Pro rips like crazy -- no matter how careful you are. Or a superscript underneath the tall skinny model saying "results not typical" to account for those with hips. lol

Not crazy about the moral undertones of the debate either. I read in USMS that Dave Holland's "moral compass" wouldn't allow him to wear a wet suit. Sheesh -- that's overdoing it. (sorry Chris)

aquageek
May 21st, 2008, 05:06 PM
There are thousands if not tens of thousands of products that not everyone has the opportunity to purchase, regardless of price. Opportunity is irrelevant. scyfreestyler can't buy the same car that I can due to CA's emission standards. The Chinese can't buy some technology items that I can easily get. I can't get a decent tomato for 8 months of the year, but Californians probably can.

I think it's really a case of preschool economics by those that advocate the curtailing of basic economic principles. That being, if I can't have it, no one else should be able to have it either.

scyfreestyler
May 21st, 2008, 05:09 PM
Geek, I want your eight thousand dollar bicycle that was blessed by Lance Armstrong. I'll send you some fresh veggies in the off season as trade.

Allen Stark
May 21st, 2008, 05:53 PM
I am beginning to agree with Lindsay.It isn't a matter of economics,it is a matter of connections.If I do or don't want to spend $550 on a suit it is my right.If I want to spend $550 on a suit,but I can't until Sept 30,and a guy with connections and the suit beats me at Nats,is that fair.Tim Shead in a LZR(I believe,I wasn't at SCY Nats,but I know he had one at Worlds) beat Rick Colella in the 200 BR by .05 sec.Tim and Rick are both amazing swimmers,but was it fair?

aquageek
May 21st, 2008, 06:00 PM
Tim Shead in a LZR(I believe,I wasn't at SCY Nats,but I know he had one at Worlds) beat Rick Colella in the 200 BR by .05 sec.Tim and Rick are both amazing swimmers,but was it fair?

Yes, it's fair. As fair as life gets anyway.

knelson
May 21st, 2008, 06:05 PM
How do you define "wants one?"

You don't have to because that's not how the rule is worded. The rule says the suit must be available to all competitors. As ehoch proved the LZR is not available to all competitors until at least September.

quicksilver
May 21st, 2008, 08:49 PM
They'll be on ebay soon enough.

Just beware, they aren't LSR's made by Speedoh.

KeithM
May 22nd, 2008, 07:42 AM
So much for capitalism, this pretty much sums it up. Insanely anti-American argument. I can't believe anyone can actually argue this type of lunacy.

Let's figure this out. A manufacturer has a product people want but can't keep up with demand so they stop sending the product out until they have enough to supply. Of course, the subsequent total lack of supply erodes all demand and the manufacturer is subsequently put out of business or forced to unload the product at any price. That's some kind of system, benefits no one, harms everyone.
Sporting bodies and organizations are not democracies and they don't operate internally on a supply and demand basis. They make their own rules. Participants consent to the rules of their competition. If you don't like the rules. Tough.


Another bogus argument. I guess if you exclude the 99.9% of the time you actually spend training versus competing, then your point is valid. I can't stand this mess - you feel that we should all have equal shots, I obviously feel you do what it takes to win.
Whatever it takes to win? Like PEDs? Such as hiring a hitman to take out your main rival's kneecap? Life's not fair right? Where do you draw the line exactly?



There are thousands if not tens of thousands of products that not everyone has the opportunity to purchase, regardless of price. Opportunity is irrelevant. scyfreestyler can't buy the same car that I can due to CA's emission standards. The Chinese can't buy some technology items that I can easily get. I can't get a decent tomato for 8 months of the year, but Californians probably can. That's nice. But what does any of this have to do with sporting bodies enacting rules? This pertains to managed sports competition. It's not a free market.

aquageek
May 22nd, 2008, 07:53 AM
Whatever it takes to win? Like PEDs? Such as hiring a hitman to take out your main rival's kneecap? Life's not fair right? Where do you draw the line exactly?

Let's draw the line at felonies and misdemeanors, ok? Wearing a swimsuit is neither, well most suits in most jurisdictions anyway. This obviously demands that gull post the most famous swimsuit ever on this forum, that being Speedo Man. Bring it on, gull!

Dolphin 2
May 22nd, 2008, 01:04 PM
Here’s some more fuel for this inferno of a controversy: :blah:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/20/SP5910P0R6.DTL

Along with reader’s mostly negative comments (warmly received as I'm such a dedicated opponent of the suit technology craze): :applaud:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/comments/view?f=/c/a/2008/05/20/SP5910P0R6.DTL

Happy swimming

Dolphin 2

mctrusty
May 22nd, 2008, 02:30 PM
Whatever it takes to win? Like PEDs? Such as hiring a hitman to take out your main rival's kneecap? Life's not fair right? Where do you draw the line exactly?


A favorite forum device, the Slippery Slope. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope)

3strokes
May 22nd, 2008, 02:45 PM
They'll be on ebay soon enough.

Just beware, they aren't LSR's made by Speedoh.

You mean "Speeduh". Right?

KeithM
May 22nd, 2008, 05:18 PM
A favorite forum device, the Slippery Slope. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope)
It was not a slippery slope. It was a question. Not a statement. "Do what it takes to win" is a provocative statement if left open ended. I wanted clarification on where exactly his limits stood because he didn't provide it. He since has.