PDA

View Full Version : USOC tries to cap swimming deals



TheGoodSmith
June 17th, 2008, 04:54 PM
This is a pathetic attempt to control US swimmer's incomes.

What the hell is behind this inane decision?

Are we trying to kill off the sport slowly?

This decision is ridiculous !


http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/59325

Redbird Alum
June 17th, 2008, 05:02 PM
Frankly, I agree.

On a lighter note...

I think allowing sponsorships would make the sport more colorful as it progresses... imagine the amount of advertising you could sell off with a cap and full bodysuit!

The announcers wouldn't have such a time describing where a swimmer was either (lane, two, near the top of the screen) as they could use the color or largest logo on the swimmers visible panel to describe them.

hofffam
June 17th, 2008, 06:03 PM
Does the USOC allow logos for track athletes, volleyball players, sailors, tennis players, basketball players, etc.?

If not - swimmers should not have them on their caps. Sorry. But consistency is important.

If logos are allowed for other sports, swimming should conform.

However, I prefer no athletes at the Olympics have logos on their competition apparel other than their country. I don't want to see the Speedo or Nike team running or swimming - it should be the flag or symbol of the country ONLY.

The Olympics will have sponsors plastered everywhere - and it would be nice to not have the athletes become billboards.

scyfreestyler
June 17th, 2008, 06:14 PM
What is the USOC going to do to enforce this? Withhold the laughable stipend they supply these swimmers with? Ban the offenders from swimming in Beijing? Please.

scyfreestyler
June 17th, 2008, 06:15 PM
Does the USOC allow logos for track athletes, volleyball players, sailors, tennis players, basketball players, etc.?

If not - swimmers should not have them on their caps. Sorry. But consistency is important.

If logos are allowed for other sports, swimming should conform.

However, I prefer no athletes at the Olympics have logos on their competition apparel other than their country. I don't want to see the Speedo or Nike team running or swimming - it should be the flag or symbol of the country ONLY.

The Olympics will have sponsors plastered everywhere - and it would be nice to not have the athletes become billboards.

This is specific to trials.

ande
June 17th, 2008, 06:34 PM
here's the memo
http://forums.usms.org/showthread.php?t=10999
swimmers should go nascar

i think USOC did it to control advertising at their events and make advertisers pay the USOC

USMSarah
June 18th, 2008, 12:48 AM
I may be totally wrong, but don't professional athletes (of any sport) have to go amateur to compete in the Olympics?

Anyways, Speedo and other companies have spent so much $ developing new suits to help our swimmers go faster - I really don't see the problem in letting the swimmers wear their apparel at Trials. Or, if the swimmer is represented by another company, I don't see the big deal to have their logo on their cap that is no bigger than a TYR or Speedo logo (like the pic of Gary Hall's cap)... but I wouldn't want to see anything like Amanda Beard holding a Red Bull on the awards stand.

Doesn't the NCAA have similar rules for logos?

aquageek
June 18th, 2008, 07:15 AM
The amateur status thing has long since passed.

You need to look more closely at this decision before you make comments. The USOC is a private organization and can set its own rules. Athletes realize that when they elect to compete. They don't have to like the rules. If the USOC has entered into private contracts with companies to advertise, and thus fund, a percentage of their operations and generate overall income for the Olympic movement, then all athletes will benefit. Since the vast majority of athletes have zero sponsorship the impact of this is negligible since it won't impact them anyway.

If it's for any reason other than that, well then it does make very little sense.

USMSarah
June 18th, 2008, 10:36 AM
With the swimmers who are lucky enough to score contracts with companies.... is there something specifically written in their contracts about wearing their items at Olympic Trials or big meets - do they get paid more if they do this (or less if they aren't able to)?

If the meet requires swimmers to tone it down, then I don't have a problem with it - rules are rules. Speedo, Nike, TYR, etc. should respect the meet regulations and not penalize their athletes (if that is what is happening). I am unaware what they do at other sports Olympic Trials... same rules?

On a personal note, I honestly wouldn't mind if someone had a big TYR or Nike logo on at a major swim meet... it's competitive swimming and those names are what assist us in our endeavors. Swimming is in the limelight once every 4 years... why not get as much attention as we can during that one week?

gull
June 18th, 2008, 10:50 AM
Fortunately USMS has no such rule, so I can continue wearing my Team Starbucks cap: "I Swim a Latte".

scyfreestyler
June 18th, 2008, 11:31 AM
Fortunately USMS has no such rule, so I can continue wearing my Team Starbucks cap: "I Swim a Latte".
:cool: That's pretty cool if it's true Gull!

matysekj
June 18th, 2008, 11:53 AM
Fortunately USMS has no such rule, so I can continue wearing my Team Starbucks cap: "I Swim a Latte".

I agree with Matt. Can anyone say "sponsorship opportunity for USMS"?

gull
June 18th, 2008, 12:01 PM
I agree with Matt. Can anyone say "sponsorship opportunity for USMS"?

Just remember, you saw it here first.

I have no such cap. But I would like one.

scyfreestyler
June 18th, 2008, 12:05 PM
I am sure you could have one made. Perhaps leave out the "c" in Starbucks to avoid some sort of copyright infringement lawsuit.

lefty
June 18th, 2008, 12:25 PM
You need to look more closely at this decision before you make comments. The USOC is a private organization and can set its own rules. Athletes realize that when they elect to compete. They don't have to like the rules. If the USOC has entered into private contracts with companies to advertise, and thus fund, a percentage of their operations and generate overall income for the Olympic movement, then all athletes will benefit.

To get the full impact of Geek's post, I suggest listening to the Bolchevik Anthem in the background.

I am little uncertain about this statement, because the only support I have for this claim is the entire history of humanity, but when a small group of people control the financial well being of the masses, the small group does not benefit the masses in an equitable fashion.

Tell me Geek, should the USOC distribute its new found cash to each according to his needs?

lefty
June 18th, 2008, 12:26 PM
I am sure you could have one made. Perhaps leave out the "c" in Starbucks to avoid some sort of copyright infringement lawsuit.

Or call it "Fourbucks" which seems to be catching on...

ALM
June 18th, 2008, 12:27 PM
I agree with Matt. Can anyone say "sponsorship opportunity for USMS"?

If Starbucks knew of the amount of performance-enhancing caffeine consumed by the Smith brothers alone, I'm sure they'd jump at the chance to sponsor us...

hofffam
June 18th, 2008, 01:21 PM
With the swimmers who are lucky enough to score contracts with companies.... is there something specifically written in their contracts about wearing their items at Olympic Trials or big meets - do they get paid more if they do this (or less if they aren't able to)?

If the meet requires swimmers to tone it down, then I don't have a problem with it - rules are rules. Speedo, Nike, TYR, etc. should respect the meet regulations and not penalize their athletes (if that is what is happening). I am unaware what they do at other sports Olympic Trials... same rules?

On a personal note, I honestly wouldn't mind if someone had a big TYR or Nike logo on at a major swim meet... it's competitive swimming and those names are what assist us in our endeavors. Swimming is in the limelight once every 4 years... why not get as much attention as we can during that one week?

The problem with a big TYR or Nike logo is that it is no different than a Pepsi, Gatorade, or Ford logo. I believe that if they allow a TYR logo they would (have to) allow any logo. I'm sorry but I don't want our swimmers to look like billboards.

USMSarah
June 18th, 2008, 01:46 PM
The problem with a big TYR or Nike logo is that it is no different than a Pepsi, Gatorade, or Ford logo. I believe that if they allow a TYR logo they would (have to) allow any logo. I'm sorry but I don't want our swimmers to look like billboards.

I completely understand what you are saying.

But with the big 3 suit makers in the USA - it's a little bit more sport-specific than what you are saying with your example of Pepsi and others. I don't see the harm in allowing competitive swimming products around at Trials... that's all.

However... especially in this country, sports-related companies are using their athletes as billboards. I don't want our swimmers looking like nascars either.

;)

USMSarah
June 18th, 2008, 01:50 PM
If Starbucks knew of the amount of performance-enhancing caffeine consumed by the Smith brothers alone, I'm sure they'd jump at the chance to sponsor us...

I don't drink coffee, but I'd wear that cap!



Lefty, The Fourbucks comment was hilarious.

aquageek
June 18th, 2008, 02:03 PM
Tell me Geek, should the USOC distribute its new found cash to each according to his needs?

The USOC can do what they want with their money from their private endorsement contracts.

I believe Speedo is a British company, not entirely sure.

ALM
June 18th, 2008, 02:12 PM
I believe Speedo is a British company, not entirely sure.

From Yahoo! Finance:

Pentland Group PLC Company Profile

The firm behind the Speedo, Pentland Group owns nearly a dozen brands of sports and leisure apparel, activewear, footwear, and sporting goods. Besides Speedo, some include Berghaus, Ellesse, KangaROOS, Mitre, and One True Saxon, as well as the exclusive worldwide footwear license for the Lacoste brand. Pentland also has licensing rights to the Ted Baker footwear collection outside of the US and Canada. Its brands are marketed in more than 170 countries. The Rubin family founded Pentland in 1932. The family's investment firm, Robert Stephen Holdings, took Pentland private in 1999 and now owns the company

aquageek
June 18th, 2008, 02:19 PM
...KangaROOS...

You forgot Underoos, Stud's favorite brand of apparel, specifically the Wonder Woman thong.

gull
June 18th, 2008, 02:35 PM
Geek, who makes the mansierre that you wear on your trike?

aquageek
June 18th, 2008, 02:50 PM
Geek, who makes the mansierre that you wear on your trike?

Victor's Secret

lefty
June 18th, 2008, 02:55 PM
I completely understand what you are saying.

But with the big 3 suit makers in the USA - it's a little bit more sport-specific than what you are saying with your example of Pepsi and others. I don't see the harm in allowing competitive swimming products around at Trials... that's all.

However... especially in this country, sports-related companies are using their athletes as billboards. I don't want our swimmers looking like nascars either.

;)

I think you are missing the point. It is not that the USOC doesn't want athletes to be billboards, it is that they want to be the ones to collect the revenue for said billboards. They are taking a signifcant earning potential away from individuals and keeping it for themselves. This is a good thing according to Geek because the result will be reduced entry fees for Masters meets.

aquageek
June 18th, 2008, 03:01 PM
Lefty - do you know a thing about sport's marketing? If the USOC, due to its size and clout, can negotiate large contracts with companies and then use that money to support athletes in various forms, like, say, the high altitude training center, how exactly are athletes being rooked?

For instance, a mid level elite at trials who might get $1200 for wearing a cap with a corporation on it will get no TV time but the multi million dollar contract that NBC signed with the USOC might pay for him/her a week at the high altitude camp (or some other perk). Clearly, the $1200 cap won't come close to the ultimate benefit.

Big picture, man, big picture.

USMSarah
June 18th, 2008, 04:02 PM
I think you are missing the point. It is not that the USOC doesn't want athletes to be billboards, it is that they want to be the ones to collect the revenue for said billboards. They are taking a signifcant earning potential away from individuals and keeping it for themselves. This is a good thing according to Geek because the result will be reduced entry fees for Masters meets.

No, I'm not missing the point. The USOC can do as they wish. It's their meet. If the USOC was deliberately trying to take away the swimmers earning potential, they would be doing something like requiring all athletes at Trials to have the USOC sponsors plastered all over the swimmers caps. You make it sound like a conspiracy! Significant paychecks being altered? I'm going to have to disagree. The swimmers who are lucky enough to have sponsors are paid year-round and also during the non-Olympic years... not just for Trials. And, a majority of those swimmers don't have contracts outside of a swimwear company... not everyone is like Phelps/Visa, Hall/Everlast, Beard/Red Bull. I know this is one of the biggest meets of the year... but in the end... it all comes down to the sport, making the team, and swimming in Beijing.

I personally don't care about the small logos that I was talking about in an earlier post... but the USOC obviously doesn't want that type of advertising at THEIR meet. They are the ones who are financially responsible for this meet (and their sponsors) - and all the other costs associated with it, maybe they don't want to be a host to free publicity.... I don't know.

Per the original article it says that these rules have been in place for the past two Trials and that no one has enforced it. What are they going to do at these Trials, kick someone off the Olympic Team who snuck in a Visa cap? Probably will give them a fine... let the athletes sponsors pick up the tab.

Anyways, all I wanted to originally say is that I thought it would be smart for the USOC to promote swimming as much as they can.

TheGoodSmith
June 18th, 2008, 04:47 PM
Geek,

The cap sponsorship money is quite a bit more than $1,200 a head.

Besides..... USOC is stripping one more chance for elite swimmers to earn substantial bucks.

Are you correct that USOC has the right to do this..... absolutely yes.

But that doesn't make it fair or right and if abused the athletes may finally take a stand against USOC and boycott.

I agree with you that this amateur vs. pro status concept is an antiquated thing of the past. It means nothing anymore. Michael Phelps isn't an amateur in the true sense of the word. Why do we bother with this nonsense status anymore. It just gets in the way. Let the elite athletes make some cash and provide incentive to others to do the same and just get the USOC out of the way.

This move is a strangle hold on the sport.


John Smith

aquageek
June 18th, 2008, 05:03 PM
No one complains when USOC signs a multi billion dollar contract with NBC but gets their panties in a wad about a $1200+ cap deal. Yeah, that's big thinking and GREAT FOR THE SPORT. Here's the alternative, get rid of the USOC ban and then the athletes can forego the money and earn it on their own, further taking away from valuable training time.

The strangle hold on sports these days certainly isn't money, that pretty much ended about a decade ago when Olympic athletes no longer needed amateur status.

Damn it gets tiring hearing of all the ways swimming is dying when it is the strongest it's ever been. But, I did buy some Kleenex stock the other day in anticipation of all the man-cryin' that goes on in this forum. If Hansen loses to Kitajima tjburk might go into a coma for 4 more years. And, if the women outperform the men, the Smiths will be able to extend their apoplectic fits about Title IX for another half century.

lefty
June 18th, 2008, 05:24 PM
Lefty - do you know a thing about sport's marketing? If the USOC, due to its size and clout, can negotiate large contracts with companies and then use that money to support athletes in various forms, like, say, the high altitude training center, how exactly are athletes being rooked?

For instance, a mid level elite at trials who might get $1200 for wearing a cap with a corporation on it will get no TV time but the multi million dollar contract that NBC signed with the USOC might pay for him/her a week at the high altitude camp (or some other perk). Clearly, the $1200 cap won't come close to the ultimate benefit.

Big picture, man, big picture.

Comrade: Thank you for determining the best way to spend my $1,200. Frankly I don't want the burden of personal responsibility. Rumor is that those capitalists Hall and Phelps are trying to keep the $250,000 they get paid for cap endorsements for themselves. Greedy pigs.

hofffam
June 18th, 2008, 05:43 PM
Geek,

The cap sponsorship money is quite a bit more than $1,200 a head.

Besides..... USOC is stripping one more chance for elite swimmers to earn substantial bucks.

Are you correct that USOC has the right to do this..... absolutely yes.

But that doesn't make it fair or right and if abused the athletes may finally take a stand against USOC and boycott.

I agree with you that this amateur vs. pro status concept is an antiquated thing of the past. It means nothing anymore. Michael Phelps isn't an amateur in the true sense of the word. Why do we bother with this nonsense status anymore. It just gets in the way. Let the elite athletes make some cash and provide incentive to others to do the same and just get the USOC out of the way.

This move is a strangle hold on the sport.


John Smith

Amateur vs. pro went away a long time ago in the Olympics. How long have NBA players been playing basketball in the Olympics? USTA tennis players? Etc.

Phelps, Coughlin, etc. are swimming professionals. It is exciting that at least a few can make a living from this sport. Maybe someday there will be a USSP (US Swimming Professionals) organization.

But this move is hardly a "strangle hold on the sport." The Trials will go on and only a few athletes will be affected financially. No one will leave the sport because they couldn't get a cap deal for the Trials.

aquageek
June 18th, 2008, 05:53 PM
Greedy pigs.

Now you are speaking my language. Greed is good.

lefty
June 18th, 2008, 06:01 PM
Now you are speaking my language.

Geek, I have been writing as if I were you this entire thread. Well, I have done my best, but none are as good as the original. Anyhow, I actually agree with you at about 51%, which is to say after some thought I think I would rather have the USOC collect the money and distribute it for the benefit of the sport. Though I certainly can understand why a few (10-20???) are upset about it.

I also disagree that noone will leave the sport because they cannot get a cap deal. The reason swimmers are sticking around longer is because they CAN get cap deals. And other deals as well obviously. I am not in favor of the days when elite swimmers go on to other things by age 22.

aquageek
June 18th, 2008, 06:04 PM
It's good to know that as I was becoming confused, a common occurrence for me.

TheGoodSmith
June 18th, 2008, 06:10 PM
Hoffman,

I can assure you that Gary Hall and others on deck that have been robbed of this opportunity have a slightly different opinion than you.

If USOC wants to stick their own sponsors logos on the heads of US swimmers as they have done in the past, then compensate them directly, not with the filtered down "funny" money that Geek has described.

Again, if the swimmers don't like it enough, they can boycott. If they don't boycott or get a lawyer then they will have to take the decisions that are handed down to them by USOC whether they like it or not.

It will be interesting to see if Phelps speaks his mind on this or his manager.


John Smith

Paul Smith
June 18th, 2008, 06:37 PM
It's going to be interesting to see if and how USS athletes can ever "own" the ad space on their person.

I see the USOC's title sponsorships just like a title sponsorship any any other sport...except one big thing...virtually no prize money.

Golf; lots of prize money and Tiger with Nike logo's everywhere. Heck, you ever flip thru the channels and happen to spend more than 10 seconds on a bowling championship? Players are almost at the NASCAR level.

Swimming is still stuck in this "half pregnant" (denial) mindset that its not really professional yet the reality it is yet the amount of money is miniscule and outside of the Olympics no one watches it so the reality is the cap space is important...even to some masters swimmers (do you think KPN wears Speedo because she likes it).

I think they should allow any sponsorship logo a swimmer wants if their good enough to get sponsored with the exception being that prime placement like the actual Games, World Cups, etc. where its country vs. country then the prime placment is owned...not at the Trials or other national/international meets.

gull
June 18th, 2008, 06:57 PM
The USOC has their own multimillion dollar sponsors, which is why they don't want the athletes wearing caps with corporate logos. It has nothing to do with preserving the purity of the sport.

aquageek
June 18th, 2008, 07:37 PM
It will be interesting to see if Phelps speaks his mind on this or his manager.

I don't know if you intended this statement to be so ironic in a discussion about swimmers and money. Either way it deserves some credit for, if nothing else, obliterating your argument.

geochuck
June 18th, 2008, 08:04 PM
Just one question what ever happened to amature swimming.

Allen Stark
June 18th, 2008, 10:22 PM
Re:amateur swimming,when I started swimming Masters(1974),if you swam in a Masters meet you could never again swim in a USS meet.The reasoning,coaches could swim in Masters meets,coaches were professionals therefore,Masters swimming was professional.

knelson
June 19th, 2008, 12:23 AM
I'm all for pro swimmers signing lucrative deals with swimsuit manufacturers, doing commercial spots, appearances, whatever, but I really don't like the idea of them appearing as human billboards at meets. But I do think this works both ways. If FINA says swimmers can't wear advertisements, they also should not require their own advertisements be worn by the swimmers (e.g., Yakult at World Champs).

hofffam
June 19th, 2008, 10:19 AM
Hoffman,

I can assure you that Gary Hall and others on deck that have been robbed of this opportunity have a slightly different opinion than you.

If USOC wants to stick their own sponsors logos on the heads of US swimmers as they have done in the past, then compensate them directly, not with the filtered down "funny" money that Geek has described.

Again, if the swimmers don't like it enough, they can boycott. If they don't boycott or get a lawyer then they will have to take the decisions that are handed down to them by USOC whether they like it or not.

It will be interesting to see if Phelps speaks his mind on this or his manager.


John Smith

I'm sure you're correct re: Gary Hall. But he's still swimming. He's still grumpy and colorful. Just because he doesn't like it - doesn't mean rules should be changed.

As for funny money....I don't have any idea how much money is in the USOC for swimming. How much does Speedo, Visa, etc. give? How much does the USOC need to do its job? Do you propose doing a peanut butter spread and give every Trials athlete $100 because they made the trials? Or $1000 if they make the team in addition to travel expenses and all the other stuff?

lefty
June 19th, 2008, 10:36 AM
I'm sure you're correct re: Gary Hall. But he's still swimming. He's still grumpy and colorful. Just because he doesn't like it - doesn't mean rules should be changed.

As for funny money....I don't have any idea how much money is in the USOC for swimming. How much does Speedo, Visa, etc. give? How much does the USOC need to do its job? Do you propose doing a peanut butter spread and give every Trials athlete $100 because they made the trials? Or $1000 if they make the team in addition to travel expenses and all the other stuff?

How much money is in the USOC for swimming:

Swimming and Gymnastics are the MARQUEE sports for week one of the Olympics. NBC paid $1.2B for broadcast rights. If swimming accounts for 5-10% of the deal then swimming accounts for $60,000,000-$120,000,000 of the broadcast deal. I think there are 1,000 swimmers going to trials, so that is between $60,000 and $120,000 per swimmer.

TheGoodSmith
June 19th, 2008, 10:48 AM
Geek,

If you think just having a "manager" connotes success that's funny. Phelps is the highest paid swimmer of all time and his millions are still a rounding error compared to his elite peers in other sports. Secondly, most elite finalists and top 20 world ranked participants struggle with their finances in order to keep participating year after year. Swimming lags other pro sports by miles and miles.

Secondly,the goal is to have EVERY elite swimmer placing in the top 8 nationally making cash similar or hopefully one day more than what Phelps is making today.

USOC squashing lucrative deals for the athletes (whatever level they are) is pathetic and uproductive to the athletes.

The athletes have to take a stand on this and leverage the USOC and/or US Swimming eventually. Nothing positive will come in their direction until they act together on this issue.

Beyond this..... the real issue is that Americans in general are not interested in watching a swim meet vs. a Big 3 event. Until that day comes, swimming will continue to struggle with athlete cash opportunities. The only people who care about swimming ....... are swimmers.


John Smith

hofffam
June 19th, 2008, 10:57 AM
How much money is in the USOC for swimming:

Swimming and Gymnastics are the MARQUEE sports for week one of the Olympics. NBC paid $1.2B for broadcast rights. If swimming accounts for 5-10% of the deal then swimming accounts for $60,000,000-$120,000,000 of the broadcast deal. I think there are 1,000 swimmers going to trials, so that is between $60,000 and $120,000 per swimmer.

NBC paid WHO? Not the US Olympic Committee. They paid China and/or the IOC. How much of that money is actually fixed costs?

I'm not convinced on a worldwide basis that swimming draws as many TV viewers as gymnastics.

Paul Smith
June 19th, 2008, 10:57 AM
As I recall the US Women's Soccer team threatened a boycott (at the urging of Billie Jean King who said it was the ONLY leverage they had) of the Atlanta Games in a dispute over potential bonus money to be paid for a medal vs, what the Men's team was to receive.

Like I said....there is still some sort of denial about swimming being a professional sport vs. the good old days of amateur competitors. Until the elite athletes like Phelps organize (something Brunelli has been trying to do the last year) and make some sort of stand nothing will change.

hofffam
June 19th, 2008, 10:58 AM
Beyond this..... the real issue is that Americans in general are not interested in watching a swim meet vs. a Big 3 event. Until that day comes, swimming will continue to struggle with athlete cash opportunities. The only people who care about swimming ....... are swimmers.


This is the core issue.... the sport doesn't attract $$$.

aquageek
June 19th, 2008, 11:06 AM
The only people who care about swimming ....... are swimmers.

Now, this is the one thing you have said in probably 6-9 months that is both accurate and that I agree with. When your entire non-work life revolves around swimming, you forget just how little non swimmers care or even know a single shred about the sport.

Changing the subject totally, I have a DQ question. I'm a judge for our summer league. My goal is to never DQ a kid, especially not a summer league only swimmer. Anyway, we have one pretty fast year rounder (young) who does about six legal butterfly kicks to a single butterfly pull. She wins most of the time and it raises eyebrows because it is so darn weird looking but no one can decide if it is illegal. Anyone have an opinion?

pwolf66
June 19th, 2008, 12:06 PM
Changing the subject totally, I have a DQ question. I'm a judge for our summer league. My goal is to never DQ a kid, especially not a summer league only swimmer. Anyway, we have one pretty fast year rounder (young) who does about six legal butterfly kicks to a single butterfly pull. She wins most of the time and it raises eyebrows because it is so darn weird looking but no one can decide if it is illegal. Anyone have an opinion?


I don't have an opinion but I do have the rule.

101.3 - Butterfly

.3 Kick All up and down movements of the legs and feet must be simultaneous. The position of the legs or the feet need not be on the same level, but they shall not alternate in relation to each other. A scissors or breaststroke kicking movement is not permitted.

Unlike Breastroke, Butterfly does not a have stroke cycle requirement, so there is no restriction on the number of pulls to the number kicks. A swimmer can do nothing but kick or nothing but pull and still be legal.

Paul

aquageek
June 19th, 2008, 12:24 PM
That's just what I need, thanks Hulk!

ande
June 19th, 2008, 03:34 PM
floswimming (http://swimming.flocasts.org/) lists this article as

Quick while the swimmers are distracted with Trials,
let's take away all their rights!

Chris Stevenson
June 19th, 2008, 04:45 PM
Unlike Breastroke, Butterfly does not a have stroke cycle requirement, so there is no restriction on the number of pulls to the number kicks. A swimmer can do nothing but kick ... and still be legal.

As long as they surface by 15m, of course.

Funny true story: it was my son's very first race in his first ever summer league swim meet; he was 7 at the time. It was 25 freestyle. Just before he swam, he coach tells him "just kick hard and you'll be fast!"

So he dives in, surfaces...and proceeds to kick (only) the entire race. No one could say he didn't listen to his coach. My wife and I were in tears, we were laughing so hard.