PDA

View Full Version : USA Swimming proposes rule limiting suits



knelson
November 25th, 2008, 10:27 AM
http://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/lane9/news/19679.asp

The most substantial change, of course, is that suits would no longer be allowed to extend past the knee.

My personal opinion is this is sort of an arbitrary change. What really should be changed--if anything--is what types of materials are allowed and maybe testing protocol to approve a suit. I don't really think requiring suits to end at the knees would affect much.

Leonard Jansen
November 25th, 2008, 10:31 AM
Interesting.

Would this mean that any records that currently exist and were set with suits that violate the new rules would be invalidated?

-LBJ

knelson
November 25th, 2008, 10:35 AM
Would this mean that any records that currently exist and were set with suits that violate the new rules would be invalidated?

I can't imagine that would happen. I don't know of a single rule change in the history of the sport that invalidated current records.

hofffam
November 25th, 2008, 10:52 AM
I don't understand the below knee proposal. Legskin suits have been in use for many years. Material below the knee is hardly an innovation or controversial. It is the fabric and possible flotation effects of trapping air that are new.

I would be shocked if the below knee limitation actually went into effect.

Leonard Jansen
November 25th, 2008, 11:04 AM
I can't imagine that would happen. I don't know of a single rule change in the history of the sport that invalidated current records.

Not sure about swimming, but in Track & Field, when they changed the javelin design so it would not fly as far (it was getting dangerous), they invalidated the WR and started over.

-LBJ

aquageek
November 25th, 2008, 11:23 AM
Is there something about below the knee that makes suits faster, slower, etc? I don't really understand this, to be honest.

knelson
November 25th, 2008, 11:27 AM
Is there something about below the knee that makes suits faster, slower, etc? I don't really understand this, to be honest.

I don't, either. If they really wanted to do something significant they should have proposed that men's suits cannot cover the navel or go below the knees.

imspoiled
November 25th, 2008, 11:57 AM
The below the knee thing is strange. Frankly, the full leg suit is more comfortable to wear than the knee suit. The elastic around the knee in the shorter suits (at least the various Fastskins I've used) cut into the leg in a painful way! This is less of a problem around the ankle.

Strange proposal, but I like the part at the end about suits needing to be universally available for 12 mos. prior.

Redbird Alum
November 25th, 2008, 12:50 PM
From the article:

"The reasoning behind the proposal to FINA is that we are asking them to slow down the approval process for new suits, and speak to coaches and manufacturers on how the approval process can be more scientifically defined,"

It's not about the suits, perse, but rather the process behind the FINA approvals of the suits, or so they say. I also liked the bit about the suits having to be generally available for 12 months prior to the Games.

All this debate went on prior to Bejing, but the LAZR was allowed. Now it seems people want a more formal process. Seems like the horse is well out of the barn on this one...

thewookiee
November 25th, 2008, 02:01 PM
I don't, either. If they really wanted to do something significant they should have proposed that men's suits cannot cover the navel or go below the knees.

And I disagree with this one. I don't think they should limit men's suit coverage to just the knee to the waist. I like the suits that cover the upper body to the shoulders and down to the ankles.

The significant change,as a number of people have said, should be in the material used to design the suits...it shouldn't be in the amount they over.

Early jammers covered the upper body, as did the early fastskins. Dont' change that...change the material used.

Lump
November 25th, 2008, 03:44 PM
I just say NO SUITS period! :applaud:

Well, then someone would complain that their "parts" are bigger and slowing them down more or some crap. :bolt:

osterber
November 25th, 2008, 04:06 PM
I can't imagine this will pass.

Note, however, that USA Swimming did pass legislation for USA Swimming competition that has those restrictions for age group swimming in the USA. I.e., if you're in a "senior" or "open" sort of meet or championship, then you can wear whatever you want. But if you are in an age group competition, you can only go to the shoulders and to the knee.

The argument there is that there were too many young kids (well, their parents!) going out and buying these expensive suits that just weren't necessary. So they decided to level the playing field a bit at the younger age group level.

-Rick

hofffam
November 25th, 2008, 04:19 PM
Do you have a link to the USA-S rule on age groupers? I can't find any mention of it on their site.

SLOmmafan
November 25th, 2008, 06:11 PM
I have got to admit the cost of these suits should be taken into account at the age group level. There is no reason why any swimmer under the age of 14 (perhaps even 16) should need to be decked out in full body racing suits.

The reality is that there are plenty of spoiled young kids that will convince their parents to drop $100's on a new LZR to be just like Michael Phelps or the other Olympic champs. And some parents will be hoodwinked into believing that their child will not become the next great swimmer without the amazing suit!

aquageek
November 25th, 2008, 07:07 PM
The reality is that there are plenty of spoiled young kids that will convince their parents to drop $100's on a new LZR to be just like Michael Phelps or the other Olympic champs. And some parents will be hoodwinked into believing that their child will not become the next great swimmer without the amazing suit!

Wow, you sure are incorrect. It's standard meet quipment for higher level age groupers these days and really has nothing to do with spoiled kids or naive parents.

I can spend what I want on my kids to equalize the playing field. Others can sit on the deck and whine about the unfairness of it all.

Allen Stark
November 25th, 2008, 08:09 PM
I doubt if FINA will pass the length restrictions,which don't make much sense to me anyway.The availability rule seems good to me though.

pwb
November 25th, 2008, 10:28 PM
Do you have a link to the USA-S rule on age groupers? I can't find any mention of it on their site.

No link for US Swimming, but saw this from the Board of Directors for Arizona Swimming LSC (http://www.azswimming.org/minutes/101508_BOD_Min.pdf): (http://www.azswimming.org/minutes/101508_BOD_Min.pdf%29:)

"... changes made by the USA Swimming House of Delegates this last month at convention that will effect our LSC ...there will be swimwear restrictions in place for those swimmers competing in 12 and under age group defined competitions. This will go in effect May 15, 2009. Swimmers 12 and under will no longer be able to wear swimsuits that extend below the knee nor suits that cover the shoulders."

pakman044
November 25th, 2008, 10:50 PM
Here's the legislation (http://www.usaswimming.org/USASWeb/_Rainbow/Documents/83dd1a3d-f8ed-49c3-b215-5a1ac3d898fa/2008%20Legislation%20Passed.pdf) (for the 12 & under rule). It will go into effect on May 15, 2009 (or for all meets that begin on or after May 15, 2009):


102.9 SWIMWEAR
.1 Design
A Swimsuits worn for all 12 & under age group defined competition shall not cover the neck, extend past the shoulder, nor past the knee.
B Swimsuits worn for competition must be non-transparent and conform to the current concept of the appropriate.
C The Referee shall have authority to bar offenders from the competition until they comply with the rule.

So what I am guessing is that any event that is expressly identified as being for (maybe only for?) 12 & unders would be handled this way.

Not knowing specifically about the arguments regarding for/against this, there are two things I can potentially see with this:

*Fast 12 & unders will simply move up into senior competition to swim with the suits (note that some areas impose restrictions on exactly how such move-ups occur). This may be the case when a kid is trying to break a LSC record or something like that (or maybe a swimmer who is close to LSC Championship cuts, and thinks the suit would get them over the edge).

*I would be concerned that, especially at short-staffed meets, that this rule would be glossed over because everyone is busy with everything else going on with the meet, similar to what can happen with the high school jewelry rule. These suits are a bit obvious though, unlike (for example) earrings.

The interpretation and implementation of this rule will also be important, as to whether it's read to be very absolute and ironclad (you swim in one and you're DQ'd, no questions asked; you are barred from competition until you fix the suit or get a new suit), or whether it's more of a referee's discretion issue (can the referee simply warn the swimmer not to wear the suit at future meets?).

Patrick King

chowmi
December 2nd, 2008, 10:00 PM
North Texas 14 & Under Swimsuit Standards Effective 2009

Tue, 2 Dec 2008 12:15:00 CST





Effective January 1, 2009 at all North Texas Swimming, age-group defined, sanctioned meets:

Swimsuits worn by females for all 14 & Under defined competitions shall not cover the neck, extend past the shoulder, nor past the hip.
Swimsuits worn by males for all 14 & Under defined competitions shall not extend above the hips nor below the knees.
Interesting - the LSC is imposing a higher age limit with an earlier effective date (assuming PK's date above is accurate). And the girls can't wear the short leg suits either!

aquageek
December 3rd, 2008, 08:53 AM
What is the point of these rules? Is it because some can't afford the new suits? Why penalize those of us who can? This is playing to the lowest common denominator. The hell with these people.

osterber
December 3rd, 2008, 10:24 AM
The point is to try to keep the financial side of Age Group swimming in check. We nearly voted on this in New England, but learned that it was pending nationally, so we waited. The coaches are making lots of noise because there are lots and lots of parents out there of very young swimmers who are insisting on buying little Johnny or Jenny the latest LZR suit for hundreds and hundreds of dollars. 10-year-old Johnny doesn't need that suit. It's a waste of money. The kids at that level of competition are seeing the kid in the next lane wearing the suit, and then they want one.

The important part is that it's for age group swimming only. For 12-year-old swimmers who are swimming at the "Senior" or "Open" speed at the LSC level, and going to LSC Senior meets, etc... they have a higher understanding of what's going on, and nobody is objecting to those kids wearing the expensive suits, because there is the belief that they understand the cost/benefit equation better.

-Rick

The Fortress
December 3rd, 2008, 10:35 AM
Effective January 1, 2009 at all North Texas Swimming, age-group defined, sanctioned meets:

Swimsuits worn by females for all 14 & Under defined competitions shall not cover the neck, extend past the shoulder, nor past the hip.
Swimsuits worn by males for all 14 & Under defined competitions shall not extend above the hips nor below the knees.
Interesting - the LSC is imposing a higher age limit with an earlier effective date (assuming PK's date above is accurate). And the girls can't wear the short leg suits either!

JOs are a 14 & U defined competition. Not too many tank suits on the 13-14 year olds I've seen, except maybe in evilstroke.

aquageek
December 3rd, 2008, 10:36 AM
The decision on how I spend my money for my kids really isn't your decision Rick, or anyone else's. I don't see the point of legislating how I chose to spend my fitness dollars. Any sane person realizes it is silly to buy one of these suits for a young kid but that doesn't mean we need bans or regulations regarding it.

Redbird Alum
December 3rd, 2008, 10:38 AM
...
For 12-year-old swimmers who are swimming at the "Senior" or "Open" speed at the LSC level, and going to LSC Senior meets, etc... they have a higher understanding of what's going on, and nobody is objecting to those kids wearing the expensive suits, because there is the belief that they understand the cost/benefit equation better.


Isn't this more about winning at any cost than "cost/benefit equations"?

I think the whole thing is getting kind of ridiculous... will we next rule that age-groupers can not use the latest cap technology, or goggle technology because some other kids can't afford them?

Once we allow something, trying to dis-allow it is reactive, somewhat futile, and unfair to those who have the means.

The Fortress
December 3rd, 2008, 10:41 AM
It's especially unfair to us masters swimmer parents who give their tech suits to their kids. lol

The concern about LZRs on 14 & unders seems overblown. I've only seen a couple of kids that age in them. But I'll be keeping an eye out this weekend.

aquageek
December 3rd, 2008, 10:41 AM
What if you have a kid that has put in the work and is on the razor's edge of time cuts? Why can't they suit up because a bunch of whiney parents are jealous of other parents who can afford suits? This is all bogus. I say cut the trophy budget from dues instead.

Dolphin 2
December 3rd, 2008, 12:41 PM
I just say NO SUITS period! :applaud:

Well, then someone would complain that their "parts" are bigger and slowing them down more or some crap. :bolt:

Hey Lump
I'll second that! :bouncing:

As I've (and others have) said over and over 'til we're blue in the face, this "suit technology" stuff is a bunch of nonsensical marketing gimmickry cooked up by Speedo, Nike, Arena and others. :bitching:

FINA's rules regarding suits should just go back to the plain old briefs like Mark Spitz and others wore in the 1970s.

End of discussion -period. :applaud:

Dolphin 2

aquageek
December 3rd, 2008, 12:45 PM
Hey Lump
I'll second that! :bouncing:

As I've (and others have) said over and over 'til we're blue in the face, this "suit technology" stuff is a bunch of nonsensical marketing gimmickry cooked up by Speedo, Nike, Arena and others. :bitching:

FINA's rules regarding suits should just go back to the plain old briefs like Mark Spitz and others wore in the 1970s.

End of discussion -period. :applaud:

Dolphin 2

Let's just repeat for the audience your credentials to speak on this. You don't compete. You have never competed. You tried on a tech suit once but didn't swim in it (I think you said this). You have no knowledge of their abilities, unlike almost everyone else on this forum. If it was marketing then how do you explain the results?

Dolphin 2
December 3rd, 2008, 01:41 PM
Let's just repeat for the audience your credentials to speak on this. You don't compete. You have never competed. You tried on a tech suit once but didn't swim in it (I think you said this). You have no knowledge of their abilities, unlike almost everyone else on this forum. If it was marketing then how do you explain the results?

Hey Aquageek
Yep - It's been a while since I've posted anything on the USMS board, but I’m back again.

Just like earthquakes in California: Just because there haven’t been any lately doesn’t mean they’re gone. And I'm not gone either!!!

As for your comment about my credentials regarding swimming, I don't need to actually swim on a competitive basis to know what the abilities of the so called "tech suits" really are.

Swimming is based on the principles of physics (mainly hydrodamics) and bio-mechanics which have been studied for decades and the results can be comprehended by anyone who has a knowledge of these sciences. With the exception of the "Girdling" effect (body compression), there is nothing about a tech suit that could increase the swimmer's ability.

As I've said before, the main problem faced in increasing swimming speed is getting more propulsion -not less drag. So instead of focusing on the properties of the suit, why aren't they focusing on the hands and the feet and accordingly just use paddles and flippers to gain more propulsion?

Prior to the 1990's, FINA rules were very restrictive about any devices or substances that could be construed as aiding the swimmers ability. So why did FINA do a flip-flop and become so permissive about the use of these suits? :confused:

This suit technology stuff reeks of a "Fifth Avenue" style marketing campaign on the part of the suit makers (who are also clothing manufacturers) and their strategy seems to be the use competitive swim wear as a form of fashion modleing.

Considering all the $$$ involved, FINA seems to be more than willing to go along with it.

Dolphin 2

aquageek
December 3rd, 2008, 02:11 PM
As for your comment about my credentials regarding swimming, I don't need to actually swim on a competitive basis to know what the abilities of the so called "tech suits" really are.

Really, you sure about that? Again, what are your swimming credentials to speak on this topic?

As to fashion modeling, what in the world are you talking about? These suits are breaking records in the pool. I was at a recent SWIM event where a very prominent national coach said the one thing you can do to improve your swimming is buy a tech suit to compliment your hard work.

Why don't you actually go to a meet and look around. You have no clue, no knowledge or expertise on this topic.

osterber
December 3rd, 2008, 02:15 PM
The decision on how I spend my money for my kids really isn't your decision Rick, or anyone else's. I don't see the point of legislating how I chose to spend my fitness dollars. Any sane person realizes it is silly to buy one of these suits for a young kid but that doesn't mean we need bans or regulations regarding it.

I'm not saying I agree with the decision. Though I am not a voting member of the New England LSC board, I argued against such action. I will say that the input from the coaches was strong. They are very much hearing about this from their parents of younger swimmers.

One perspective... there is a fear that if too much disparity between the 'haves' and 'have-nots' gets into the younger swimming ages, then there will be a growing number of younger swimmers who are turned off by swimming. The long-term result is that you might have the next Michael Phelps not materialize, because he got discouraged as a 10-year-old because his parents didn't buy him a $500 suit for every meet.

-Rick

osterber
December 3rd, 2008, 02:17 PM
What if you have a kid that has put in the work and is on the razor's edge of time cuts? Why can't they suit up because a bunch of whiney parents are jealous of other parents who can afford suits? This is all bogus. I say cut the trophy budget from dues instead.

If that kid is truly swimming at that level, then there are plenty of opportunities for swimming in non-age group competition. I.e., open age meets, where the restriction does not apply.

-Rick

aquageek
December 3rd, 2008, 02:21 PM
Rick:

OK, you've made some good points. I wasn't thinking about this from the front end but on the back end. I can definitely see a $500 suit as a hindrance for a kid just starting out and looking to get his/her feet wet in the sport.

pakman044
December 3rd, 2008, 04:09 PM
North Texas 14 & Under Swimsuit Standards Effective 2009

Tue, 2 Dec 2008 12:15:00 CST





Effective January 1, 2009 at all North Texas Swimming, age-group defined, sanctioned meets:

Swimsuits worn by females for all 14 & Under defined competitions shall not cover the neck, extend past the shoulder, nor past the hip.
Swimsuits worn by males for all 14 & Under defined competitions shall not extend above the hips nor below the knees.
Interesting - the LSC is imposing a higher age limit with an earlier effective date (assuming PK's date above is accurate). And the girls can't wear the short leg suits either!

chowmi,

Unless the legislation specifies otherwise, new USA Swimming rules go into effect on May 15 of the appropriate year (as opposed to USMS rules, which go into effect on January 1). In this case, the legislation specifically indicated an effective date of May 15.

I suppose an LSC could, through its authority to sanction meets, impose this kind of additional and expanded restriction. In September 2007, the USA Swimming Rules & Regulations Committee interpreted (http://usaswimming.org/USASWeb/_Rainbow/Documents/7747f3d1-3365-498d-a273-2fc85540018c/Sanction%20Interpretation%20Rules%20Article%20202% 20Oct%20%2707.pdf) an LSC's sanctioning authority to allow it impose restrictions beyond those required in the rulebook (e.g., to require more officials at a meet than required in the rulebook). How far this authority extends is anyone's guess, but there is probably a common sense limit (such as, don't mess with any of the stuff in Article 101!).

It would appear that North Texas is going beyond what is required by the new 102.19.1A. That being said, a lot of this will come down to how the actual referees interpret the rule along with the guidance handed down from their LSC's.

Patrick King

pwb
December 3rd, 2008, 04:27 PM
I'm not saying I agree with the decision. Though I am not a voting member of the New England LSC board, I argued against such action. I will say that the input from the coaches was strong. They are very much hearing about this from their parents of younger swimmers.


I'm both a masters' swimmer (who recently bought a B70 and love it) and a parent of three age group swimmers (all girls, oldest is 12). Even before this newest generation of tech suits, my older daughters have been covetous of each earlier generation of tech suits. My wife and I viewed each of those opportunities as great excuses to exercise our rights as parents to "just say no," a wonderful teaching opportunity about economics and financial trade-offs, as well as an opportunity for their coaches to talk with them about all of the other things they can do at this stage of their careers that will have far more impact on their performance than a tech suit. As to whether or not Susie or Jane in the next lane has one, this is just another variant of the refrain children often give on such a wide array of things, "Everyone's got nice stuff but me." My kids learned long ago that that argument holds no water in our house.

hofffam
December 3rd, 2008, 04:37 PM
Hey Aquageek - no one is saying you can't spend the money for those suits for your kids if you want to. They just can't use them in USA-S sanctioned meets. So please go ahead and buy those suits. Your kids can wear them when they train or when they want to swim fast in the lake or ocean.

Who are you to tell USA-S what they allow in their sanctioned competition?

I believe there are sound reasons to carefully manage the cost to participate in the sport of swimming. If a kid is .05 away from a AAA time - tough. They didn't make it. Aquageek - you - the least apologetic person here - should appreciate that the child can get over it. They didn't make it. They should have swum faster. As long as they weren't disadvantaged versus other kids - it was fair.

USA-S has programs to assist families who have financial difficulty. Unless they want to extend this program to equipment like suits - I say outlaw the advanced ($$$) suits for younger kids. 12 year olds that are super fast and capable of national meets (like Jr. Nationals) have clearly made a different kind of commitment to the sport and should be allowed to wear whatever they want in national competitions.

aquageek
December 3rd, 2008, 04:43 PM
As long as they weren't disadvantaged versus other kids - it was fair.


And there it is, the fear of being left behind. Life isn't fair and sports have never been fair.

Tech suits are here to stay despite the fear of success by the losers.

What you conveniently fail to recognize is two things. First, USAS is composed of its members who are allowed to have opinions and, second, over time the price of suits will fall and become more affordable.

I will agree to osterber's excellent points, yours are ludicrous.

hofffam
December 3rd, 2008, 04:48 PM
Hey Aquageek
Yep - It's been a while since I've posted anything on the USMS board, but I’m back again.

Just like earthquakes in California: Just because there haven’t been any lately doesn’t mean they’re gone. And I'm not gone either!!!

As for your comment about my credentials regarding swimming, I don't need to actually swim on a competitive basis to know what the abilities of the so called "tech suits" really are.

Swimming is based on the principles of physics (mainly hydrodamics) and bio-mechanics which have been studied for decades and the results can be comprehended by anyone who has a knowledge of these sciences. With the exception of the "Girdling" effect (body compression), there is nothing about a tech suit that could increase the swimmer's ability.

As I've said before, the main problem faced in increasing swimming speed is getting more propulsion -not less drag. So instead of focusing on the properties of the suit, why aren't they focusing on the hands and the feet and accordingly just use paddles and flippers to gain more propulsion?

Prior to the 1990's, FINA rules were very restrictive about any devices or substances that could be construed as aiding the swimmers ability. So why did FINA do a flip-flop and become so permissive about the use of these suits? :confused:

This suit technology stuff reeks of a "Fifth Avenue" style marketing campaign on the part of the suit makers (who are also clothing manufacturers) and their strategy seems to be the use competitive swim wear as a form of fashion modleing.

Considering all the $$$ involved, FINA seems to be more than willing to go along with it.

Dolphin 2


Dolphin 2 - you really don't know what you're talking about. Sure swimming biomechanics have been studied for decades. Doc Counsilman was one of the pioneers. But guess what - some of his conclusions have been proven wrong. Doc thought sculling was a major factor in propulsion. But it has since been proven wrong. So the studies will continue - and new things will be learned. Let's also recognize that a human body is a complex moving part - not like a submarine. The body position changes differently for different people in different phases of the stroke. Bodies have different shapes. So I think the science is very immature today.

No doubt there is hype about the suits. Probably too much. I have said here that they don't seem to have produced the claimed 2% gain for elite swimmers. But the effect may be larger for us less advanced athletes.

But I now have a B70. I have raced in it once. The results unfortunately can't be compared to any recent swims because the race was SCM - a course I rarely swim. But I wore the suit in practice and my stroke count went down by 1 or 2 for every 25 yd. length of freestyle. Absolutely noticable. My 25 yd. sprints in practice that day were consistently .5 secs or more faster than normal.

aquageek
December 3rd, 2008, 05:11 PM
Dang it, hoffam, once second we fight, the next second we agree. That confuses me greatly.

hofffam
December 3rd, 2008, 05:35 PM
And there it is, the fear of being left behind. Life isn't fair and sports have never been fair.

Tech suits are here to stay despite the fear of success by the losers.

What you conveniently fail to recognize is two things. First, USAS is composed of its members who are allowed to have opinions and, second, over time the price of suits will fall and become more affordable.

I will agree to osterber's excellent points, yours are ludicrous.

Osterber's points are of course good ones. I agree with him. A really fast young kid will have plenty of opportunity to compete at unclassified meets.

I didn't say the suits should go. But there are good reasons for young kids to not use them. I'd rather see more kids join the sport at a young age - and it will help if their parents don't have to worry about spending $500 or more per year.

If the suits get cheaper - then the issue of cost goes away. I hope they do get cheaper.

Of course USA-S has members with opinions. But the members don't make the rules. It ain't a democracy.

hofffam
December 3rd, 2008, 05:58 PM
Dang it, hoffam, once second we fight, the next second we agree. That confuses me greatly.

Fight? :confused:

The Fortress
December 3rd, 2008, 06:11 PM
And there it is, the fear of being left behind. Life isn't fair and sports have never been fair. Tech suits are here to stay despite the fear of success by the losers.


I agree with Rick that no 12 & U kid needs a $500 suit. I don't really view that as a teaching opportunity, as much as having minimal common sense. (Besides, pretty soon, Speedo will be giving away FSIIs and maybe Pros ...)

As to fairness, this carries little weight with me. Geek is absolutely correct. There are already many inequities built into swimming and sport: kid gets the flu before a big meet, parents can't afford to send kid to travel meet, parents can't afford a particular team, kid lives in x town instead of y town and thus can't have y coach, single parent (or other) can't get kid to x practice(s), parent doesn't have the time, energy or money for umpteen private lessons or EP training or personal trainers, kid breaks an ankle before meet, kid is in PT and has bad knees and can't swim their beloved evilstroke, kid rips suit before race and must wear dreaded polyester suit. The list could go one forever. Tech suits are just one more thing on the list.

hofffam
December 3rd, 2008, 06:42 PM
I say instead that for 12 & under tech suits are one less thing to be on that list of unfair items.

No one has been harmed by not allowing them (except perhaps the suit makers).

I weigh more heavily the advantages of growing the sport over allowing the kids with spendy parents to wear an expensive suit.

aquageek
December 3rd, 2008, 07:07 PM
I weigh more heavily the advantages of growing the sport over allowing the kids with spendy parents to wear an expensive suit.

I'll try to be more civil now. By attempting to level the playing field what you are really talking about is taking away things from kids/families that can afford or chose to spend their money on the more expensive aspects of the sport. How is that any more fair? There's no such thing as fair in sports.

some_girl
December 3rd, 2008, 07:18 PM
I'll try to be more civil now. By attempting to level the playing field what you are really talking about is taking away things from kids/families that can afford or chose to spend their money on the more expensive aspects of the sport. How is that any more fair? There's no such thing as fair in sports.

Oh geez, call the whaaaambulance! We, who have so much, should not be forced to suffer for those who have less. Our having is proof of our virtue and light and tech suits are our just reward.

aquageek
December 3rd, 2008, 07:52 PM
Oh geez, call the whaaaambulance! We, who have so much, should not be forced to suffer for those who have less. Our having is proof of our virtue and light and tech suits are our just reward.

My money, my choice. You go save the world, that's not my gig.

Allen Stark
December 3rd, 2008, 10:03 PM
Hey Aquageek[/B

As for your comment about my credentials regarding swimming, I don't need to actually swim on a competitive basis to know what the abilities of the so called "tech suits" really are.

Swimming is based on the principles of physics (mainly hydrodamics) and bio-mechanics which have been studied for decades and the results can be comprehended by anyone who has a knowledge of these sciences. With the exception of the "Girdling" effect (body compression), there is nothing about a tech suit that could increase the swimmer's ability.

As I've said before, the main problem faced in increasing swimming speed is getting more propulsion -not less drag. So instead of focusing on the properties of the suit, why aren't they focusing on the hands and the feet and accordingly just use paddles and flippers to gain more propulsion?



[B]Dolphin 2

Glad your back,but you are WRONG.The search for less drag is part of the on going improvement in swimming technique.As heard one coach say"the three most important principals in swimming are 1)streamline,2)streamline,3)streamline.
Practically no one disputes that swimming shaved is faster than not,these new fabrics take that one step further with less resistance than skin.It is unclear how much effect muscle compression has,but it seems to have a significant amount.

SwimStud
December 3rd, 2008, 11:14 PM
As to fairness, this carries little weight with me. Geek is absolutely correct. There are already many inequities built into swimming and sport: kid gets the flu before a big meet, parents can't afford to send kid to travel meet, parents can't afford a particular team, kid lives in x town instead of y town and thus can't have y coach, single parent (or other) can't get kid to x practice(s), parent doesn't have the time, energy or money for umpteen private lessons or EP training or personal trainers, kid breaks an ankle before meet, kid is in PT and has bad knees and can't swim their beloved evilstroke, kid rips suit before race and must wear dreaded polyester suit. The list could go one forever. Tech suits are just one more thing on the list.

...a tale loosely based on biographical events...

The Fortress
December 3rd, 2008, 11:24 PM
...a tale losely based on biographical events...

Well, the flu and bad knees/evilstroke part is autobiographical. The rest I have heard or observed.

Hofffam, I wouldn't necessarily call a parent buying a tech suit (not talking B70 or LZR here) a "spendy parent." Way too pejorative. I think Geek, despite his newly civil mode, would still call this remark ludicrous.

BillS
December 4th, 2008, 11:23 AM
Hofffam, I wouldn't necessarily call a parent buying a tech suit (not talking B70 or LZR here) a "spendy parent." Way too pejorative. I think Geek, despite his newly civil mode, would still call this remark ludicrous.

Anyone care to venture a guess how much I've already spent this year on my 8 and 6 year old getting them ready for their little weekend ski team? Before even a single flake has flown? And my little dears are not at all serious about it -- we only run one pair of skis each, don't own a portable tuning bench, don't travel to races, and I refuse to buy them downhill suits as the aerodynamic advantages seem lost on me while they travel aimlessly through the gates at a pace equal roughly to the brisk walk of an aquarobe.

Let's just say I could buy them each a B70 practice suit, a race LZR, a fresh pair of goggles for each race, and several new smoothskin caps with their names and "The Next HoffPhelps" emblazoned on them and still come out ahead.

Any parent of a kid who plays hockey, or travel soccer or lacrosse, or high level baseball, tennis, golf, or pretty much any sport which uses any equipment at all, will likely have the same sad tale to tell. In the continuum of the cost of sports with I suppose yacht racing, polo, and international dressage at one end and cross country running at the other, swimming is a lot closer to the cheap end, even with the tech suits factored in.

But my Little Dears each seem to enjoy skiing -- and swimming. I enjoy skiing with them, and the team teaches them good fundamentals, gets us to the mountain every Saturday, and helps them get their little kid ya yas out and sleep at night, which come to think of it are similar to the reasons the older one started swim team this year. And most important, it isn't an effing video game simulation of a real sport, it's actually getting away from the giant screen and out into the (gasp) real world doing (oh the horror) real things. And so The Darling Wife and I will make what we deem to be reasonable, judicious parental decisions regarding their gear after considering each Little Dear's respective enthusiasm for the respective sport requiring an investment in equipment.

That said, I'm perfectly OK with a ban on the speed suits for 12 and unders. Just one less decision to hassle over. I wish the ski powers that be would follow what I understand to be Canada's lead and ban the downhill suits for the little ones.

thewookiee
December 4th, 2008, 11:37 AM
Hey Lump
I'll second that! :bouncing:

As I've (and others have) said over and over 'til we're blue in the face, this "suit technology" stuff is a bunch of nonsensical marketing gimmickry cooked up by Speedo, Nike, Arena and others. :bitching:

FINA's rules regarding suits should just go back to the plain old briefs like Mark Spitz and others wore in the 1970s.

End of discussion -period. :applaud:

Dolphin 2

If you don't compete or hardly swim, then why do you care what suits people wear?

I don't want to go back to the days of the plain speedo briefs. And you are wrong...the suits do help you swim faster...having used a number of different styles, I will say they do cut down on drag...which cuts down on resistance...which allows one to swim faster. But to know this...one has to actually get in a pool and SWIM.

I was at the same SWIM event with Geek and heard the same statement about the suits from a HIGH LEVEL coach about the benefits of the suits.

Crap...I am agreeing with Geek...you don't know what you are talking about.

PArob83
December 4th, 2008, 12:17 PM
LOL, i just had to drop my .02 in on this, as in any sport there is technology that can help you go faster, farther hit harder etc etc etc... Just let the organization ban it or not. If its banned too bad if its not there are plenty of ways to pay for it. I personally had to grow up like many others selling all kinds of stuff to pay for my activities, and if little johnny wants a tech suit, he can go sell subs, fudge, flowers and more if he does not have the money.
I have no problem with tech suits, or even plain briefs. The rules are the rules and play outside of them and its cheating.
And I agree swimming has got to be one of the cheapes sports out there. all you need is a suit, maybe a a few... but you can get grab bag for practice then maybe one or two good suits for your races.
Though my personal favorite is still the team suit, when I swam as an age grouper it was all but required at meets that EVERYONE wore the same suit, as the same for most teams in the area.
Swim fast.

aquageek
December 4th, 2008, 12:19 PM
And I agree swimming has got to be one of the cheapes sports out there.

I was under this misconception for a while as well. If you sit down and add up the gear, the dues, the meet fees, the travel costs, the team parties, the required suits and tshirts, it isn't nearly as cheap as you want to believe.

PArob83
December 4th, 2008, 12:23 PM
I was under this misconception for a while as well. If you sit down and add up the gear, the dues, the meet fees, the travel costs, the team parties, the required suits and tshirts, it isn't nearly as cheap as you want to believe.



I will agree by no means is it cheap. i should have said least expensive.....
as most other teams have dues also travel expenses parties shirts etc... your down to the gear cost though if you find the right team, sometimes you luck out and equipment is provided.... but yes its still not "cheap"
Ill try to pick my words better next time.:)

The Fortress
December 4th, 2008, 12:25 PM
I will agree by no means is it cheap. i should have said least expensive.....
as most other teams have dues also travel expenses parties shirts etc... your down to the gear cost though if you find the right team, sometimes you luck out and equipment is provided.... but yes its still not "cheap"
Ill try to pick my words better next time.:)

Least expensive?! Not a chance ... between my kid's swimming bill and my own swimming bill ... that's a lot of cash.

If you want cheap, run.

PArob83
December 4th, 2008, 12:27 PM
LOL wow. I did not even think of XC or running... I wonder how much that adds up to.

I concede defeat on this one.

aquageek
December 4th, 2008, 12:57 PM
I've heard that in terms of kids' sports that hockey is the mother-scratcher of all the expensive sports. Another thing with swimming is that if you kid is year round you also probably get rooked into a summer league team. That's another pool and more dues, not to mention 14 hour swim meets twice a week in 104 degree weather.

gobears
December 4th, 2008, 01:11 PM
I don't know if it's the case anymore, but swimming used to rank up there with the best of the bargains in sports when you consider the number of training hours offered for the dues required. Not many other sports offer two-hour morning practices, 2-3 hour afternoon practices and weekend practices each week for the amount of money charged. Add the fact that you don't necessarily have to be the best on the team to get that amount of training. Has that changed? Perhaps most teams don't train that many hours a week anymore?

As for the suit issue, I can't imagine spending that much money on a suit for a twelve and under. There seem to be 100 other things they can be doing (in practice) at that age to be faster. Unless it's a fashion statement (wanting to look like the Olympians) I can't see trying to get tenths of a second via a swimsuit at that age. But I'm pretty cheap. I didn't even buy myself an expensive suit for Nationals last year since I don't feel like I train enough to justify such an expense.

Leonard Jansen
December 4th, 2008, 01:59 PM
I've heard that in terms of kids' sports that hockey is the mother-scratcher of all the expensive sports.

It's up there, but figure skating and equestrian sports make hockey look like a bargain.

-LBJ

hofffam
December 4th, 2008, 02:27 PM
There seem to be 100 other things they can be doing (in practice) at that age to be faster.

I agree completely!

Fort - you forgot one other unfair item. Order of events.

Dolphin 2
December 4th, 2008, 04:17 PM
Yee Gads –I read somewhere on the board that now parents are spending big $$$ buying so called “tech suits” for their kids??? The adult version of the LZR lists for $450 and I bet the child’s version is a rip off too. Sounds like the parents have a “Keep up with the Jones’s” complex.

The U.S. is a free country and people can pee away their money anyway they want, but this is a blatant example of a complete lack of common sense. I bet the parents are putting their kid’s suit purchases on the credit cards too. That’s just how the country got into the current economic mess. Even MAD Magazine couldn’t think up a crazier idea than this!!! :bliss:

By the way, why are parents spending so much time and money on swim suits (and athletic activities in general) when the U.S. literacy rate (especially in math and science) is the lowest in the industrialized world? :badday:

Of course these parents will claim that their children are participating in athletics and they are still making stellar grades -but it’s “someone else’s” kids who are flunking in school. :blah:

Dolphin 2

The Fortress
December 4th, 2008, 04:20 PM
Of course these parents will claim that their children are participating in athletics and they are still making stellar grades -but it’s “someone else’s” kids who are flunking in school. :blah:

Dolphin 2

Must be yours. Mine are doing extremely well.

aquageek
December 4th, 2008, 04:36 PM
Of course these parents will claim that their children are participating in athletics and they are still making stellar grades -but it’s “someone else’s” kids who are flunking in school.

I wouldn't expect an informed statement about swimmers from a non-swimmer. You probably aren't aware of the higher academic achievement and graduation rates of year-round swimmers. If you actually swam on a team (as opposed to your story about a high school coach in the 1960s stating you had potential) you would see in person this achievement. But, as swimmers and swimming parents, thanks for the belittling of our children.

If that isn't proof enough, you should consider the careers and accomplishments of the swimmers on this forum.

Alternatively, you can continue to ignorantly rant and rave about tech suits that have been around since the late 80s. This, despite the fact that numerous national level top 10 record holders on this forum have told you they make a substantial difference. Wookie and I heard one of the top 2 or 3 coaches in the nation speak to their abilities. I will take that over the rantings of a noodler.

Dolphin 2
December 4th, 2008, 05:36 PM
Must be yours. Mine are doing extremely well.

Hey The Fortress
Since I don't have any kids, your statement probably verifies my previous claim. :applaud:

Dolphin 2

hofffam
December 4th, 2008, 05:47 PM
Dolphin 2 - Why don't you tell us more about you. Not at a personal level. But what do you do for a living? Do you have children? You write like a well educated person. But you write about things you don't know much about. You tell us the suits don't matter - but you have never tried them. You tell us parents we spend money on swim suits instead of making sure our kids can read.

Like Fort - my kids are athletes. Two swimmers, one diver. All of them are fine students. My oldest son swims as a freshman walkon at a Div 1 university. He has no athletic scholarship money but does have an academic scholarship. I have not bought a $400 suit for any of them although my two swimmers both have had FS-Pros. I don't plan to buy them tech suits any time soon.

I have been around age group swimming a long time. The vast majority of kids and their parents I know care deeply about academics. If you looked at the demographics of age group swimmers you would understand why many of us might say that the illiterate kids are not swimmers.

BTW - these suits are the same price for all sizes.

gobears
December 4th, 2008, 05:57 PM
Hey The Fortress
Since I don't have any kids, your statement probably verifies my previous claim. :applaud:

Dolphin 2

I guess that's where you get your stellar parenting ideas, then? You like to present yourself the expert and criticize people who actually have experience at things you've never even tried. Sounds pretty cowardly to me...

nkfrench
December 4th, 2008, 06:00 PM
North Texas 14 & Under Swimsuit Standards Effective 2009

Tue, 2 Dec 2008 12:15:00 CST

Effective January 1, 2009 at all North Texas Swimming, age-group defined, sanctioned meets:

Swimsuits worn by females for all 14 & Under defined competitions shall not cover the neck, extend past the shoulder, nor past the hip.
Swimsuits worn by males for all 14 & Under defined competitions shall not extend above the hips nor below the knees.
Interesting - the LSC is imposing a higher age limit with an earlier effective date (assuming PK's date above is accurate). And the girls can't wear the short leg suits either!

The Texas Swimming Association put this rule into effect for all TSA sponsored meets, most notably the 14&Under TAGS state championships next hosted in March 2009 by North Texas LSC. North Texas wished to have a consistent swimsuit ruling for all their sanctioned age group competitions and also put this rule into place following TSA's rule wording. (TSA members are the 5 Texas LSCs and USA Swimming clubs)

The Texas coaches generally believe that the bodysuits are particularly inappropriate for developing age group swimmers who should be earning their times through their work in the pool and attention to stroke technique.

The Fortress
December 4th, 2008, 06:43 PM
Hey The Fortress
Since I don't have any kids, your statement probably verifies my previous claim. :applaud:

Dolphin 2

Logically, this is inaccurate, as my facts are correct. Your response, however, does verify that, once again, you are opining about things of which you are ignorant.

poolraat
December 4th, 2008, 06:51 PM
Regarding Dolphin 2:

1 - He's not a competitive swimmer (and I wonder if he actually can swim) yet he's an expert on tech suits.

2 - He doesn't have any children yet he thinks he's qualified to tell us how to be better parents.

I think the best response to his future ranting is to totally ignore him and not even respond to his posts.

Just my :2cents:

osterber
December 5th, 2008, 12:26 PM
Of course USA-S has members with opinions. But the members don't make the rules. It ain't a democracy.

Um, actually, they do. It's not a pure democracy, but it certainly is a republic. At the convention each year, the LSCs all send their members of the House of Delegates. Those LSC representatives are generally elected from within the membership of each LSC.

-Rick

hofffam
December 5th, 2008, 12:57 PM
Um, actually, they do. It's not a pure democracy, but it certainly is a republic. At the convention each year, the LSCs all send their members of the House of Delegates. Those LSC representatives are generally elected from within the membership of each LSC.

-Rick

My point was that the individual USA-S member doesn't get to vote. The LSCs do this via an established process. My family has been part of USA-S for almost ten years and I don't remember ever being asked for my opinion on any topic by either the South Texas LSC or USA Swimming itself.

I wish they would have asked me about Mark Schubert in his dual role as USA-S national team head coach and a Speedo representative.

osterber
December 5th, 2008, 06:01 PM
My point was that the individual USA-S member doesn't get to vote. The LSCs do this via an established process. My family has been part of USA-S for almost ten years and I don't remember ever being asked for my opinion on any topic by either the South Texas LSC or USA Swimming itself.


I bet nobody called you up this week to ask you if you were for or against a bailout of the US Big Three automakers, either, did they?

I can't tell from the South Texas LSC web site if there are meetings that are more regular than their House of Delegates meetings. I would assume that you could attend the House of Delegates meetings and raise questions.

Here in New England, we have monthly Executive Board meetings. Our meetings are all open to the membership. (I.e., USA Swimming LSC members who are not Board members have voice but no vote.)

So I would encourage you to get involved locally. USA Swimming published all of the proposed business from their Convention ahead of the convention. Here in New England, we discussed the proposed legislation at the Board Meeting just before the election, so that our delegates to the Convention could act on our behalf. The fact that we were discussing the USA Swimming proposed legislation at our Board meeting was published to our membership before our Board meeting, so that anyone who wanted to could show up and raise an issue or an opinion.

If you want to have a say... all you gotta do is show up usually.

-Rick

Ripple
December 6th, 2008, 10:47 AM
The suit debate seems so much like what was going on in cycling back in the eighties and early nineties. In one case (Graeme Obree's hour record bike) the UCI decided one year later that the position would no longer be legal. If that bike had been made by Trek or Bianchi, instead of being cobbled together from old washing machine parts by Obree himself, would it have remained legal? I guess no-one will ever know. One would hope that large companies like Speedo don't get favoured over small innovators like Blue Seventy.
In the case of clipless pedals, many organizers and officials started doing rolling starts in criteriums (I remember scrambling to get into my toe clips from a standing start) to avoid giving an unfair advantage to clipless pedal users. Crits are still often started this way, even though you'd be hard pressed to find a set of toe clips in the bunch any more.
There was so much debate about whether new things like aero bars were more about equipement than athletic ability. But of course, you still had to get on the thing and ride it, as was proven in the '99 Pan Am games, when a Cuban on a beat up old track bike took the kilo from a competitor on a wind-tunnel tested carbon fiber wonder bike. Even I, slow as I am, have had the experience of passing wetsuit wearers in an open water race while wearing "skin", so obviously no suit is going to turn a mediocre swimmer into a great one.
I think this will all settle down in a few years, guidelines on suits will become more clear, and we'll forget all about the controversy and just get back to swimming.

orca1946
December 6th, 2008, 03:07 PM
I think the material is the sticking point! If no NEW improvments are allowed then we will all be playing in All Star Converse basketball shoes!

PArob83
December 7th, 2008, 03:16 PM
I think the material is the sticking point! If no NEW improvments are allowed then we will all be playing in All Star Converse basketball shoes!


I love those shoes.... though i may have allot of them, I never tried basketball in them though.

mattson
December 8th, 2008, 09:34 AM
LOL wow. I did not even think of XC or running... I wonder how much that adds up to.

If this were a perfect world, we would have the pool (maintenance) fees lumped in with the taxes for the road repairs and park forestry. :)

swimmom13
December 8th, 2008, 03:41 PM
Indiana Swimming enacted a rule for their 12 and under swimmers as well. Why can boys can wear jammers down to their knees, but girls can't have suits that extend below the pelvis? I purchased my daughter a kneeskin for States and Zones last summer and was told she couldn't wear the suit effective fall season. There was no warning for parents who purchased these suits for their children. They are expensive and it's unfair to those of us who invested in them.

If they are going to enact a rule restricting suits, it should be the same for swimmers everywhere. When you are determining TOP 16, it's unfair to tell kids in some states they can wear them while swimmers in other states can't. Don't the LSC's realize that these kids are being ranked nationally and not just within their LSC? Also, parents should understand that there's no reason to purchase these suits for average swimmers. I thinks it's odd to see B/BB/A swimmers wearing Fast Skins, Tracers,etc. These suits are designed for the serious competitive swimmer who is excelling in State, Zones, and nationally. To restrict these kids from wearing suits that were designed to enhance their performnace just isn't fair. This is a small group of swimmers and these suits are part of their game. Swimming is expensive at this level and this is part of competing at that level. If someone going to Zones can't afford the suit, then maybe they should try raising the money, asking their coach who can probably purchase one at a discount, or asking family members to help out. To restrict these elite age group swimmers is going to far. The LSC's need to stay out of it and adhere to a national policy.

orca1946
December 8th, 2008, 04:53 PM
These are all valid points. Will someone forward all of these to the powers to be so that they can get a real sense of the real world1

TheGoodSmith
December 8th, 2008, 06:14 PM
Seems to me the cat is already out of the bag on the suit issue. Actually the cat is miles away now. What a disaster it would be to implement a potentially slower or limiting suit technology AFTER all the World Records were broken this year.

John Smith

aquageek
December 8th, 2008, 06:46 PM
Even if they ban these suits, the slow kids will still be slow and their parents will still be neurotic.

elise526
December 8th, 2008, 06:53 PM
:rofl::laugh2::rofl:

You gotta love geek. He just tells it like it is.

thewookiee
December 8th, 2008, 07:19 PM
Don't see how they can ban the current suits, since there is wide spread use. But they probably do need to issue better guidelines for future suits.

poolraat
December 8th, 2008, 07:40 PM
USA Swimming isn't the only one banning the tech suits.

http://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/lane9/news/19794.asp?q=NCAA%20Adds%20Speedsuit%20Moratorium%2 0Discussion%20to%20Division%20I%20Phone%20Call%20A genda;%20CSCAA%20Responds%20-%20<i>Updated</i>

pwb
December 8th, 2008, 08:43 PM
Regarding Dolphin 2:

1 - He's not a competitive swimmer (and I wonder if he actually can swim) yet he's an expert on tech suits.

2 - He doesn't have any children yet he thinks he's qualified to tell us how to be better parents.

I think the best response to his future ranting is to totally ignore him and not even respond to his posts.

Just my :2cents:

:agree::agree::agree:!


Even if they ban these suits, the slow kids will still be slow and their parents will still be neurotic.

:agree::agree::agree:!

It seems pretty simple to me:


Tech suits do work,
Natural ability, technique, training, motivation, power, etc. all still add more advantage,
(Many) parents will (& SHOULD) continue to be neurotic about their kids ... but that's their prerogative
People who don't have kids should confine their guidance to matters that don't involve kids ... ditto tech suits

Blackbeard's Peg
December 9th, 2008, 11:22 AM
Hockey and swimming are NOT the same sports. Yes, hockey is generally expensive and kids travel hockey is extremely time consuming, but you are comparing apples to oranges here. Since people are jumping all over D2 for being "uninformed" on tech suits, etc., consider me doing the same to you non-hockey parents.

When comparing hockey and swimming, you have to look at two cost buckets: dues and equipment. Travel is a third to consider, but since it is probably a wash and sucks for all parents involved, we'll leave that out of the equation.

DUES
On the dues side, this is where everyone is seeing the $$ disappear in hockey. Travel hockey team dues may or may not include tournament fees, and they escalate fast. Add in additional clinics and the scheduled-at-the-last-minute holiday tournament dues, and you're looking at $2-3k easily. Just for a fall/winter/spring season. And then there's summer... where a lot of kids play in a summer league and go to a camp somewhere in michigan, minnesota or canadia. :canada: On top of all this, did I also mention playing for a second local-only team is not uncommon in these parts?

My local USS team costs for Junior I group (pretty much your run-of-the-mill USS BB cut 9-12 year olds) were about $900 for a recommended 4x/wk. Add in a summer team for a nominal fee. By way of comparison, my masters swim practice costs (3x/wk) + meet entry fees ran me about $1k in 2008.

Equipment
A full set of brand new, mid-range equipment costs about $1200 (with jerseys), but most of it should last 3-5 years before it starts falling apart. For the record, when I started, I paid a bit less for not-as-fancy stuff. If you play goalie, costs can double, BUT is more than made up for in discounts received for being a goalie (most teams and leagues let goalies play either free or for a severely reduced rate due to cost of equipment, especially in the adult leagues).

With kids, a lot of rinks and hockey programs have a stash of kids equipment that they rent out - basically, if you and/or your kid wants to try the sport, you can do so with little financial burden. Return it at the end of the season, and if he/she likes it, you can go out and get your own. Furthermore, a lot of teams have a team (or two) in most every division for kids 6-17, and will have programs set up where as the kids outgrow their equipment and move up, they can sell their small stuff to the next crop of little guys. Buying used equipment cuts down the cost at least 50%, and a lot of people go that route.

Aside from rolls of tape, regular skate sharpening and a new stick every once in a while, that isn't much when you amortize the startup cost over time. Figuring a replacement/upgrade of one piece of basic equipment a year, I'd say $300/annually is a fair cost.

There's really not much swim equipment a person NEEDS. Goggles, caps and practice suits are probably on every young swimmer's gift wish lists annually - and there's always the occasional set of fins and paddles (buoy and kickboard can last forever). One good non-full-body suit for the end-of-season meet, and that's $150 annually.

These days, swim parents are having to shell out for one or two low-tech (ie fs1/2) suits for random meets, and then potentially spend $350 on a b70 or $550 on a LZR?!?!? All of which have a short life span and can't really be transferred to another swimmer. Figure on getting a new fs2 annually and a super-tech suit every other year, plus the above basic spend, and we're looking at $500 annually for equipment.

Bottom Line
Hockey will blow away swimming with dues costs, and I think that is a fact that most previous hockey-hater posters are alluding to. However, at the equipment level, the need to exceed hockey's costs is ludicris. Hockey players need thick pads for protection - ice is hard and a rubber puck flying at 70-100MPH hurts like hell if your body gets in the way of it. Swimmers don't need full-body coverage - just coverage of our personal areas.

If your kid wants to play hockey, and you can pay for it, go for it. If your kid wants to swim, is fast and wants a super-tech suit and you can pay for it, go for it. But for everyone else, parents shouldn't feel pressured to be spending ridiculous amounts of money on a sport that is traditionally just about as inexpensive as you can get (after fort's running).
:2cents:

Peter Cruise
December 9th, 2008, 02:30 PM
A Modest Proposal re tech suits versus 'traditional' ones:

Small change cubicles be erected behind the starting blocks (about the size of porta potties, with a door on timers' side and one opening onto the block). Swimmers enter pool deck clad only in terry cloth robes and place their choice of suit inside their changing cubicle. When the gun goes they enter their cubicle, close the door and change into their chosen suit. When they are ready individually they open the door onto their blocks and start their race, first to the finish line wins. In European races I'm sure the suit options could include no suit at all.

aqualung
December 9th, 2008, 02:52 PM
The solution to this all is obviously to outlaw all suits in competition. Compete in the buff.

pwolf66
December 9th, 2008, 03:02 PM
The solution to this all is obviously to outlaw all suits in competition. Compete in the buff.


I can just see it now:

"Here's your meet program and here's your barf bag"

pakman044
December 9th, 2008, 04:52 PM
Indiana Swimming enacted a rule for their 12 and under swimmers as well. Why can boys can wear jammers down to their knees, but girls can't have suits that extend below the pelvis? I purchased my daughter a kneeskin for States and Zones last summer and was told she couldn't wear the suit effective fall season. There was no warning for parents who purchased these suits for their children. They are expensive and it's unfair to those of us who invested in them.

If they are going to enact a rule restricting suits, it should be the same for swimmers everywhere. When you are determining TOP 16, it's unfair to tell kids in some states they can wear them while swimmers in other states can't. Don't the LSC's realize that these kids are being ranked nationally and not just within their LSC? Also, parents should understand that there's no reason to purchase these suits for average swimmers. I thinks it's odd to see B/BB/A swimmers wearing Fast Skins, Tracers,etc. These suits are designed for the serious competitive swimmer who is excelling in State, Zones, and nationally. To restrict these kids from wearing suits that were designed to enhance their performnace just isn't fair. This is a small group of swimmers and these suits are part of their game. Swimming is expensive at this level and this is part of competing at that level. If someone going to Zones can't afford the suit, then maybe they should try raising the money, asking their coach who can probably purchase one at a discount, or asking family members to help out. To restrict these elite age group swimmers is going to far. The LSC's need to stay out of it and adhere to a national policy.

Ignoring the issue of whether the USA Swimming rule change is good policy or not, this post actually is a concern for another reason: that the LSC's are striking out on their own and tacking on to the USA Swimming rule change however they see fit.

Once again, the new rule (effective May 15):


102.9 SWIMWEAR
.1 Design
A Swimsuits worn for all 12 & under age group defined competition shall not cover the neck, extend past the shoulder, nor past the knee.
B Swimsuits worn for competition must be non-transparent and conform to the current concept of the appropriate.
C The Referee shall have authority to bar offenders from the competition until they comply with the rule.

Here (http://forums.usms.org/showpost.php?p=162077&postcount=19), we see that North Texas is extending the limit to age 14, and implementing the rule differently by sex, and as quoted above, that Indiana is also taking a sex-based interpretation as well. But, unless the Rules & Regulations Committee comes out with an interpretation or clarification--and soon--it's going to be a situation where each LSC has its own separate rule.

Why is this a problem? It's a problem if you have a suit that's legal in your LSC, and then you go to a meet in another LSC, where the suit is (by LSC rules or interpretations) illegal. I'll wager money that someone is going to have to go out and buy a new suit on site because the information wasn't in the meet announcement.

And then what happens at Age Group Sectionals or a Zone meet that is held in a more restrictive LSC (remember, the sanction for these meets is issued by the LSC, and unless an exception is carved out, governed by that LSC's bylaws too)?

And that's ignoring issues where some LSC's will interpret the rule to result in an immediate disqualification and some LSC's will interpret the rule to simply require the swimmer to correct the issue before his or her next event.

Patrick King

Dolphin 2
December 10th, 2008, 11:15 AM
I guess that's where you get your stellar parenting ideas, then? You like to present yourself the expert and criticize people who actually have experience at things you've never even tried. Sounds pretty cowardly to me...

Hey Gobears
I subscribe to the idea that people can "Learn from the mistakes of others" and I don't have to actually try anything to be an "expert" (as you sacastically use the word) to see that parents are making way too many mistakes raising their children. :bitching:

Especially those who have had children who fail out of school or worse wind up in jail, prison, or living on the streets. :2cents:

Dolphin 2

aquageek
December 10th, 2008, 11:27 AM
I subscribe to the idea that people can "Learn from the mistakes of others" and I don't have to actually try anything to be an "expert" (as you sacastically use the word) to see that parents are making way too many mistakes raising their children. :bitching:

Especially those who have had children who fail out of school or worse wind up in jail, prison, or living on the streets.

Fortunately the entire rest of the world disagrees with you. Pretty much universally known that to be an expert in something means you do it, and do it a significant proficiency level, some might even say an expert level.

You don't swim AT ALL yet pass judgment on swimming matters. You don't have kids yet tell those of us who do we are failures.

I would prefer if you'd provide expert opinions on matters you are qualified to speak on and, thus, might give you more credit, or some credit anyway.

Dolphin 2
December 10th, 2008, 11:54 AM
Fortunately the entire rest of the world disagrees with you. Pretty much universally known that to be an expert in something means you do it, and do it a significant proficiency level, some might even say an expert level.

You don't swim AT ALL yet pass judgment on swimming matters. You don't have kids yet tell those of us who do we are failures.

I would prefer if you'd provide expert opinions on matters you are qualified to speak on and, thus, might give you more credit, or some credit anyway.

Hey Aquageek & All Of My Other Vociferous Critics
I don't have to be an "expert" on the subject of parenting to know that way too many parents are royally messing up in their responsibility of raising children.

As an example, the U.S. is an under-achieving nation in the math and science fields and parents must share a large part of the blame. This is an emergency situation and parents need to have their children hitting the books and doing their homework -not spending time in after school sports.

Here are a few links to back up what I am saying:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/08/980825075401.htm

http://www.apa.org/monitor/mar05/scores.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/10/MNBT14KP86.DTL&hw=math&sn=001&sc=1000

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/09/BAQ614I87U.DTL&hw=math&sn=006&sc=180

This list could go on and on and it's no wonder the U.S. is becoming a 2Nd and 3Rd rate nation in the industrialized world.

Dolphin 2

aquageek
December 10th, 2008, 11:58 AM
You post someone else's work and then claim to be the expert on the topic, and not even the topic you post about. That's rich, or plaigarism, take your pick.

thewookiee
December 10th, 2008, 12:05 PM
If it hadn't of been for after school sports, I would have done nothing in school. If I didn't have swimming after school, I certainly wouldn't have been studying.

After school sports made me more disciplined to do well in school, because without doing well in school, I wouldn't have been able to compete in swimming.

Kid's doing after school sports doesn't hurt their grades.

hofffam
December 10th, 2008, 12:10 PM
Hey Aquageek & All Of My Other Vociferous Critics
I don't have to be an "expert" on the subject of parenting to know that way too many parents are royally messing up in their responsibility of raising children.

As an example, the U.S. is an under-achieving nation in the math and science fields and parents must share a large part of the blame. This is an emergency situation and parents need to have their children hitting the books and doing their homework -not spending time in after school sports.

Here are a few links to back up what I am saying:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/08/980825075401.htm

http://www.apa.org/monitor/mar05/scores.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/10/MNBT14KP86.DTL&hw=math&sn=001&sc=1000

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/09/BAQ614I87U.DTL&hw=math&sn=006&sc=180

This list could go on and on and it's no wonder the U.S. is becoming a 2Nd and 3Rd rate nation in the industrialized world.

Dolphin 2


Dolphin 2 - this is a thread about swimming and swim suits. If you want to discuss math and science education in the USA - please find a different board. If you can correlate math and science education to swim suits then please do so.

Your assertions on the swim suit issue are completely groundless. You claim the benefits of the new suits are a work of marketing fiction. You cannot cite any articles to defend your point. And since you have no personal experience to speak from - you have no credibility whatsoever on this topic.

The Fortress
December 10th, 2008, 12:11 PM
As an example, the U.S. is an under-achieving nation in the math and science fields and parents must share a large part of the blame. This is an emergency situation and parents need to have their children hitting the books and doing their homework -not spending time in after school sports.
Dolphin 2

That'll help the obesity epidemic. There's more to childhood than exclusively being a parent-pushed tool.

aquageek
December 10th, 2008, 12:20 PM
This is an emergency situation and parents need to have their children hitting the books and doing their homework -not spending time in after school sports.

You clearly have no idea whatsoever about what you are talking about. Graduation rates are on the rise for student athletes and at an all-time high.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?ContentID=39116

I would like you to cite your sources which state eliminating sports would be of benefit. I'm perfectly fine if you make this assertion as your opinion, despite facts proving totally otherwise.

knelson
December 10th, 2008, 12:23 PM
I can just see it now:

"Here's your meet program and here's your barf bag"

Yeah, seriously, it's hard enough to get enough timers now! :bolt:

aqualung
December 10th, 2008, 02:56 PM
"Here's your meet program and here's your barf bag"
Sorry. No comprendo.
I usually need a barf bag if I see a non-swimmer a bit too exposed...most beach scenes. Get in shape, or get off the beach! Step away from the pool...
or is it the backstroke event, with all of the periscope action?

Dolphin 2
December 10th, 2008, 03:06 PM
You post someone else's work and then claim to be the expert on the topic, and not even the topic you post about. That's rich, or plaigarism, take your pick.

Hey Aquageek
Your argument that I don’t have to actually do some common place thing (like being a parent) to be an “expert” is frivolous and claiming that my use of links to support my argument is somehow “Plagiarism” is mediocre and a pretty cheap shot.

Why do I have to actually be a parent to be an “expert” on the issue of how other people's children are failing in academics? Anyone who has been in charge of hiring technical personnel (as I do in the course of managing an elevator service company) is quite familiar with the lack of competency of workers produced by the American school system and the links I posted are just to support my personal (and everyone else’s) observations.

Furthermore, I actually do work part time as a tutor in high school (and the first two years of college) math, science, and English composition and I can tell you that there is a serious problem with the capabilities of most American students.

There must be some kind of “Primordial” thinking going on (“Survival Of The Physically Fittest”) left over from the cavemen days, but parents seem to place more importance on their children making an athletic accomplishment than academic achievement.

Dolphin 2

aquageek
December 10th, 2008, 03:33 PM
Dolphin - your experiences are vastly different from mine in both education and personnel. However, these are my personal observations and I don't hold myself out as an expert, as you do.

Given your lack of credibility and expertise in swimming yet your assertions on the topic, I tend to believe you have similar background and competence to speak on other matters. Your position in an elevator service company does not qualify you to speak definitively on parenting or education.

I suspect if you'd ever spend time with the gifted students in your school you'd have a broader range of experience to draw from. The same could be said if you'd ever spend any time around swimmers or swimming programs. There are many on this forum you could learn from.

Dolphin 2
December 10th, 2008, 04:33 PM
If it hadn't of been for after school sports, I would have done nothing in school. If I didn't have swimming after school, I certainly wouldn't have been studying.

After school sports made me more disciplined to do well in school, because without doing well in school, I wouldn't have been able to compete in swimming.

Kid's doing after school sports doesn't hurt their grades.

Hey Thewookiee
If you don’t appreciate the intrinsic value of going to school just for the purpose of getting an education and you need athletics as an enticement to stay there, your reasoning is terribly, terribly flawed.

If the availability of an athletic program is your main priority for going to school, I seriously doubt that you are really interested in getting an education and picking up marketable job skills.

Being competitive in today’s employment market (in the technical fields especially) requires a person to prioritize about 16 hours to instruction, on the job hands on training, or studying per day. With my salary of $120K per year at stake, I devote every bit of my spare time to upgrading my job skill set and managing my finances and I have absolutely no intention of wasting time on athletics.

Considering the very poor state of the U.S. educational system, it wouldn’t be an absurd idea at all to just drop athletics at all publically financed institutions. Of course there would be howling and crying so the country will continue down the path to economic oblivion. :badday:

Dolphin 2

Paul Smith
December 10th, 2008, 04:46 PM
Hey ThewookieeConsidering the very poor state of the U.S. educational system, it wouldn’t be an absurd idea at all to just drop athletics at all publically financed institutions. Of course there would be howling and crying so the country will continue down the path to economic oblivion. :badday:Dolphin 2

That's pretty funny...almost as good as saying maybe we just need to toss more money into education without fundmentally changing the entire broken system...a system that starts with the absurd idea that somehow "failing" is not a possiblity and social promotion is the norm...here's a better idea...bring back mandatory physical education, encourage all kids particpate in one after school sport, get all junk food/vedning machines out of all schools and stop with the ridicolous banning of games of tag because someone loses..and maybe we'll see an increase in self discipline, self respect and possibly a decrease in childhood obesity.

Blackbeard's Peg
December 10th, 2008, 04:46 PM
Can we please either ignore certain off-topic posts and/or certain posters?
Or if you truly feel the need to respond to something that is NOT related to "USA Swimming proposes rule limiting suits"

TAKE IT TO PRIVATE MESSAGES OR THE NSR THREAD AREA!!!!

aquageek
December 10th, 2008, 04:53 PM
...I have absolutely no intention to wasting time on athletics.

Then kindly leave a forum that is dedicated to those of us who waste our time on athletics and, for many of us, parenting. You aren't qualified to speak on other, your post proves it. Adios. Why are you on this forum anyway? You aren't even a noodler.

Dolphin 2
December 10th, 2008, 04:55 PM
Dolphin - your experiences are vastly different from mine in both education and personnel. However, these are my personal observations and I don't hold myself out as an expert, as you do.

Given your lack of credibility and expertise in swimming yet your assertions on the topic, I tend to believe you have similar background and competence to speak on other matters. Your position in an elevator service company does not qualify you to speak definitively on parenting or education.

I suspect if you'd ever spend time with the gifted students in your school you'd have a broader range of experience to draw from. The same could be said if you'd ever spend any time around swimmers or swimming programs. There are many on this forum you could learn from.

Hey Aquageek
Yes there are in fact many gifted students in today's school system. In fact, I spent two summers in high school working with other gifted students as interns at the University Of Southern California. The problem is that gifted students are minimized (often being labled as "Autistic" because the don't relate to mediocraty).

As for your statement: "Given your lack of credibility and expertise in swimming yet your assertions on the topic, I tend to believe you have similar background and competence to speak on other matters".

My reply: Swimming (or other forms of athletics) is a sports/recreational activity and not a professional job for most people. Nor does it require any serious technological expertise to perform.

As the old saying goes "It aint rocket science".

Dolphin 2

The Fortress
December 10th, 2008, 04:58 PM
mediocraty.

Maybe you should devote less time to swim forums and more time to learning basic spelling.

aquageek
December 10th, 2008, 05:05 PM
Nor does it require any serious technological expertise to perform.

As the old saying goes "It aint rocket science".

Dolphin 2

Wow! I heard someone say the same thing once about elevator repairs, but I'm no expert.

hofffam
December 10th, 2008, 05:05 PM
Galen - why are you here on the US Masters Swimming board?

Maybe it would be more interesting to you to find a place that is discussing what is happening with the Washington DC school system. That is interesting and directly related to K-12 education.

As for dropping all sports entirely - I doubt there is any evidence that dropping athletics produces higher achievement in math and science. Children do not generally want to study all day and night like it seems you suggest they should. But you would know that if you had children. You seem to not believe that fitness is at all part of a complete growing up process. So I guess in your ideal world kids would have soft weak bodies, sharp but tired minds, and strong fingers because they are always typing on a keyboard.

aquageek
December 10th, 2008, 05:22 PM
I enjoyed arguing with Ion a lot more, at least he knows his swimming.

thewookiee
December 10th, 2008, 06:45 PM
Hey Thewookiee
If you don’t appreciate the intrinsic value of going to school just for the purpose of getting an education and you need athletics as an enticement to stay there, your reasoning is terribly, terribly flawed.

If the availability of an athletic program is your main priority for going to school, I seriously doubt that you are really interested in getting an education and picking up marketable job skills.

Being competitive in today’s employment market (in the technical fields especially) requires a person to prioritize about 16 hours to instruction, on the job hands on training, or studying per day. With my salary of $120K per year at stake, I devote every bit of my spare time to upgrading my job skill set and managing my finances and I have absolutely no intention of wasting time on athletics.

Considering the very poor state of the U.S. educational system, it wouldn’t be an absurd idea at all to just drop athletics at all publically financed institutions. Of course there would be howling and crying so the country will continue down the path to economic oblivion. :badday:

Dolphin 2

Hey

My reasoning isn't flawed. Sports are an outlet for many smart people. If I didn't have swimming, I would have done just enough homework to get by for each year.
Swimming helped me channel my focus into everything I did that wasnt swimming because it taught me how to develop a competitive attitude toward life outside of the sport.
And so you can shove this up your butt...I was a multiple SCHOLAR-ATHLETE in college...which meant I HAD TO SCHOOL and PRACTICE. I had to maintain at least a 3.2 or better GPA and earn a letter.
In high school, I was on the dean's list, as well as a many time state finalist.
I am just one of MILLIONS of people in all sports that benefitted from having sports to help us learn to become better at what we do.
Parents can only do so much to help a child. At some point, the child has to make a decision to be responsible for their actions. All parents I know would bend over backwards and make any sacrifice needed to help their children be the very best they can be.
Children being involved in sports isn't the problem in this county. It is having fools like you try to tell everyone what is right and wrong, when you have no clue on the issues.
And lastly, if you don't like this country, if you are so ashamed of how it is doing, then GET OUT!

Signed,
John

thewookiee
December 10th, 2008, 06:47 PM
Wow! I heard someone say the same thing once about elevator repairs, but I'm no expert.


Geek- Don't you think Kerry and David would seriously disagree about what it takes swim correctly?

aquageek
December 10th, 2008, 06:49 PM
Geek- Don't you think Kerry and David would seriously disagree with moron2 about what it takes swim correctly?

Probably, but they don't fix elevators, which is rocket science, so we can't take their opinions seriously.

thewookiee
December 10th, 2008, 06:51 PM
Probably, but they don't fix elevators, which is rocket science, so we can't take their opinions seriously.

Well, you do have a point. A buddy of mine's son does fix elevators for a living...last time I check, he graduated from a community college but so far none of the elevators have failed.

gobears
December 10th, 2008, 08:02 PM
Maybe you should devote less time to swim forums and more time to learning basic spelling.

Ha! I was going to post the same thing. That major in Elevator Science wasn't heavy in spelling demands, I guess...

Someone ought to make a poll. I would guess that there is a disproportionately high number of us with kids in the gifted category or kids who have high GPA's. I know I managed to swim and graduate toward the top of my class. Almost every one of my swimming friends did too. The swimmers I know today are the same. Somehow swimmers tend to be motivated to not only train but study. But Dolphin wouldn't know about any of that.

Dolphin 2, there are so many ways to present an idea that aren't obnoxious. Is there some reason you want to feel like the guru on swimming or parenting when you have no experience? I've never felt compelled to go on an elevator repair support group forum and present my (very) limited knowledge about elevators. At least I've actually ridden an elevator...

Why, in god's name, are you even on a USMS site?????????????????????:confused:

Allen Stark
December 10th, 2008, 08:07 PM
I have tried to move this to NSR,if anyone wants to continue it.

charged
December 12th, 2008, 12:55 PM
I agree with Dolphin. I wish they would ban all of these tech suits.

1. Going back to briefs would keep everyone on a level playing field.
2. As a parent who does not make much money it is going to be cost prohibitive for me to buy these suits for my kids.
3. I can't afford tech suits for myself.

I really have no say in what happens but that is what I wish. I don't have a whole lot of swimming experience and am definately not very fast compared to most. I swam a year when I was 8 for an age group team. I swam 3 years in High School and during that time I swam with an age group team when my parents could afford the monthly dues. I swam for one semester at a Community College. I am just starting to swim again to lose 40 lbs and trying to live a healthier lifestyle. I may join the local masters team if I can afford it next year.

aquageek
December 12th, 2008, 01:43 PM
1. Going back to briefs would keep everyone on a level playing field.
2. As a parent who does not make much money it is going to be cost prohibitive for me to buy these suits for my kids.
3. I can't afford tech suits for myself.


I appreciate your honesty. But, it pretty much comes down to an objection based on means, not on their value to swimming. I suspect this is really the truth for most opponents.

knelson
December 12th, 2008, 02:03 PM
There has been some talk about how the cost of these suits might be detrimental to kids getting into the sport, but I wonder if this is really true. Yes, there's the concern that kids could be "priced out," but on the other hand lots of people are also drawn to the cool gizmo factor. After all, there are plenty of people who aren't rich that have no issue shelling out lots of money on things like basketball shoes. Let's face it, Speedo briefs in most cases are an source of derision. On the other hand, someone bedecked in a LZR is not. It's seen as cool. Whether this is justified or not is immaterial. With kids today I think sports need that cool factor to be popular.

thewookiee
December 12th, 2008, 02:30 PM
1. Going back to briefs would keep everyone on a level playing field.
2. As a parent who does not make much money it is going to be cost prohibitive for me to buy these suits for my kids.
3. I can't afford tech suits for myself.

.

I agree with Geek. Your honesty is nice and appreciated. Personally, I don't want to go back to briefs. For some reason, I like the suits covering the upper body.

As for your kids, depending on the ages, you probably won't need to buy them for awhile, considering that USA swimming has proposed a ban on them for 12 and unders. They might even raise the age limit.

As for your self, there are more affordable tech suits out there. The older models are a lot cheaper now. Heck, some places are discounting the older versions of tech suits, which are still better than just the briefs.

As I have said before, there are going to be those of us that like them and those that don't. If I want to spend my money on one, then that should be my choice. Just because some people don't like them, don't want to pay for them or can't pay for them, doesn't mean those that do like them, that can pay for them or are willing to pay for them, should have to pushed back to yester year of swimming.

Other sports evolve in terms of material design. Better running shoes, better running outfits, so why is it such a big deal for swimming to evolve? It is time to come out of the dark ages and appreciate what technology and good science will do for the sport.

Because, regardless of the suit, the ATHLETE still has to put it on and race. If they haven't prepared for their races, then the suits will not make up for missed practices or other lack of preparation. Yea, maybe the effects won't be as bad but they still won't be as good if the training hasn't take place. No suit can make up the for lack of training.

charged
December 16th, 2008, 06:34 PM
I appreciate your honesty. But, it pretty much comes down to an objection based on means, not on their value to swimming. I suspect this is really the truth for most opponents.

The cost and availability of the suits is only part of the objection. I think these suits help the swimmer swim faster. Some suits are faster than other suits. I'm sure any suit is faster than just briefs or why would a swimmer wear it. Why can't swimmers swim against each other instead of swimmers swimming against the suits of other competitors?

aquageek
December 16th, 2008, 06:48 PM
Why can't swimmers swim against each other instead of swimmers swimming against the suits of other competitors?

As Wookie pointed out, the suits don't swim themselves.

charged
December 16th, 2008, 06:53 PM
As Wookie pointed out, the suits don't swim themselves.

If swimmers did not swim faster with the tech suits why do they wear them? Swimmers put up with the suits tearing, struggling to put them on, and the price(some swimmers). If they did not make one swim faster they would not use them.

pwb
December 16th, 2008, 07:03 PM
I think these suits help the swimmer swim faster. Some suits are faster than other suits. I'm sure any suit is faster than just briefs or why would a swimmer wear it. Why can't swimmers swim against each other instead of swimmers swimming against the suits of other competitors?

Not much usually bugs me, but I am sooooooo sick of this topic and wish it would stop popping to the top of the forum.

To all you Luddites who want to ban these suits: next time you go to the pool, please:


leave your goggles,
your nylon suits,
your lycra suits,
your buoys,
your paddles,
your caps,
your fins,
your kickboards,
your stretch cords,
your tempo timers,
EVERYTHING

BEHIND ... show up and swim as nature intended you to.

In the meantime while you find yourself a lawyer to defend you in your public indeceny trial, please answer this: At what point in time did the technology of the day NOT contribute to swimmers going faster than they did with the previous technology? That's the whole point.

aquageek
December 16th, 2008, 07:10 PM
If they did not make one swim faster they would not use them.

You aren't breaking any ground with that statement. Yes, people swim fast in these suits, that's the whole point. I really think people need to grow up and move on. Technology happens in all sports, it's here to stay. Swim naked if you want, I'll wear the suit of my choice.

The Fortress
December 16th, 2008, 07:10 PM
Swimming faster is not illegal. It's the entire point.

You forgot parachutes, Patrick. :) Nicely said though!

thewookiee
December 16th, 2008, 07:22 PM
Swimming faster is not illegal. It's the entire point.

You forgot parachutes, Patrick. :) Nicely said though!

Amen! Nice way of putting things Patrick.

The whole goal is to swim the fastest possible time. If people want to ban tech suits...then the triathlon world needs to ban wetsuits too...because they help triathletes swim faster.
People will always look for things to give them a phyiscal or mental edge. If the suits do one or the other or both, fine.
Too many people want to take swimming back to yester year. Why can't the accept change. Swimming loses too many kids, esp. young boys because of the stigma of wearing a "speedo" type suit. The newer suits...jammers, legskins, bodysuits, help get rid of that stigma. If they keep kids in the sport, I am all for it.

To the "purists" if you don't like the suits...don't buy them. But don't try to ruin the advancement of swimming for everyone else.

charged
December 16th, 2008, 11:42 PM
Amen! Nice way of putting things Patrick.

The whole goal is to swim the fastest possible time. If people want to ban tech suits...then the triathlon world needs to ban wetsuits too...because they help triathletes swim faster.
People will always look for things to give them a phyiscal or mental edge. If the suits do one or the other or both, fine.
Too many people want to take swimming back to yester year. Why can't the accept change. Swimming loses too many kids, esp. young boys because of the stigma of wearing a "speedo" type suit. The newer suits...jammers, legskins, bodysuits, help get rid of that stigma. If they keep kids in the sport, I am all for it.

To the "purists" if you don't like the suits...don't buy them. But don't try to ruin the advancement of swimming for everyone else.

I don't know much about triathletes, but aren't the wet suits for use only below a set temperature? I think it is for the safety of the athlete.

IMO, tech suits are ruining the sport.

ande
December 17th, 2008, 05:32 AM
FINA wants research on LZR, other high-tech suits
Fri Dec 12, 2008 By Associated Press

FINA wants more research done on high-tech swim suits like the Speedo LZR worn by Jason Lezak in Beijing.

ROME (AP) -- Swimming's world governing body is requesting new research into the high-tech suits that have caused such a stir, and USA Swimming has proposed restrictions on their use.

"We have to be sure we are doing the best thing possible for the sport, together with the manufacturers," FINA executive director Cornel Marculescu told The Associated Press this week.

FINA consistently upheld the design of the new suits -- specifically Speedo's LZR Racer -- in the run-up to the Beijing Games. But as world record after world record has been broken -- mostly by swimmers wearing the LZR -- complaints about the suits have only intensified.

Critics of the high-tech suits believe they create illegal levels of buoyancy. FINA is looking at the thickness of the new suits and seeking a scientific test that will determine whether suits are "credible" or not, Marculescu said.

"We are in contact with a very important university that is doing some research for us, and we will have the information at the beginning of next year," he said.

He would not disclose which university is performing the research.

USA Swimming submitted the following recommendations to FINA: "In swimming competitions, the competitor must wear only one swimsuit in one or two pieces which shall not cover the neck, extend past the shoulder, nor past the knee. No additional items, like arm bands or leg bands, shall be regarded as parts of a swimsuit."

During the Beijing Games, many swimmers wore two suits, another factor that could increase buoyancy. Several swimmers put on an extra suit for decency reasons, with some of the new high-tech suits so thin and tight they can split apart as swimmers put them on just before races.

USA Swimming also wants manufacturers to ensure that approved swimsuits are available to all competitors for 12 months prior to each Olympics.

"The purpose of these recommendations is to encourage FINA to implement a more thorough and scientific method of reviewing and approving suits," USA Swimming president Jim Wood said in a statement provided to the AP.

At the Olympics, nearly every American swimmer used the LZR, and U.S. coach Mark Schubert said beforehand that he wanted every member of his team to wear the Speedo, even if they were under contract with another manufacturer.

In May, California-based TYR Sport filed a federal lawsuit alleging that rival Speedo had conspired with USA Swimming to stifle competition and lure top athletes away from other companies.

All the American swimmers under contract with Nike before the games switched to Speedo, as Nike effectively pulled out of the market.

But USA Swimming is now expressing some reservations. The organization decided in September to ban the new suits in 12-and-under competitions, effective in May. The new suits can cost upward of $300 and availability has been limited, meaning developing swimmers with the right resources or connections have an advantage over others.

"We have encouraged FINA to sit down with coaches and suit manufacturers on this process and are recommending legislation to limit the amount of body covered by the suit at future competitions," Wood said. "In addition, we are encouraging the 12-month rule to ensure an even playing field to all athletes, allowing them a full year to practice in the suit, and to have their suits properly fitted."

Speedo is a top sponsor for USA Swimming, and Stuart Isaac, a Speedo representative in the United States, said the language proposed by the Americans wouldn't necessarily ban the LZR.

"It would impact a couple versions of the LZR, but it doesn't specifically address the technical issues," Isaac said. "We already have versions in those guidelines."

Companies make the high-tech suits in various shapes, with some stopping at the knee and shoulder and others covering swimmers' entire arms and legs.

"It's just one small aspect of the debate," Isaac said. "The technical issues need to be considered in a much broader dialogue, and we're hoping that's what FINA is trying to do."

FINA has invited 21 manufacturers to a Feb. 20 meeting at its headquarters in Lausanne, Switzerland. Rule changes could be submitted at the FINA Bureau meeting in March -- perhaps in time for the 2009 World Championships in Rome, scheduled for July 18 to Aug. 2.


http://www.universalsports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=3632316&SPID=11652&DB_OEM_ID=23000&PRINTABLE_PAGE=YES

thewookiee
December 17th, 2008, 08:06 AM
I don't know much about triathletes, but aren't the wet suits for use only below a set temperature? I think it is for the safety of the athlete.

IMO, tech suits are ruining the sport.

IMO, tech suits are advancing the sport. In 10 years...15 years...40 years... no one is going to remember or care that Michael Phelps wore an LZR. They are going to remember that he won 8 olympic gold medals. In 10 years...15 years...40 years...most swimmers aren't going to remember or care what suit they wore when they swam lifetime bests. They are going to remember their fastest overall time.

If I wear a Fastskin jammer and get beat by someone wearing a B-70 or LZR. I got beat by a better swimmer, not a better suit, because even if I had a B-70 or LZR, there is no guarentee that I could/would beat the other swimmer.
These suits aren't running the sport. People want to see world records and fast swims. Athletes want fast swims, these suits are an improvement over previous suits to help swimmers achieve better times, which is what we all want in the end.

And there is no 100% proof that wearing these suits will always make a swimmer go faster. Swimmers have worn these new "hi-tech" suits are swam slower in them as well. Works just like it did in previous years with less than "high tech" suits.

BTW...wetsuits are a speed aiding device. They allow the swimmer to float in the water and cut down on drag.
If they were totally for safety, every tri race would require some version of them for their races...either full body or in warmer temps. a farmer john type suit.

The Fortress
December 17th, 2008, 10:10 AM
I wish people hadn't exploited a loophole in the rules with this 2-3 suit phenomenon. This is making the furor much worse. I've heard from several people that the swimmers in Europe breaking all the records are clad in three suits. I love tech suits, but I find this ridiculous.

charged
December 17th, 2008, 10:18 AM
BTW...wetsuits are a speed aiding device. They allow the swimmer to float in the water and cut down on drag.
If they were totally for safety, every tri race would require some version of them for their races...either full body or in warmer temps. a farmer john type suit.

The whole point is wet suits are not to be worn in warm water. They are only supposed to be used in cold water for safety. If they wanted the swimmers to swim faster they would allow wetsuits at any temperature.

thewookiee
December 17th, 2008, 10:19 AM
I wish people hadn't exploited a loophole in the rules with this 2-3 suit phenomenon. This is making the furor much worse. I've heard from several people that the swimmers in Europe breaking all the records are clad in three suits. I love tech suits, but I find this ridiculous.


I will agree with you and everyone else on this one. It should be a one suit rule, like the NCAA has put into place. It's not easy to put one suit on...I don't see how they are really getting 2-3 tight fitting suits on.

charged
December 17th, 2008, 10:19 AM
I wish people hadn't exploited a loophole in the rules with this 2-3 suit phenomenon. This is making the furor much worse. I've heard from several people that the swimmers in Europe breaking all the records are clad in three suits. I love tech suits, but I find this ridiculous.

So do I. If one suit doesn't float how do three suits float?

poolraat
December 17th, 2008, 10:23 AM
So do I. If one suit doesn't float how do three suits float?

I may be wrong, but I think that wearing multiple suits traps air between the layers and in the fabric itself which aids buoyancy.

aquageek
December 17th, 2008, 10:36 AM
The whole point is wet suits are not to be worn in warm water. They are only supposed to be used in cold water for safety. If they wanted the swimmers to swim faster they would allow wetsuits at any temperature.

That's such bologna, and stale rotten bologna at that. The threshold temp for wet suits in tris is 76 degrees. I can possibly understand such a ridiculously warm threshold on half and full IM distances but for sprints and olympic distances, c'mon. How flippin cold are you gonna get in a 750 meter swim in 75 degree water? Wetsuits at temps over about 66 are simply a crutch and a way for tris to lessen the panic factor with swimming that so many experience, there is no other explanation. Calling it for safety reasons is ludicrous.

charged
December 17th, 2008, 11:06 AM
That's such bologna, and stale rotten bologna at that. The threshold temp for wet suits in tris is 76 degrees. I can possibly understand such a ridiculously warm threshold on half and full IM distances but for sprints and olympic distances, c'mon. How flippin cold are you gonna get in a 750 meter swim in 75 degree water? Wetsuits at temps over about 66 are simply a crutch and a way for tris to lessen the panic factor with swimming that so many experience, there is no other explanation. Calling it for safety reasons is ludicrous.

I don't like it but they had to pick a temperature. They'll come up with a solution for the tech suits the same way. It won't please everyone. :shrug:

pwolf66
December 17th, 2008, 11:30 AM
IMO, tech suits are ruining the sport.

Wow, pretty sure this sentiment was around when lycra suits were introduced but as the Internet was still just a glimmer in Al Gore's mind, it was not widely known.

And X is ruining golf, biking, tennis, pick your sport, in the last 50 years there has been some sort of 'advance' that has 'threatened' the sport. And yet sports continue to exist regardless of our feelings.

It's a personal choice not a requirement to use the latest and greatest technology. Only at the elite level of competition does it even remotely resemble a 'requirement' than a 'choice'

Patrick, you forgot a few:

- Take out the lane lines and replace them with the ropes with the blue and white floats
- Only swim in pools that are 5 feet deep or less
- paint over the lane lines on the bottom and remove the crosses on the walls
- pitch all the modern chemicals that are used to maintain the water quality (this might not be such a bad thing)

aquageek
December 17th, 2008, 11:38 AM
If you really want to ruin swimming, or any sport, prohibit any advancements and strand it in the past.

Paul made me chuckle about the lane ropes we used to have. Remember the days when you'd have fiberglass shards in your fingers from when you'd touch them? How about after a 2 hour practice getting out and seeing a halo around all the lights? Yes, those were the good ole days, let's bring 'em back!

Blackbeard's Peg
December 17th, 2008, 11:46 AM
Glenn Mills has a very interesting article on his blueseventy (http://www.goswim.tv/entries/5515/blueseventy-torture-test.html) featured this week on his goswim.tv website.

Glider
December 17th, 2008, 11:47 AM
And when was the last time you had to swim in a gutterless pool - that's huge!

Well, okay, SWAT here in Atlanta still has at least two that I've had the pleasure of surfing/swimming.


If you really want to ruin swimming, or any sport, prohibit any advancements and strand it in the past.

Paul made me chuckle about the lane ropes we used to have. Remember the days when you'd have fiberglass shards in your fingers from when you'd touch them? How about after a 2 hour practice getting out and seeing a halo around all the lights? Yes, those were the good ole days, let's bring 'em back!

Chris Stevenson
December 17th, 2008, 11:49 AM
It's a personal choice not a requirement to use the latest and greatest technology. Only at the elite level of competition does it even remotely resemble a 'requirement' than a 'choice'


If you really want to ruin swimming, or any sport, prohibit any advancements and strand it in the past.

I think both of you are oversimplifying. When even Fortress -- an admitted fan -- and Mel Stewart and many others say "enough is enough" with the double/triple suits, then you have a situation that is getting out of hand. Markets are good for many things, but with the escalating arms race we have a "tragedy of the commons" situation that markets are notoriously poor at handling. Hence the need for stricter external regulation.

I would say that the requirement at the elite level is much stronger than "remote." When was the last time an elite swimmer used jammers or briefs -- much less set a record in them -- in a major competition? When you have the German team forced to wear suits that they believe put them at a significant disadvantage compared to others, the focus has shifted too far away from the sport to the equipment.

PS: 90% of the reason for this post was to use the multiquote feature, which I only recently figured out...

aquageek
December 17th, 2008, 11:53 AM
I agree multi suiting is not a good thing. I don't know how to multi-quote.

pwolf66
December 17th, 2008, 11:58 AM
If you really want to ruin swimming, or any sport, prohibit any advancements and strand it in the past.

Paul made me chuckle about the lane ropes we used to have. Remember the days when you'd have fiberglass shards in your fingers from when you'd touch them? How about after a 2 hour practice getting out and seeing a halo around all the lights? Yes, those were the good ole days, let's bring 'em back!


OMG, I would be picking those out of my hands for hours. But I loved the old lane lines with the 5 biscuits separated by one donut float. Made counting on long sets much easier, until someone pulled on the lane line and cleared your count. and ah, the joy of giving your non-swimming friends the keys to your car so they could drive because all you could see was big shiny circles of light.

Chris Stevenson
December 17th, 2008, 12:00 PM
I agree multi suiting is not a good thing. I don't know how to multi-quote.

http://forums.usms.org/showthread.php?p=163880#post163880

Impress your friends.

Dolphin 2
December 17th, 2008, 12:00 PM
[QUOTE=thewookiee;164323] "Swimming loses too many kids, esp. young boys because of the stigma of wearing a "speedo" type suit. The newer suits...jammers, legskins, bodysuits, help get rid of that stigma. If they keep kids in the sport, I am all for it."

Hey thewookiee:
Regarding your comments about the purported “stigma” of guys wearing a Speedo (briefs), exactly WHAT is the stigma and WHO is promoting that stigma? Seems there are some kind of puritan fanatical religious zealots trying to start a movement in this country to stigmatize men wearing Speedos.

Could it also be that the suit makers themselves are surreptitiously mounting a campaign to stigmatize the wearing of briefs in order to prod people into buying the more expensive suits?

By the way, if anyone thinks that conventional briefs should be shunned because they are viewed as some kind of “fetish wear”, consider this: I’ve seen photos of the Folsom Street Fair in San Francisco and I will tell you that tech suits have already been adopted by the porn industry because the shrink wrap effect is so “revealing”. :censor:

So when someone makes the comment “That’s so Gay” about men or boys wearing briefs for swimming, I’ve got first hand knowledge from “ground zero” of California's $25 Billion/year porn industry that your purportedly "modest" jammers and tech suits are now on the cutting edge of fetish wear!!! :bolt:

Incidentally, the last time I posted a comment on this subject, I was "Hit By Lightning" from every direction and the post was ultimately deleted by the USMS moderator. However, I was not the one who made the comment about the stigma aspect in the first place. :confused:

Dolphin 2

The Fortress
December 17th, 2008, 12:05 PM
I think both of you are oversimplifying. When even Fortress -- an admitted fan -- and Mel Stewart and many others say "enough is enough" with the double/triple suits, then you have a situation that is getting out of hand. Markets are good for many things, but with the escalating arms race we have a "tragedy of the commons" situation that markets are notoriously poor at handling. Hence the need for stricter external regulation.

I have no problem with technological advancement. I have a problem with people exploiting loopholes that barely disguise outright cheating. But the B140 and B210 phenomenon makes it easier to draw a line in the sand, that's for sure. One swimmer, one tech suit, one price tag.

thewookiee
December 17th, 2008, 12:18 PM
[QUOTE=thewookiee;164323]
Hey thewookiee:
Regarding your comments about the purported “stigma” of guys wearing a Speedos (briefs), exactly WHAT is the stigma and WHO is promoting that stigma? Seems there are some kind of puritan fanatical religious zealots trying to start a movement in this country to stigmatize men wearing Speedos.

Could it also be that the suit makers themselves are surreptitiously mounting a campaign to stigmatize the wearing of briefs in order to prod people into buying the more expensive suits?

Dolphin 2

Let's see, how does Geek start his replies to you? Oh yea, since you know NOTHING about swimming because you don't swim, don't have kids and haven't swam before, you are once again spouting off at the mouth about something you know nothing about.
Having swam,still do and being a coach, this stigma isn't something the swimsuit makers are doing.
This is something that occurs when boys start to join a team and they say " I have to wear that suit?" Parents and coaches have spent a lot of time talking to kids that the suit isn't embarrassing and they shouldn't be ashamed of wearing a speedo brief at practice or when they would go to meets.
The kids though are afraid of their friends or non-friends making fun of how they look wearing the speedo style briefs.
When the jammers were first introduced, that took a lot of the fear from kids, esp. new ones to swimming away, because 1) it didn't look like a traditional speedo and 2) it covered more of the body, waist to the knees.
This fear/stigma was esp. true among high school age guys. A lot are really sensitive to what people think about them at that age.
Now, this stigma/fear doesn't hold true for everyone that has ever come into this sport. But it is there. I have seen it from an age group swimmers, summer league and high school swimmers. This fear/stigma was there way before high tech suits came into the market.
But you wouldn't know anything about it since you spend more time telling those of us that know swimming, that have swum, that still do swim or have kids that swim that we are misinformed, uneducated people who only care about sports.

aquageek
December 17th, 2008, 12:18 PM
Dolphin 2:

Every time you show up and spout about swimming, it makes me wince. You don't know a single thing about swimming and your reference to the porn industry is downright offensive and bizarre and has no place here.

There has always been a stigma towards swimmers by non swimmers about the "speedo factor." I get that to this day from my friends. It's just part of the sport and is said in jest. If you were actually a swimmer or attended a meet you'd know this.

However, if you would go to a meet, and I go to a lot of meets, you'd see boys in both jammers and briefs. Jammers are more popular now with boys it seems and probably helps self conscious pre teens and teens deal with some of the ribbing. You can rant and rave all you want about porn and stigmas but that just emphasizes your utter lack of swimming knowledge.

Why is this guy allowed on this forum? The fetish wear thing is stupifying. You are creepy, plain and simple.

Wow - wookie and I might be twins separated at birth, except he got the gorilla suit and I got the Mr. Bigglesworth suit.

pwolf66
December 17th, 2008, 12:35 PM
I think both of you are oversimplifying. When even Fortress -- an admitted fan -- and Mel Stewart and many others say "enough is enough" with the double/triple suits, then you have a situation that is getting out of hand. Markets are good for many things, but with the escalating arms race we have a "tragedy of the commons" situation that markets are notoriously poor at handling. Hence the need for stricter external regulation.

I would say that the requirement at the elite level is much stronger than "remote." When was the last time an elite swimmer used jammers or briefs -- much less set a record in them -- in a major competition? When you have the German team forced to wear suits that they believe put them at a significant disadvantage compared to others, the focus has shifted too far away from the sport to the equipment.

PS: 90% of the reason for this post was to use the multiquote feature, which I only recently figured out...

I don't agree with wearing more than one tech suit.

I think you misunderstood me. I used the word requirement in the sense that you are required to wear a suit to swim. There is nothing in the current rule set that requires competitors to wear the latest tech suits. Now, is it needed to be competitive? Sure. But is it required? No. It is still a choice. And in some cases a contractual obligation but that's a whole 'nother can-o-worms.

Where does this stop? Who determines who can have what type of supposed 'advantage'. Why stop at a swim suit. Why not mandate that everyone have access to world class traning facilities? Coaches? A pool within walking distance?

It's a SWIM suit. Sure it provides reduced drag. But it also costs $$$ and doesn't last forever. And what is the net affect with regards to age group swimming? Are there monetary awards to be had? Not until you reach the elite level and then guess what? Those swimmers will have access to those suits.

Sorry, as much I as I would love for my daughter to make JO cuts in 3 events where she is less than 1 sec away, I am NOT going to buy her a racing suit. And that is part of the problem, there will be parents that will buy thier BB/A swimmer the latest suit which is pretty much a waste of money at that level IMO.

There is no such thing as a level playing field in sports. Period. Dot. It doesn't exist, sure it's a great dream but it's not a 100% solution. All that can be hoped for is that there are no major bumps.


I agree multi suiting is not a good thing. I don't know how to multi-quote.

I think multisuiting is OK as long as the undersuit is just a regular brief or tank type suit. Unless of course we want to have inadvertent exposure, ala Paul Smith as one of the possible side affects of the new suits. :eeew:

hofffam
December 17th, 2008, 12:54 PM
I'm surprised Dolphin 2 doesn't understand the stigma thing about Speedo briefs.

But then again....why should I be surprised he doesn't understand something about competitive swimming?

It's because briefs look like underwear - and more like panties than BVDs. So boys have always been a bit sensitive about walking around on the deck with so little coverage. Yes - non-swimmers DO make fun of boys wearing briefs. Always have, probably always will.

An interesting thing occurs later though. In college - it seems there is an unwritten rule that college boys cannot practice in jammers. I have watched some UTexas practices and every guy was wearing briefs. My son is a freshman on another Div 1 team and he says you "can't" wear jammers. It isn't the coach's choice.

ande
December 17th, 2008, 01:08 PM
for what it's worth

yesterday in my blog
http://andesswimmingblog.blogspot.com
I wrote

"Tomorrow I'm going to do a fast 50 free in practice while wearing 3 or 4 tech suits, we'll see what happens."

Today I tested swimming fast while wearing 3 blue seventy suits

here's what happened:
(First I did the regular work out from 6:10 am to 7:00 am then got out )


changed into FS PRO legs and 3 blue seventy suits
after they were on I felt like the michelin man
3 suits squeeze down pretty tight
legs felt very restricted had difficulty walking
felt pressure on my ribs after being zipped in
it was hard to bend over

50 SCY fast
roll start off side
whitney timed
went 22.3
definitely felt more float but my legs felt restricted, I think wearing that many suits weakened my kick, plus it was hard to turn, I couldn't ball up as much. Wasn't happy with the time, thought I'd go faster.
I don't think wearing 3 B70's provided me with any advantage for sprinting a 50 free, though I could see how it might help in open water swimming where you don't need to turn or kick hard.

100 easy

Removed 2 suits

Blue seventy over FS PRO LEGS

50 SCY fast
whitney timed
went 21.69
felt much better, think the time speaks for itself.

may do further testing in the weeks to come.
like times for
1 B70,
2 B70
B70 & FS PRO HN
B70 & FS PRO legskin
B70 & FS Pro jammer

pwb
December 17th, 2008, 01:08 PM
But then again....why should I be surprised he doesn't understand something about competitive swimming?

It's because briefs look like underwear - and more like panties than BVDs. So boys have always been a bit sensitive about walking around on the deck with so little coverage. Yes - non-swimmers DO make fun of boys wearing briefs. Always have, probably always will.


I totally get this as I've swum my whole life and got the jests from my non-swimming friends and classmates all my life. But, come on guys, we gotta get over this ... girls/women are equally, if not more, exposed (seen the bikini training suits?) and get on with it just fine. Let's teach our boys, sons, selves to "Man Up" and to wear their briefs proudly!

aquageek
December 17th, 2008, 01:13 PM
"Tomorrow I'm going to do a fast 50 free in practice while wearing 3 or 4 tech suits, we'll see what happens."

Um, Ande, seek counseling.

imspoiled
December 17th, 2008, 01:20 PM
I agree that the multi suit phenomenon is wrong. Banning swimmers from wearing a tank suit (women) or a brief (men) under the tech suit, may be taking things a bit far, but I understand the need to make it easy to officiate.

What I don't understand is why USA swimming is suddenly so against leg suits, given that full body suits have been worn ever since Speedo came out with the first Fastskin. The FSII that went from wrist to ankle was popular for a few years and there was no talk of banning those suits.

Trying to protect the integrity of the sport by legislating some of the loopholes seems prudent. Suddenly deciding that a suit can't go below the knee seems silly. Trying to roll back technology that's already been approved and used in international competition is too little too late.

Dolphin 2
December 17th, 2008, 02:05 PM
[QUOTE=hofffam;164491]I'm surprised Dolphin 2 doesn't understand the stigma thing about Speedo briefs.

But then again....why should I be surprised he doesn't understand something about competitive swimming?

It's because briefs look like underwear - and more like panties than BVDs. So boys have always been a bit sensitive about walking around on the deck with so little coverage. Yes - non-swimmers DO make fun of boys wearing briefs. Always have, probably always will.

Hey Hofffam:
Male swimmers have been wearing briefs and women have been wearing bikinis for at least 50 years now and there was no problem about them "Looking like underwear" until the a few people in the "Tabloid Media" started promoting the idea of that they were "immodest" and making fun of them.

Briefs and bikins were in fact introduced (possibly by Adolf Keifer as I recall) to get rid of the "Taking a bath with your clothes on" sensation from the previous style of suits that had more coverage.

When I was in high school back in lates 60's and 70's, briefs were the standard uniform for competitive and recreational swimming and everyone weared them without any hesitation what so ever -even at public pools. In fact, guys really loved wearing briefs because they thought it made them look attractive to girls and it was part of the "Swimmer's Body" status symbol.

It was unheard of them looking "funny" until the Tabloid Media started making a big stink about it -and like a bunch of walruses clapping their paws on an iceberg, some of the members of the mindless americans went along with it. :argue:

However as I said previously, jammers and tech suits are now getting a load of attention as porn wear and I'm waiting to make fun of them too!!! :banana:

Dolphin 2

aquageek
December 17th, 2008, 02:37 PM
When I was in high school back in lates 60's and 70's, briefs were the standard uniform for competitive and recreational swimming and everyone weared them without any hesitation what so ever -even at public pools. In fact, guys really loved wearing briefs because they thought it made them look attractive to girls and it was part of the "Swimmer's Body" status symbol.

I can't speak for all competitive swimmers like Dolphin 2 can, but back in the 1970s all the competitive swimmers I swam with weared Speedos at workouts and meets only and weared trunks and board shorts to the regular pool or beach.

Glider
December 17th, 2008, 02:42 PM
Back in the 70s I weared bored shorts over my spedo any time but practice. Most men I knowed weared skwared leg suites and women weared one-peace suites with the front skirt.


I can't speak for all competitive swimmers like Dolphin 2 can, but back in the 1970s all the competitive swimmers I swam with weared Speedos at workouts and meets only and weared trunks and board shorts to the regular pool or beach.

thewookiee
December 17th, 2008, 02:42 PM
I can't speak for all competitive swimmers like Dolphin 2 can, .

You must remember o geekness, dolpin knows everything about everything, so us mere mortals only know things by actual experience because we have had to get out and due things by first hand accounts, where dolphin has been able to spend hours on a computer reading about something he hasn't tried to do.

Dolphin 2
December 17th, 2008, 03:22 PM
I can't speak for all competitive swimmers like Dolphin 2 can, but back in the 1970s all the competitive swimmers I swam with weared Speedos at workouts and meets only and weared trunks and board shorts to the regular pool or beach.

Hey Aquageek
Up until the past 10 years (before the tabloid media started making an issue of men wearing Speedos), here in California practically all guys were wearing briefs or "trunks" (plain gym shorts) on the deck at public pools, pools in apartment complexes, and on the beaches too.

And these days, about 1/2 the guys that I see during my fitness swimming sessions at a public pool use briefs exclusively too. I have never had the experience of anyone making fun of me (or anyone else who is wearing them) either. :blush:

We Californians have a lot more important things on our mind than silly stuff like whether it's proper for guys to be wearing Speedos at pools and waterparks.

Dolphin 2

Chris Stevenson
December 17th, 2008, 03:25 PM
I think you misunderstood me. I used the word requirement in the sense that you are required to wear a suit to swim. There is nothing in the current rule set that requires competitors to wear the latest tech suits. Now, is it needed to be competitive? Sure. But is it required? No. It is still a choice.

I think this is a very burry line. This sport is about competition, after all.

At some point in the near future, cuts for meets like junior nationals or olympic trials will be determined largely by people wearing tech suits. If you refuse to buy your daughter a suit and she misses these cuts by a small amount, her enjoyment of the sport will be lessened to some degree.

You can talk about choice all you want but the truth is, to compete at the same level requires ever greater expense. So you either reconcile yourself to this or you accept the fact that you will be swimming slower compared to your peers. I have trouble seeing how this is a win-win scenario, despite the drops in times that fool us old guys into thinking we are as fast now as we were 10-15 years ago. (Sorry for the downer, but I forgot to take my "sweetness and light" pill this morning. :))

It interesting that so many people call wearing 2-3 suits "cheating." According to the rules it isn't cheating yet, since it is perfectly legal. So people must be referring to cheating in some ethical sense, and I am curious about the logic behind this. People wear a single suit to get faster. Despite the manufacturer claims, almost everyone believes that a single suit increases buoyancy. How do single-suit wearers somehow occupy the moral high ground compared to multi-suit wearers?

I don't like it because it seems over-the-top to be wearing $1000 worth of short-lived equipment (although Glen Mills' article is interesting in that regard). But that's just my $10 brief-wearing background, which I can't seem to shake. (I'd admit to liking Fleetwood Mac too, if I weren't afraid of losing Geek's respect forever.)

aquageek
December 17th, 2008, 03:28 PM
Really good post, Chris, thought provoking, except the Fleetwood Mac part.

The Fortress
December 17th, 2008, 03:37 PM
(Sorry for the downer, but I forgot to take my "sweetness and light" pill this morning. :))

It interesting that so many people call wearing 2-3 suits "cheating." According to the rules it isn't cheating yet, since it is perfectly legal. So people must be referring to cheating in some ethical sense, and I am curious about the logic behind this. People wear a single suit to get faster. Despite the manufacturer claims, almost everyone believes that a single suit increases buoyancy. How do single-suit wearers somehow occupy the moral high ground compared to multi-suit wearers?

I always forget to take that pill. :)

It's not "cheating" as it's technically legal for now. But, FINA has approved the B70; it has not approved the B140 or B210. It seems to me there is some added buoyancy from piling on suits that was not contemplated when FINA approved the solo B70 and could violate FINA rules. I know that Bill S. has theorized that if one approved suit has no buoyancy, then 2-3 don't. Not sure I buy that. If that was true, people wouldn't be double and triple suiting and records wouldn't have been obliterated in Europe. So, I'm not sure you need to get into the "ethics" of it -- it may effectively violate the rules.

Also, I find it interesting that some are reluctant to admit they are double or triple suiting. Doesn't that suggest that, at some level, they know it might be "wrong?" It just seems like, perhaps, they're using a loophole in the rules -- failure to restrict swimmers to one tech suit -- to get around another part of the rule pertaining to "buoyancy." But this may be just being smart and clever.

Now, if 3 suits is really no better than 1, then I will own up to being a hypocrite with my "one suit" position.

gobears
December 17th, 2008, 03:49 PM
Hey Aquageek
Up until the past 10 years (before the tabloid media started making an issue of men wearing Speedos), here in California practically all guys were wearing briefs or "trunks" (plain gym shorts) on the deck at public pools, pools in apartment complexes, and on the beaches too.

And these days, about 1/2 the guys that I see during my fitness swimming sessions at a public pool use briefs exclusively too. I have never had the experience of anyone making fun of me (or anyone else who is wearing them) either. :blush:

We Californians have a lot more important things on our mind than silly stuff like whether it's proper for guys to be wearing Speedos at pools and waterparks.

Dolphin 2

What??? I grew up in California (mid-60's - early 90's) and NO guys I swam with EVER wore a Speedo (briefs) to the beach or outside competition. And I lived 15 minutes from Huntington Beach. California dudes wore board shorts. I don't know what (strange) part of CA you're from but your statement is incorrect.

Dolphin 2
December 17th, 2008, 03:58 PM
You must remember o geekness, dolpin knows everything about everything, so us mere mortals only know things by actual experience because we have had to get out and due things by first hand accounts, where dolphin has been able to spend hours on a computer reading about something he hasn't tried to do.

Hey Thewookiee
Responding to your rather sarcastic comment, I haven't acquired my knowledge "everything about everything" by just reading articles on a computer and just "rote" recitation of someone else's ideas on a message board. I have given public lectures without the need for notes so I am not some kind of imposter that is magically pulling rabbits out of a hat.

In fact if I gave out my real name, you could Google it and view my bona-fide credentials.

Furthermore it is not necessarry for anyone to actually be a competitive swimmer (or even swim at all) to have the knowledge that buying a tech suit and using it to enhance performance is not an athletic skill.

I'm sorry that my criticism of tech suits has gotten all you hard core competitive swimmers in such a tizzy. But you leave yourselves wide open by being so hostile to people who disagree with you. :argue:

As the old sayings go "It's nothin' to get mad about" and "Don't get your undies in a bundle". :bitching:

Dolphin 2

Allen Stark
December 17th, 2008, 04:09 PM
Wow, pretty sure this sentiment was around when lycra suits were introduced but as the Internet was still just a glimmer in Al Gore's mind, it was not widely known.


When the lycra suits were introduced(by the E Germans) everyone I knew praised the idea(except that the original E German suits did tend toward he transparent.)The suits were not a big deal for the men as they offered only a slight advantage over a nylon brief,but for the women they were revolutionary.They were comfortable and did not require shoestrings to keep them modest.Most important,they were fast.Again I heard of no objections except on modesty grounds(they didn't have the"modesty skirt" in front.)
I must confess to seeing many guys wearing Speedos to water parks and the beach in Texas in the 70s.

aquageek
December 17th, 2008, 04:11 PM
I have given public lectures without the need for notes so I am not some kind of imposter that is magically pulling rabbits out of a hat.

So, you are saying there are even more topics you speak on without any preparation or knowledge or experience doing?

Time and again you have made irrational, unsubstantiated and, more frequently, flat out wrong statement and assertions concerning swimming. It's one thing to have honest discourse about these suits (such as the excellent points Chris made) versus your utterly erroneous statements.

I will concede on your knowledge of porn attire. But, given your track record of making stuff up, who knows if that is even true.

You weared me out today with your lunacy.

thewookiee
December 17th, 2008, 04:15 PM
Hey Thewookiee
Responding to your rather sarcastic comment, I

I'm sorry that my criticism of tech suits has gotten all you hard core competitive swimmers in such a tizzy. But you leave yourselves wide open by being so hostile to people who disagree with you.


Dolphin 2

If you think that is sarcastic...you ain't seen nothing yet.

If you notice, people that are hardcore swimmers have disagreed on the suits on this forum and on this thread. But these swimmers actually know something about the tech suits through experience...something you don't.

If you didn't come across as foolish in your statements and presented actual proof to back-up your opinions, then people wouldn't treat you as they do. But, you have no first hand knowledge of the suits. Very little knowledge of swimming and you make stupid statements about swimming as a sport, about the tech suits. Heck, you even jump onto people about how they raise their kids, when you haven't even tried doing that yourself.

No one has problems with people that disagreeing with them. But when a person continues to make stupid, uneducated comments about the sport, about tech suits, etc., they are going to get a deserved harsh response.

No one ever said buying a tech suit is an athletic skill. But knowing how to swim is and how to swim fast with a tech suit or brief is a higher skill.

pwolf66
December 17th, 2008, 04:21 PM
It's a SWIM suit. Sure it provides reduced drag. But it also costs $$$ and doesn't last forever. And what is the net affect with regards to age group swimming? Are there monetary awards to be had? Not until you reach the elite level and then guess what? Those swimmers will have access to those suits.

Sorry, as much I as I would love for my daughter to make JO cuts in 3 events where she is less than 1 sec away, I am NOT going to buy her a racing suit. And that is part of the problem, there will be parents that will buy thier BB/A swimmer the latest suit which is pretty much a waste of money at that level IMO.

Please note my reference to age group swimming and BB/A level swimmers.



I think this is a very burry line. This sport is about competition, after all.

At some point in the near future, cuts for meets like junior nationals or olympic trials will be determined largely by people wearing tech suits. If you refuse to buy your daughter a suit and she misses these cuts by a small amount, her enjoyment of the sport will be lessened to some degree.

Isn't every sport about competition? Isn't that the major difference between a sport and a game?

I was referring to PVS Junior Olympics not Jr. Nats. I'm sure that if my daughter was that close to national level meet cuts just using a traditional suit AND I had the money, I would make sure she had the best opportunity to make the cut. But since again, I was referring to the typical age group swimmer (ala BB/A times) IMO that's not an effective use of money but then again pulling out the Box-O-Hypocrit(tm) and standing on it, so was me buying a B70 at LCM Nats. Dang.

Allen Stark
December 17th, 2008, 04:29 PM
I think it is easy to get derailed by needing to respond to Dolphin 2s lack of information instead of the topic.I don't think anyone should be banned from the forum for ignorance,but sometimes I think it is best to just ignore someone rather than rise to the bait.My favorite saying,which has stood me well in many situations,is"Don't wrestle with pigs,you just get dirty and the pigs love it."
By the way,I don't mind using my real name on this forum.

Chris Stevenson
December 17th, 2008, 04:31 PM
It seems to me there is some added buoyancy from piling on suits that was not contemplated when FINA approved the solo B70 and could violate FINA rules. I know that Bill S. has theorized that if one approved suit has no buoyancy, then 2-3 don't. Not sure I buy that. If that was true, people wouldn't be double and triple suiting and records wouldn't have been obliterated in Europe. So, I'm not sure you need to get into the "ethics" of it -- it may effectively violate the rules.

Perhaps. But, as I said, most people think that even a single suit is a little buoyant, which would violate the rules too.

I wonder what will happen if independent lab testing shows conclusively that the (already approved) suits do indeed provide some buoyancy. Will even the single suits be banned? Or will FINA re-write the rules so that a certain amount of buoyancy is okay?

PS: typical, "lawyering" your way past tough ethical questions... :)

Allen Stark
December 17th, 2008, 04:35 PM
At Worlds in 2006 one of the talks at the sports medicine section had information on suit buoyancy(this was pre LZR).It showed all the tech suits were buoyant and that the Arena kept it's buoyancy longest.

poolraat
December 17th, 2008, 04:41 PM
I think it is easy to get derailed by needing to respond to Dolphin 2s lack of information instead of the topic.I don't think anyone should be banned from the forum for ignorance,but sometimes I think it is best to just ignore someone rather than rise to the bait.My favorite saying,which has stood me well in many situations,is"Don't wrestle with pigs,you just get dirty and the pigs love it."
By the way,I don't mind using my real name on this forum.

I suggested this very same thing early in this thread. And as much as I want to respond to some of the incredibly stupid things said, I restrain myself.



Regarding Dolphin 2:

1 - He's not a competitive swimmer (and I wonder if he actually can swim) yet he's an expert on tech suits.

2 - He doesn't have any children yet he thinks he's qualified to tell us how to be better parents.

I think the best response to his future ranting is to totally ignore him and not even respond to his posts.

Just my :2cents:

The Fortress
December 17th, 2008, 05:00 PM
Chris,

And yet I'm the only one who's attempted an answer ... You just didn't like my answer that it might not be "perfectly legal."

So the question is: Is it unethical to wear multiple suits that are not explicitly prohibited when such conduct likely violates the intent and perhaps the letter of the law? Or, more neutrally perhaps: Is it unethical to wear multiple suits when it is nonetheless legal?

Since ethics and the law are not co-extensive, and ethics concerns what is good for the individual and society, I would say, yes, it is unethical to wear multiple tech suits. There is simply a difference between embracing expected and sanctioned technological advances in a sport (ethical) and piling up on legal suits to exploit a statutory loophole and gain a legally dubious buoyancy advantage against one's competitors (unethical). It also appears that those doing the latter are rushing to get their swims (and records) in, knowing that their conduct will ultimately be banned. I don't see how such conduct is a positive "good" for either individual swimmers or the society of swimmers.

That said, I don't think it rises to the level of being hugely morally repugnant. Perhaps just morally ambiguous and a bit dodgey.

pdjang
December 17th, 2008, 05:38 PM
for what it's worth

yesterday in my blog
http://andesswimmingblog.blogspot.com
I wrote

"Tomorrow I'm going to do a fast 50 free in practice while wearing 3 or 4 tech suits, we'll see what happens."

Today I tested swimming fast while wearing 3 blue seventy suits


Is anyone from the USMS Leadership or Rules Group following this and related threads?

USA swimming has a well publicized position on the changing the rules regarding the new swim/speed suits. Personally, I would like our organization to take a stand or a position regarding the suits and rules with respect to our wishes and perspectives as discussed in this and related threads.

Given the importance of this issue, I expect and hope that USMS would formulate a reasonable and well thought out position prior to FINA's rule change forecast in the spring 2009.

Personally, I believe that USA swimming has a reasonable position, but I would add the following:

a. no multiple suit use (except for Ande's experiment - better dealt with by a latin hypercube).

b. no suit modifications.

c. Allow ankle length suits, but prohibit arm coverage

BTW, I understand that there are "concept" suits (not related to swimming) that have the potential, via some biofeedback mechanism, to postpone or mitigate the effects of fatigue. I also saw another post that mentioned a nano-fabric material that is hydrophobic (much like an article about water lillies in a recent SciAm). My point is that the current generation of swim skin/speed suits are merely a manifestation of technology and that we should expect further performance enhancing developments.

The critical question is: "How will our organizational bodies that govern our sport anticipate and deal with both the current and future advances in technology?"

hofffam
December 17th, 2008, 05:48 PM
Dolphin 2 - What exactly is this "tabloid media" you describe?

When I was in high school in the 70s there was no tabloid media that highlighted boys wearing Speedos. I assume the Enquirer existed then but it was concerned with Hollywood people or aliens.

I trained and raced in my Speedo without much concern when I was in high school. No such thing as jammers. But I know some guys were more self conscious. Lycra was rare then too.

gull
December 17th, 2008, 06:06 PM
Last summer some guy weared a Speedo to the local waterpark, and my daughter throwed up.

Ande, I only have two tech suits; can I still swim at UT on Friday?

Chris Stevenson
December 17th, 2008, 07:54 PM
a. no multiple suit use

I imagine USMS will follow USA-S' lead on this. But in case anyone is listening, I would argue that "modesty" suits should be allowed under tech suits. The NCAA rule prohibiting them is silly, IMO.

thewookiee
December 17th, 2008, 08:25 PM
I think it is easy to get derailed by needing to respond to Dolphin 2s lack of information instead of the topic.I don't think anyone should be banned from the forum for ignorance,but sometimes I think it is best to just ignore someone rather than rise to the bait.My favorite saying,which has stood me well in many situations,is"Don't wrestle with pigs,you just get dirty and the pigs love it."
By the way,I don't mind using my real name on this forum.

Allen, you are a wise one. After reading your post, I think I will try to follow your advice. Your quote reminds me of one I heard in a movie "who is more foolish? The fool? Or the fool who follows the fool"

I agree that wearing a brief under the suits should be allowed, incase the suit splits open, as they have been reported to do.
And yea, they probably make it a "1 tech suit limit" per what each racer can wear.

Iwannafly
December 17th, 2008, 08:42 PM
I think it is easy to get derailed by needing to respond to Dolphin 2s lack of information instead of the topic.I don't think anyone should be banned from the forum for ignorance,but sometimes I think it is best to just ignore someone rather than rise to the bait.My favorite saying,which has stood me well in many situations,is"Don't wrestle with pigs,you just get dirty and the pigs love it."
By the way,I don't mind using my real name on this forum.
You have a stronger will than I Allen! I...cannot...help...myself!!!



Up until the past 10 years (before the tabloid media started making an issue of men wearing Speedos), here in California practically all guys were wearing briefs or "trunks" (plain gym shorts) on the deck at public pools, pools in apartment complexes, and on the beaches too.


So, admittedly, I only lived in California for a relatively short time - 1990 through 1996, but those six years were spent on and around the beaches of Southern California (and a couple of apartment complex swimming pools), but the only people I ever saw wearing Speedos at the beach were European tourists and tubby old guys with too much gold jewelry and a good tan! I would say that most of the male beach going population weared board shorts!

Okay, I got that out of my system!

Hey Leslie, you know you want to try out two B70s!

The Fortress
December 17th, 2008, 09:00 PM
I imagine USMS will follow USA-S' lead on this. But in case anyone is listening, I would argue that "modesty" suits should be allowed under tech suits. The NCAA rule prohibiting them is silly, IMO.

What? I give you a non-wiggly, non-lawyer answer and this is all I get? lol What say you?

TJ: No, really, B140 or B210 sounds dreadful to me. I have only recently gotten used to getting the one on. I'm not a patient person. (No surprise, I know.)

Iwannafly
December 18th, 2008, 07:23 AM
TJ: No, really, B140 or B210 sounds dreadful to me. I have only recently gotten used to getting the one on. I'm not a patient person. (No surprise, I know.)

I hear ya'. But the patient part...c'mon! I would be hard pressed to enjoy spending the time to put on a technical suit.

Blackbeard's Peg
December 18th, 2008, 09:13 AM
c. Allow ankle length suits, but prohibit arm coverage

I'm glad someone else has said this. For us men, there are a good number of people (mostly distance folks, I assume) who don't like their upper body covered. So we buy ankle-length leg suits.

Phelps wore LZR legs for several of his races, including his famous 100 fly race (which, by the way, is on the cover of SI's Photos of the Year mag), touching out a guy wearing a full body suit.

If someone doesn't want to wear a full body kneeskin, I don't see how legs only would provide them any advantage.

Also, another point on this topic - women by default have more coverage on their basic suit than men... Unless they start requiring women to compete in briefs only, I think men could use an extra option.

Dolphin 2
December 22nd, 2008, 11:15 AM
The negative feed back about tech suits just keeps coming: :banana:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/19/SPTR14QLT8.DTL

Dolphin 2

hofffam
December 22nd, 2008, 11:49 AM
Dolphin 2 - that article hardly can be described as "feedback." That article merely recaps events that have already been written about in many places.

If it contained "feedback" it would have comments from competitors who wear these suits.

Based on what I have read here - I would bet that most USMS members support limits on these suits for age group swimmers. Most probably think a rule to prevent use of more than one suit at a time is also reasonable.

But very few here would support a ban of the existing suits for national swimmers, college, or Masters competition.

thewookiee
December 22nd, 2008, 11:54 AM
Dolphin 2 - that article hardly can be described as "feedback." That article merely recaps events that have already been written about in many places.

If it contained "feedback" it would have comments from competitors who wear these suits.

Based on what I have read here - I would bet that most USMS members support limits on these suits for age group swimmers. Most probably think a rule to prevent use of more than one suit at a time is also reasonable.

But very few here would support a ban of the existing suits for national swimmers, college, or Masters competition.

Hoffam,
I do think you are correct. Ande posted his thoughts about it in another thread, which the feedback seemed to support what you have posted above.
There does seem to be a growing census of support for the one suit rule and up to a certain age. I do hope they at least keep the suits that are being sold on the market and not force people to go back to briefs.

Chris Stevenson
December 22nd, 2008, 12:23 PM
What? I give you a non-wiggly, non-lawyer answer and this is all I get? lol What say you?

Whoops, forgot all about this. What do I think about the ethics of the suit? I guess for me it all comes down to the question of, "does a person gain an unfair advantage by his/her actions?"

If an approved suit is available to all competitors, then I don't think it is unethical to wear it. Everyone can decide for themselves if the result is worth the price tag.

By the same token, wearing a suit that not everyone can obtain (because it isn't widely sold, eg the pre-Olympics LZR) seems a little unethical to me.

Multiple suits? I'm not going to try to interpret the "spirit" of the intended rules. Going from memory, I think there is something about the suit being non-buoyant but honestly, I think that is a joke since most people think the latest suits are buoyant to some degree. I'll assume any single suit approved by FINA is "non-buoyant" in some measurable way (though practically speaking it may indeed be buoyant).

So I'll have to go with the letter of the law: if there isn't a rule that prohibits wearing multiple FINA-approved suits (again, that are accessible to all), then IMO there is nothing inherently unethical in wearing as many as you wish. Anyone else can choose to do the same so there is no unfair advantage.

One can argue that some people can better afford the suits that others and so it is more "available" to them. Perhaps, but that is also true of many sports, including swimming without the tech-suits (eg some people can afford to send their kids to better swim programs). I don't really buy this argument.

Of course, just b/c I think something is ethically fine doesn't mean I think the policy is a good idea. I don't like increasing the expense of the sport for no good reason (IMO), and I would personally approve of an enforceable, practical rule against high-tech suits (especially multiple suits).

I think the arguments of "can't put the genie back in the bottle" (of course you can, though the manufacturers will complain with some justification) and "the sport has improved" (can't say that it has, the times are just a little faster) are flawed.

Again, just my :2cents:, I don't view this as a pesonal crusade and I'm not trying to persuade anyone to my point of view.

Redbird Alum
December 22nd, 2008, 12:31 PM
may do further testing in the weeks to come.
like times for
1 B70,
2 B70
B70 & FS PRO HN
B70 & FS PRO legskin
B70 & FS Pro jammer

Ande -

Appreciate the fact that you are trying to use actual experience to develop your opinion on the multi-suit phenom. Please let us know what comes of these later tests.

The Fortress
December 22nd, 2008, 12:33 PM
So I'll have to go with the letter of the law: if there isn't a rule that prohibits wearing multiple FINA-approved suits (again, that are accessible to all), then IMO there is nothing inherently unethical in wearing as many as you wish. Anyone else can choose to do the same so there is no unfair advantage.

Fair enough. But as I noted above, ethics and law are not co-extensive and concern different inquiries. Something could be perfectly legal, and yet unethical.