PDA

View Full Version : Fina cracks down on hi-tech suits



Dario Tirado
March 14th, 2009, 05:16 PM
New rules announced today!

BBC

World swimming governing body Fina has moved to limit the impact of the controversial hi-tech swimsuits.

Last year saw an astonishing 108 world records broken, 79 of them by swimmers wearing one suit, the Speedo LZR Racer.

But following a three-day meeting in Dubai, Fina has stipulated swimsuits should not cover the neck and must not extend past the shoulders and ankles.

... opponents of the hi-tech suits argue the buoyancy they create amounts to "technological doping".

And matters came to a head in December when 17 world records tumbled at the European Short-Course Championships with the sight of swimmers squeezing into more than one suit in an attempt to compress their bodies and trap air for buoyancy dismaying many observers...

Article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/olympic_games/7944084.stm)

Ken Classen
March 15th, 2009, 03:33 PM
So does this mean that swimming is joining baseball and will now have to include the dreaded asterisk * on all these recently attained records done in tech suits?

Dolphin 2
March 17th, 2009, 01:57 PM
It’s about time FINA started giving some opposition to the so called “tech suit” fad.

Any world’s records in swimming are meaningless if they are achieved merely through a bunch of personal mechanization gimicks.

Now watch this thread go up in flames of another verbal altercation just like all the other comments I’ve posted on this subject. :bitching:

Dolphin 2

Redbird Alum
March 17th, 2009, 02:23 PM
So does this mean that swimming is joining baseball and will now have to include the dreaded asterisk * on all these recently attained records done in tech suits?

At the time the records were broken, no rules were. The suits were legal and were not challenged by any governing body or official at the meets in question.

No asteriks should be required any more so than if a change in stroke (like flip turns in back) would have caused an asterisk.

aquageek
March 17th, 2009, 02:40 PM
It’s about time FINA started giving some opposition to the so called “tech suit” fad.

Any world’s records in swimming are meaningless if they are achieved merely through a bunch of personal mechanization gimicks.

Now watch this thread go up in flames of another verbal altercation just like all the other comments I’ve posted on this subject. :bitching:

Dolphin 2

This post is marked with an * .

Tim L
March 17th, 2009, 02:49 PM
It’s about time FINA started giving some opposition to the so called “tech suit” fad.

Any world’s records in swimming are meaningless if they are achieved merely through a bunch of personal mechanization gimicks.

Now watch this thread go up in flames of another verbal altercation just like all the other comments I’ve posted on this subject. :bitching:

Dolphin 2

Dolphin,

I believe the limitations FINA has put in place generally make sense. There will still be plenty of world records broken in the future because there is a lot more to breaking records than just the suits. Several world records were broken last summer by swimmers not wearing full tech suits (Lochte, Phelps wore just legskins) so they are not a requirement to break a world record.

The world does not stay static in any sport so why such the fuss? "Mechanization", really? Are you secretly Janet Evans and just pissed that you lost your world records and this is your form of therapy? If so, I somewhat understand and I hope you eventually get over it although I think your world records would have been broken by the current group of swimmers with or without the tech suits.

Tim

Dolphin 2
March 18th, 2009, 12:30 PM
Dolphin,

I believe the limitations FINA has put in place generally make sense. There will still be plenty of world records broken in the future because there is a lot more to breaking records than just the suits. Several world records were broken last summer by swimmers not wearing full tech suits (Lochte, Phelps wore just legskins) so they are not a requirement to break a world record.

The world does not stay static in any sport so why such the fuss? "Mechanization", really? Are you secretly Janet Evans and just pissed that you lost your world records and this is your form of therapy? If so, I somewhat understand and I hope you eventually get over it although I think your world records would have been broken by the current group of swimmers with or without the tech suits.

Tim

Hi Tim L
What I mean by "mechanization" is the use of personally applied parts to the human body which compensate for some variable that contributes to the lack of swimming ability.

Humans are land creatures -not aquatic or amphibious animals- and humans are basically not biologically designed to swim. Therefore the lack of the ability of humans to swim is subject to many variables which can easily be mitigated through mechanical augmentation instead of using purely biological adaptive techniques.

So called "tech suits" are the purported solution to the variable of form and surface drag and FINA seems to think that's OK. However the lack of efficient propulsion is probably at the top of the list of problems in enabling humans to swim faster and this can be easily overcome by mechanization such as paddles or flippers.

However, unlike golf, tennis, or baseball, the mechanization of a what is biologically a non-mechanical human athletic endeavor does not constitute an advancement of the sport. In the past, FINA has maintained a policy which is to minimize the effects of mechanization and in particular minimizing the role of suits.

So my question continues to be this: If FINA is becoming lenient in the use of one form of mechanization such as tech suits, why not allow the use of paddles, flippers, and other aquatic adaptive devices as well?

Dolphin 2

Karen Duggan
March 18th, 2009, 02:01 PM
Dolfin 2
Your definition of mechanization is wrong. And it does not apply to a swimsuit: To equip with machinery, or relating to or involving machines, or operated, produced or performed by machine. Boat yes, suit no.

And I'm sorry but no swimsuit will "compensate for the lack of swimming ability". The suit can't swim for you. Help with speed, yes, as do all tech suits. I do believe the argument isn't do they help, but how much?

Humans are not biologically designed to swim? Really? Hmm, what the heck have I been doing for exercise, health, and recreation for the past 28 years then? I must concede I do not live in the ocean, but I think I do OK. Along those same lines, I guess my dog can't swim either. Nope, haven't seen him in the pool once! (And no, I'm not buying my 100 lb German Shepherd a B70!)

Since you seem to have some time on your hands, why don't you write FINA a letter and suggest to them that they sanction races with paddles and fins? I bet some people would be all over it.

You just leave the tech suits to the serious competitive swimmers.

Lane Mom
March 18th, 2009, 02:43 PM
Thought that the attached would be of interest.



http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/more/03/17/swimming.record.erased.ap/index.html

aquageek
March 18th, 2009, 02:51 PM
However, unlike golf, tennis, or baseball, the mechanization of a what is biologically a non-mechanical human athletic endeavor does not constitute an advancement of the sport. In the past, FINA has maintained a policy which is to minimize the effects of mechanization and in particular minimizing the role of suits.

I see you know nothing about baseball as well if you think pitching is a mechanical human endeavor.

Please cite your FINA references, specifics.

Also, please let us know the club you assist with in the Bay Area. There's a good chance I'll be in the Bay Area in mid May and I'll drop in on you. However, Walnut Creek is the daddy there.

Karen Duggan
March 18th, 2009, 03:08 PM
Are you comin' up Uncle Geek? Nationals? Or something else?

Love to meet you! :agree:

Dolphin 2
March 18th, 2009, 03:09 PM
Hey Karen
Your statement "Humans are not biologically designed to swim? Really? Hmm, what the heck have I been doing for exercise, health, and recreation for the past 28 years then?" is flawed reasoning.

Your statement about your 28 years of swimming experience reflects how you've merely adapted your land-based biological characteristics to the aquatic environment rather than being created by nature for it.

You were in fact not biologically designed to swim otherwise you (and other humans) would be able to breath underwater through gils or have sufficient lung capacity and metabolism to remain submerged for an extended period of time with relatively infrequent surfacing to breath from the atmosphere.

Furthermore, I presume you do not have a streamlined body or fins and a tail like a fish, or web feet like a duck or an alligator otherwise you would be appearing on the Discovery Channel as the world's only "Amphibiometric Human".

Swimming is not an inherent human instinct either. If you drop any human who has never learned how to swim at even a rudimentary level into deep water, they will not know how to react and they will panic and possibly drown.

Aquatic instructors and life guards aren't at pools to assist fish and ducks with their living environment.

Dolphin 2

aquageek
March 18th, 2009, 03:19 PM
Swimming is not an inherent human instinct either. If you drop any human who has never learned how to swim at even a rudimentary level into deep water, they will not know how to react and they will panic ---and possibly drown!!!

As a non-swimmer yourself, I trust you know this from personal experience.

Stop dodging - club name!!!

Karen Duggan
March 18th, 2009, 03:27 PM
I am aware that I am not a fish. But you assert that because I am not a fish I am not able to swim?

Like tech suits we are an evolving species :D

thewookiee
March 18th, 2009, 03:49 PM
As a non-swimmer yourself, I trust you know this from personal experience.

Stop dodging - club name!!!

Geek...he won't tell you his supposed team name. He is afraid that someone that is actually on the team he names will call BS on him. See, everytime you ask him, he hears chicken's clucking around him.

aquageek
March 18th, 2009, 03:51 PM
...he hears chicken's clucking around him.

That's kinda like you when you step out of your single-wide and head to the outhouse.

Tim L - before you chastise me, I know The Hairball and can attest to his toothless hillbilly lifestyle.

thewookiee
March 18th, 2009, 03:58 PM
Hey...I got sum of my tooths left. Gotta have sumthin to use for chewin. It real easy to clean em too...pop em out, drop em into a jar of water...pop em back in for a pretty smile

Tim L
March 18th, 2009, 05:36 PM
Hi Tim L
What I mean by "mechanization" is the use of personally applied parts to the human body which compensate for some variable that contributes to the lack of swimming ability.

Humans are land creatures -not aquatic or amphibious animals- and humans are basically not biologically designed to swim. Therefore the lack of the ability of humans to swim is subject to many variables which can easily be mitigated through mechanical augmentation instead of using purely biological adaptive techniques.

So called "tech suits" are the purported solution to the variable of form and surface drag and FINA seems to think that's OK. However the lack of efficient propulsion is probably at the top of the list of problems in enabling humans to swim faster and this can be easily overcome by mechanization such as paddles or flippers.

However, unlike golf, tennis, or baseball, the mechanization of a what is biologically a non-mechanical human athletic endeavor does not constitute an advancement of the sport. In the past, FINA has maintained a policy which is to minimize the effects of mechanization and in particular minimizing the role of suits.

So my question continues to be this: If FINA is becoming lenient in the use of one form of mechanization such as tech suits, why not allow the use of paddles, flippers, and other aquatic adaptive devices as well?

Dolphin 2

It is difficult to agree with you and this is coming from someone who refuses to wear a tech suit. I have experimented with all but the latest tech suits and didn't find them to be of much assistance (any more than shaving).

Virtually all sports are learned and many are just as difficult to adapt to as swimming. For me, golf is much more difficult than swimming.

FINA could draw the line just about anywhere on suits and form and surface drag. FINA could have banned shaving or required standard suits for all competitors. I don't think that was ever considered and certainly no restrictions that I am aware of were ever put in place. Sports evolve and someone came up with the great idea of a swim suit that enhances form and surface drag of humans. FINA has now set limitations on such suits which seem to work. I don't see an issue and I don't see how FINA has changed its policy. Maybe FINA took a little too long to act, but that happens a lot in a changing world.

In regard to your question, I think going so far to allow other devices like fins and paddles would completely change the integrity of the sport and if you or someone else wants to start a new line of competitive swimming that includes fins and paddles, then go for it, but I think that is a new sport. FINA has to draw lines on how far things can go and I think they have generally done a good job.

Tim

Tim L
March 18th, 2009, 06:17 PM
Tim L - before you chastise me, I know The Hairball and can attest to his toothless hillbilly lifestyle.

Thanks, but no explanation needed.

Tim

thewookiee
March 18th, 2009, 07:52 PM
Thanks, but no explanation needed.

Tim

Yes, Geek and I are the future of Trailer Trash U.S.A.

gobears
March 18th, 2009, 08:18 PM
Hey Karen
Your statement "Humans are not biologically designed to swim? Really? Hmm, what the heck have I been doing for exercise, health, and recreation for the past 28 years then?" is flawed reasoning.

Your statement about your 28 years of swimming experience reflects how you've merely adapted your land-based biological characteristics to the aquatic environment rather than being created by nature for it.

You were in fact not biologically designed to swim otherwise you (and other humans) would be able to breath underwater through gils or have sufficient lung capacity and metabolism to remain submerged for an extended period of time with relatively infrequent surfacing to breath from the atmosphere.

Furthermore, I presume you do not have a streamlined body or fins and a tail like a fish, or web feet like a duck or an alligator otherwise you would be appearing on the Discovery Channel as the world's only "Amphibiometric Human".

Swimming is not an inherent human instinct either. If you drop any human who has never learned how to swim at even a rudimentary level into deep water, they will not know how to react and they will panic and possibly drown.

Aquatic instructors and life guards aren't at pools to assist fish and ducks with their living environment.

Dolphin 2

I guess you're an evolutionary biology expert as well? There are some who think we were well-suited to water at one time in our evolutionary past.

Take a look at the Aquatic Ape Theory.

For a basic summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis

I don't know if this theory "holds water" (:D) but I love it that you consider yourself an EXPERT EXTRAORDINAIRE. What else would we expect...:rolleyes:

Karen Duggan
March 18th, 2009, 08:48 PM
I don't usually jump in on this stuff but:

1.) I wonder if people had these kinds of conversations in person back in the 20's when people were wearing suits that by todays standards make drag suits look ultra high tech.

2.) Dolfin really thinks that all you need to go fast is a fast suit. I'll put up $100 to bet that he can wear three high tech suits and still not beat Phelps swimming in a training suit.

3.)Counseling??? Dolfin, it's out there with sliding fee schedules available based on income. Might want to seek it....enough said.

-Pat Duggan (borrowed Karen's computer)

Dolphin 2
March 19th, 2009, 03:04 PM
Hey gobear
I don't have to be an "expert" in evolutionary biology to know that in the scientifically recorded history of human existence (at least 20,000 years or even more), people were never biologically designed by nature as aquatic or amphibious creatures.

The proof is quite obvious: Try to stay under water for an indefinite period of time -or for at least 10 minutes. Or just dive into the fish tank at Marine World and see who survives for months or years.

By the way, the only part of present human evolution where competitive swimming is an inbred instinct is the sperm racing to be the first one to get to the egg. :bolt:

Dolphin 2

orca1946
March 19th, 2009, 03:41 PM
I think that they must draw a line somewhere.

Chris Stevenson
March 24th, 2009, 01:17 PM
I'm sure many of you saw this:

Therese Alshammar Claims Sexism in One Suit Rule After Losing World Record to Disqualification (http://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/lane9/news/20721.asp)

where Alshammar remarks, "I would almost claim that's a bit sexist saying that the men can cover their private parts up with briefs and women can only also wear briefs."

I thought that briefs were NOT allowed under the suit. Or is that wrong?

Karen Duggan
March 24th, 2009, 02:40 PM
I thought it was one suit. Period.

I'd rather cover my top than my bottom! Why would "chicks" want to wear a brief?

If you think your suit might rip bring a towel!

BTW, will there be an asterisk in the results denoting "suit malfunction"?

pakman044
March 24th, 2009, 11:20 PM
USA Swimming issued a clarification to its original interpretation issued last week, which might touch on your question above Karen.


On March 18, 2009, an interpretation of Article 102.9 was issued which stated that the use of more than one swimsuit during competition is prohibited. Based upon the significant number of questions I have received since issuing the interpretation, it has become apparent there is a great deal of confusion about the intent and purpose of the restriction. The following is meant to clarify the intent of the interpretation and the manner in which it should be enforced.

The interpretation by USA Swimming was issued as the result of an interpretation by FINA that the use of more than one swimsuit at a time during competition is not allowable. USA Swimming is required to conform to the technical rules and related interpretations of FINA and the interpretation was issued in order to comply with that requirement. FINA’s interpretation was issued primarily as a result of swimmers who were wearing highly “technical” suits that provided both compression and buoyancy and was considered to provide an unfair competitive advantage. It should be noted that the NCAA has previously determined that the use of two suits is not allowable.

The following points are all important in understanding the applicability of the restriction to only allow one swimsuit at a time during competition:

The restriction applies only to actual competition (i.e. a race). Swimmers may wear more than one suit during warm-up and warm-down as well as around the pool deck between their actual races.

Swimmers may use as many different suits as they desire during any particular swim meet or any particular day during a swim meet and may change those suits as often as they desire as long as they do not wear more than one swimsuit at a time during their actual competitive events (races).

The restriction applies to all types, models and makes of swimsuits, not just so-called “technical” suits. Wearing a second suit during a race as a “drag” is therefore prohibited.

The restriction was not intended to apply to athletic supporters or modesty type wear. For purposes of the one swimsuit restriction, one (1) swimsuit may include the wearing of a single pair of “briefs” or “bikini bottoms” to ensure the modesty and privacy of swimmer.

A swimmer who does wear more than one swimsuit during competition (a race) will be subject to disqualification. Officials, especially referees, need to be very proactive in educating swimmers and coaches about the restriction. This should, at a very minimum, include announcements at the coaches/general meeting. Especially during the initial implementation of this new restriction, swimmers should be given every opportunity and/or a reasonable amount of time to remove a second suit prior to the start of a race. If officials are doing their job correctly, a swimmer should never be disqualified for wearing two suits at one time during a competition. Except in very unusual circumstances, and especially during the initial implementation of this, a referee should never allow a race to start if they know a swimmer is wearing two suits without warning them of such and, within reason, giving them time to remove the additional suit.

A great deal of common sense must to be exercised by swimmers, coaches and officials alike. Officials, particularly referees, are likely going to be put in difficult and uncomfortable situations in trying to apply this restriction. Everyone’s recognition of these difficulties will result in keeping the best interests of the athletes uppermost in our minds and, at the same time, recognizing the need for the athletes’ adherence to our rules.
The above is intended to provide information, clarification and guidance regarding the restriction of wearing only one suit at a time during a competitive event. If you need additional information, please contact me at the e-mail address shown above.

Patrick King

Syd
March 25th, 2009, 12:33 AM
The report specifically states that only 'briefs' can be worn under a technical suit. Jammers would be disqualified then?

knelson
March 25th, 2009, 12:33 AM
Here's the pertinent section:

The restriction was not intended to apply to athletic supporters or modesty type wear. For purposes of the one swimsuit restriction, one (1) swimsuit may include the wearing of a single pair of “briefs” or “bikini bottoms” to ensure the modesty and privacy of swimmer.

Also I found it interesting that Stratton acknowledges the buoyancy of the suits...

edit: Syd, I would say yes, wearing jammers could get you disqualified.

orca1946
March 25th, 2009, 01:04 AM
I read into this that a small speedo can be worn under a tech suit by men or women

ourswimmer
March 25th, 2009, 12:43 PM
Alshammar remarks, "I would almost claim that's a bit sexist saying that the men can cover their private parts up with briefs and women can only also wear briefs."

She sure does have a point (whether or not that point applies to what she actually wore to get DQ'd). I can see why a tank suit under the tech suit would be an issue, since it provides some abdominal support. But if a "brief" or "bikini bottom" is OK for modesty, why not a "bikini" top? Certainly a Janet Jackson style wardrobe malfunction would be immodest by most people's standards.

knelson
March 25th, 2009, 01:00 PM
Has anyone ever seen a suit fail in the chest, though?

Glider
March 25th, 2009, 01:21 PM
I think this might be more of a "high beams" issue:D


Has anyone ever seen a suit fail in the chest, though?

ourswimmer
March 25th, 2009, 01:22 PM
Say you want to take the top down (as men often do) to keep the straps from digging into your shoulders while you wait for your next race, but you don't want the (literal) PITA of taking the whole suit off.

Say it's one of those nearly transparent silver-and-gray FSIIs.

Say it's a front-zip.

I haven't done it, but I can see why a one-piece "modesty" suit might not be modest enough for some women.

nkfrench
March 25th, 2009, 01:47 PM
The armholes are too big on some women's suits, which can result in "fallout" on racing starts or even during tight streamlines. I do not wear Speedo suits for that reason; the Tyr cut/fit work fine for me.

I can't comment on tech suits cut/fit since none are made in my size.

some_girl
March 25th, 2009, 01:54 PM
Has anyone ever seen a suit fail in the chest, though?

Pay attention to how many girls are pulling on the sides of their suits when they finish. I believe even Katie Hoff was seen tucking in the side boob at Trials last year. In the case of Alshammer, I thinkshe was saying she wears a unisex suit, which cuts in kind of close at the top. So yeah, there is a lot of reason to want a top, if that kind of thing bugs you.

orca1946
March 25th, 2009, 02:09 PM
That is a concern for many well endowed women.

knelson
March 25th, 2009, 02:11 PM
Pay attention to how many girls are pulling on the sides of their suits when they finish.

I know they do, but any more than they have with any other suit? This seems to be commonplace regardless of what kind of suit you're wearing.

orca1946
March 25th, 2009, 02:13 PM
This also happens to some men?!

swimmj
March 25th, 2009, 05:09 PM
I've seen a women's backstroke suit fail (zipper) which is in the front. The poor swimmer grabbed a towel and went outside the locker room to find someone to grab her husband to get her the backup suit she had brought to the meet. Definitely a hazard and I always have a backup suit with me when I go to change into a speed suit, just in case.

some_girl
March 25th, 2009, 08:34 PM
I know they do, but any more than they have with any other suit? This seems to be commonplace regardless of what kind of suit you're wearing.

From my experience, yes. They are tighter and therefore less forgiving. I think a lot of women would pick the top over the bottom in "modesty" suiting.

The Fortress
March 25th, 2009, 09:17 PM
Say you want to take the top down (as men often do) to keep the straps from digging into your shoulders while you wait for your next race, but you don't want the (literal) PITA of taking the whole suit off.

I've always been jealous that men can just whip their suit down or take it off immediately. I often go in the locker room to take the top half of the suit down and put on a t shirt.

fanstone
March 25th, 2009, 09:42 PM
hummmmm....is the T-shirt going to get wet?

Allen Stark
March 26th, 2009, 02:19 AM
The briefs only idea is clearly unfair to female swimmers and is also unenforceable at the Masters level.(I don't want any of the guys to volunteer to check to make sure the women aren't wearing a jogbra.)Since it is unenforceable I suggest the judges don't even try.We should say the spirit of the rules is to not wear 2 tech suits and that to do so is cheating,but just as we don't test for PEDs in Masters we shouldn't have,or need swimsuit police.

Tim L
March 26th, 2009, 10:56 AM
I think it appears kind of sexist as well on the surface. However, do you think that what Fina is concerned about is the extra chest compression that a second suit would provide to females? I know they were concerned about duct tape use, but maybe they were concerned the modesty suit for females would be used more for compression or cover-up of other abuses like duct tape than for modesty.

I guess they had to draw the line somewhere, but it does appear sexist and more focused on the extreme.

For masters anything other than another tech suit should be allowed.

Tim

thewookiee
March 26th, 2009, 11:12 AM
.(I don't want any of the guys to volunteer to check to make sure the women aren't wearing a jogbra.)

Allen, since you don't want any of the guys to volunteer, I will instead offer to help the lovely women get their 1 competition suit zipped up.

knelson
March 26th, 2009, 12:10 PM
This whole thing about multiple suits and modesty is somewhat ironic. The function of a swimsuit used to be modesty. You wore the smallest, tightest suit you could get away with and still cover the areas we've deemed as a society should be covered in public. Now, all of a sudden, with these new suits were covering up more of the body in order to swim faster, but we say we need to wear something else for modesty. It's strange I'll tell ya.

jim clemmons
March 26th, 2009, 12:21 PM
The FINA "rules makers" must be male, or so it appears.

I'm with Allen :chug:. Under a tech suit, briefs are fine for males (although I go "commando") and a typical workout suit should suffice :cheerleader: for the ladies.

hofffam
March 26th, 2009, 03:28 PM
The briefs only idea is clearly unfair to female swimmers and is also unenforceable at the Masters level.(I don't want any of the guys to volunteer to check to make sure the women aren't wearing a jogbra.)Since it is unenforceable I suggest the judges don't even try.We should say the spirit of the rules is to not wear 2 tech suits and that to do so is cheating,but just as we don't test for PEDs in Masters we shouldn't have,or need swimsuit police.

I don't understand why this is unenforceable in Masters. It is easy to see if another suit is underneath - whether high or low.

Crazyman
March 26th, 2009, 03:53 PM
Here comes TYR Titan http://www.tyr.com/titan/

quicksilver
March 26th, 2009, 04:49 PM
Here comes TYR Titan http://www.tyr.com/titan/

Interesting. How are features like this not considered performance enhancing?

"CORE CONTROL PANEL"
The internal panel stabilizes the swimmer for a more powerful and consistent stroke while helping to maintain optimal body positioning throughout the race.

jim clemmons
March 26th, 2009, 05:47 PM
The briefs only idea is clearly unfair to female swimmers and is also unenforceable at the Masters level.(I don't want any of the guys to volunteer to check to make sure the women aren't wearing a jogbra.)Since it is unenforceable I suggest the judges don't even try.We should say the spirit of the rules is to not wear 2 tech suits and that to do so is cheating,but just as we don't test for PEDs in Masters we shouldn't have,or need swimsuit police.

Just got the answer.

6. Question: Does “one suit for competition” mean I can only wear one suit for the whole meet?

Answer: No. You can change suits during the meet, but you can only wear one suit at a time. This restriction applies only to the actual races (competition). You can wear more than one suit during warm-up and warm-down. This restriction applies to all types, makes, and models of swim suits, but it is not intended to apply to athletic supporters or modesty type wear (a single pair of “briefs” or “bikini bottoms or top” or a sports bra worn to ensure modesty and privacy).

This means Paul Smith can now wear his Saturday night wares under his tech suit.

Crazyman
March 26th, 2009, 08:26 PM
http://www.kastawayblog.com/2009/03/asa-university-league-bans-technical.html

Muppet
March 26th, 2009, 11:41 PM
In the below posts, D2 makes a dead-on observation, and some are shooting him into the ground just because it is he who posted. He made really valid point: Humans were not made to swim.


Humans are land creatures -not aquatic or amphibious animals- and humans are basically not biologically designed to swim.

Your statement about your 28 years of swimming experience reflects how you've merely adapted your land-based biological characteristics to the aquatic environment rather than being created by nature for it.

You were in fact not biologically designed to swim otherwise you (and other humans) would be able to breath underwater through gills or have sufficient lung capacity and metabolism to remain submerged for an extended period of time with relatively infrequent surfacing to breath from the atmosphere.

Furthermore, I presume you do not have a streamlined body or fins and a tail like a fish, or web feet like a duck or an alligator otherwise you would be appearing on the Discovery Channel as the world's only "Amphibiometric Human".

Karen Duggan
March 27th, 2009, 02:13 AM
I must disagree. As I told "D2", I am very aware that I am not a fish or live in the ocean, but that doesn't mean I can't swim! If I weren't biologically able to swim then I wouldn't be!!! (I was going to insert a Presidential dis here, but refrained).

A plant can't swim. IT is not biologically designed to swim.

gobears
March 27th, 2009, 07:52 AM
In the below posts, D2 makes a dead-on observation, and some are shooting him into the ground just because it is he who posted. He made really valid point: Humans were not made to swim.

If you buy his observations as science, then I guess so. However, if you read up on the subject it isn't that simple. There are actually scientists out there that do question whether or not humans have some kind of evolutionary aquatic adaptations. My problem with D2 is that his assertions are made with certainty when he's not an authority on the subject. Saying "it looks to me like humans aren't made for water" and saying "humans aren't made for water, period" are two very different things in my book.

imspoiled
March 27th, 2009, 12:09 PM
Here comes TYR Titan http://www.tyr.com/titan/


Anyone else think this suit looks like a B70 with "core stabilization panels"?

Isn't there a danger it will fail the new permeability tests?

gull
March 27th, 2009, 03:49 PM
What a happy coincidence for Speedo that the LZR is the only full body technical suit on the market that will be approved under the new guidelines. With the stroke of a pen, their competition is eliminated. Wonder how much they had to pay for that?

Crazyman
March 27th, 2009, 03:53 PM
No suits no attractive sportlight in swimming...that is simple nowdays. Hope Blue70 straights out with FINA.

thewookiee
March 27th, 2009, 04:02 PM
What a happy coincidence for Speedo that the LZR is the only full body technical suit on the market that will be approved under the new guidelines. With the stroke of a pen, their competition is eliminated. Wonder how much they had to pay for that?

Gull...that's not a nice thing to say about the best darn swimsuit company in the world. You are starting to sound like Geek, come on now, we all know FINA wouldn't make rules that help speedo get rid of suits that are better than theirs...that people like better than theirs...that is just plan wrong for you to make those statements....;););)

chaos
March 27th, 2009, 11:40 PM
Interesting. How are features like this not considered performance enhancing?

"CORE CONTROL PANEL"
The internal panel stabilizes the swimmer for a more powerful and consistent stroke while helping to maintain optimal body positioning throughout the race.

i'd buy me a wife beater with a core control panel in a heartbeat

elvis
March 28th, 2009, 01:08 PM
Hey,

Take a look at this weird swimming videos. If the fastskin is allowed, why not these technique? :)

World Record Secret - Part 1 - Video


World Record Secret - Part 2 - Video

swim53
March 28th, 2009, 02:10 PM
I have a question. I just got my Blue70 and tried it out today in the pool for 10 min. to see what it feels like.
I've always had kind of a "sway back", so as soon as I got in today I could feel air inside the suit in my lower back. It was like a pretty big air bubble stuck inside. It was there the whole 10 minutes. (Trapped I guess from the design of the suit!)
Will this help me or hinder me? :confused:I want to wear this suit at Y Nat's.

Allen Stark
March 28th, 2009, 02:32 PM
I have a question. I just got my Blue70 and tried it out today in the pool for 10 min. to see what it feels like.
I've always had kind of a "sway back", so as soon as I got in today I could feel air inside the suit in my lower back. It was like a pretty big air bubble stuck inside. It was there the whole 10 minutes. (Trapped I guess from the design of the suit!)
Will this help me or hinder me? :confused:I want to wear this suit at Y Nat's.
I had the same situation.It bothered my balance in the BR pullout,but it doesn't bother my fly.I have been told the way to avoid it is put the suit on wet.

orca1946
March 28th, 2009, 03:32 PM
I think that it would go away as soon as it was wet.