PDA

View Full Version : FINA to allow bodysuits in Open Water



Leonard Jansen
September 15th, 2009, 10:52 AM
FINA has announced that full body suits WILL be allowed in open water races, but not the pool.

See www.10kswimmer.com for the article.

-LBJ

Syd
September 15th, 2009, 11:13 AM
flip flop, flip flop, flip flop, flippity flop, flippity, flippity flippity flop...

ourswimmer
September 15th, 2009, 12:10 PM
I love the quote from the FINA "press office": "The new rules relating to swimwear do not apply to open water. They apply to swimming."

Bobinator
September 16th, 2009, 08:32 AM
My nero sure kept me warm at Chicago!

The Fortress
September 16th, 2009, 08:53 AM
I love the quote from the FINA "press office": "The new rules relating to swimwear do not apply to open water. They apply to swimming."

Very idiotic remark.

I'm not sure I buy the rationale for keeping B70 swim skins in the OW, but not the pool. If it's to minimize negative effects from UV rays and coral, wouldn't a Pro bodysuit work as well as a swim skin? Last time I checked, B70s were pretty rippy. If it's for warmth, why can't swimmers wear a wetsuit and compete in the wetsuit division? The statement/announcement justifies the need for the swim skins as: assisting "progress" in a sport already experiencing a massive boom in popularity, providing "vital" commercial involvement, increasing participation and helping ensure confidence. Wouldn't these same rationales apply to the pool?

So, unless I receive further elucidation from OW swimmers, I remain unconvinced that they should be allowed in OW but not the pool. The OW swimmers I know certainly seem happy about it. I hope USMS follows the European lead at Convention and permits them in the pool as well.

BTW, the whiney denunciation of tech suits as "unfair" in the "Both Sides of the Lane Line" column was really dull and unconvincing. (Sorry Nancy Brown, but that was my impression.)

knelson
September 16th, 2009, 10:17 AM
If it's for warmth, why can't swimmers wear a wetsuit and compete in the wetsuit division?

I could be wrong, but I don't think FINA open water events ever have a wetsuit division.

The Fortress
September 16th, 2009, 10:24 AM
I could be wrong, but I don't think FINA open water events ever have a wetsuit division.

Well, that makes a difference then, I guess. Although I thought OW swimming was supposed to include battling the elements ...

But USMS races often have wetsuit divisions, right? Like Big Shoulders?

TRYM_Swimmer
September 16th, 2009, 10:28 AM
BTW, the whiney denunciation of tech suits as "unfair" in the "Both Sides of the Lane Line" column was really dull and unconvincing. (Sorry Nancy Brown, but that was my impression.)

We're on opposite sides of the fence on this issue, and knowing Nancy for a long time (over 30 years), I would never call her a whiner. I have also talked with others who were at the Y Nats and had exactly the same comments. I'm also a big fan of Ande, although I have never met him personally. I found his reply that anyone can get a suit as a bit over the top.

In my opinion, they were arguing the wrong point, as the many discussions here have focused on other issues that don't need to be rehashed.

We see things from different perspectives and will probably never change our minds. I would not wear a rubber suit if they were free, as I prefer to measure my progress, or lack of backsliding when you get to my age, without the suits. If the suits continue, I'll just know that I will probably never win Nats or maybe even make the Top 10 again, but I will continue to compete with all and continue to have the enjoyment and health benefits that Masters Swimming has given me since 1972.

For those who say you don't step back from technology, how about the golf world, that is finally getting rid of square grooves after many years?

Just keep swimming, measuring yourself however you wish, and, above all, enjoy the wonderful people who populate this world.

Cheers!

The Fortress
September 16th, 2009, 10:36 AM
We're on opposite sides of the fence on this issue, and knowing Nancy for a long time (over 30 years), I would never call her a whiner. I have also talked with others who were at the Y Nats and had exactly the same comments.

We see things from different perspectives and will probably never change our minds. I would not wear a rubber suit if they were free, as I prefer to measure my progress, or lack of backsliding when you get to my age, without the suits. If the suits continue, I'll just know that I will probably never win Nats or maybe even make the Top 10 again, but I will continue to compete with all and continue to have the enjoyment and health benefits that Masters Swimming has given me since 1972.

Cheers!


I heard many comments about Y Nats as well. Most of the comments I heard, though, centered around swimmers who were not regular Y members and hadn't previously competed for Y teams "crashing" Y Nats. Many of those swimmers were the ones wearing tech suits and breaking records. If Y Nats wants to limit competition to true Y swimmers (who often don't wear tech suits), it needs to revise its entry rules.

I agree on the different strokes for different folks. But since I have only swum in tech suits for almost 5 years, that's how I measure my progress. I've swum in a B70 since June 2008 and have a huge base of times for comparison. I'd rather stay on that track. But, if I can't, I also have a huge base of Pro bodysuit times for comparison. Wearing a poly tank suit and checking my progress is an oxymoron for me.

I agree they were arguing the wrong point (cost) on tech suits. That's why I found it somewhat dull.

knelson
September 16th, 2009, 10:56 AM
But USMS races often have wetsuit divisions, right? Like Big Shoulders?

Correct. In my experience most USMS events do have a wetsuit division.

gull
September 16th, 2009, 11:02 AM
Since I have only swum in tech suits for almost 5 years, that's how I measure my progress. I've swum in a B70 since May 2008 and have a huge base of times for comparison. I'd rather stay on that track. But, if I can't, I also have a huge base of Pro times for comparison.

For male swimmers to switch from a full body suit (be it a Blue Seventy or an FS Pro) to a pair of jammers will change our times significantly. Personally, I am not looking forward to that.

I am having a difficult time understanding how the self-professed purists can argue that USMS should follow FINA's lead when FINA is making decisions that are inconsistent and contradictory.

TRYM_Swimmer
September 16th, 2009, 11:21 AM
I am having a difficult time understanding how the self-professed purists can argue that USMS should follow FINA's lead when FINA is making decisions that are inconsistent and contradictory.

Oh, Gull, my good friend, you used the "p" word on me! LOL I'm just following what I think, not what some organization that it obviously is conflicted (no doubt by financial considerations) is trying to do. That seems to be a recurring theme these days (See: Health Care Reform, for another money-driven mess)


I heard many comments about Y Nats as well. Most of the comments I heard, though, centered around swimmers who were not regular Y members and hadn't previously competed for Y teams "crashing" Y Nats. Many of those swimmers were the ones wearing tech suits and breaking records. If Y Nats wants to limit competition to true Y swimmers (who often don't wear tech suits), it needs to revise its entry rules.

I agree they were arguing the wrong point (cost) on tech suits. That's why I found it somewhat dull.

Totally agree on Y Nats and the phony "cheap" memberships. Been a Y member for most of my life and have swum on championship teams and now a small group of less than 20 swimmers. Can't really see the benefit to the Y's that do that, unless they can flaunt their trophies for fund-raising purposes. Maybe there are some coaches who measure their success by the hardware. Kind of sad from either perspective. Wonder if they have the same problem at their regular Y Nats?

gull
September 16th, 2009, 11:26 AM
Oh, Gull, my good friend, you used the "p" word on me!

Sorry, I was actually referring to others on this forum--and they know who they are!

TRYM_Swimmer
September 16th, 2009, 11:42 AM
Sorry, I was actually referring to others on this forum--and they know who they are!

That's OK. Sticks and stones, you know. My skin is thick and that's without even a Fastskin!

knelson
September 16th, 2009, 11:48 AM
I am having a difficult time understanding how the self-professed purists can argue that USMS should follow FINA's lead when FINA is making decisions that are inconsistent and contradictory.

I think you're mixing together two separate issues:
1. What our personal opinions are on what suits should be allowed
2. Whether we feel USMS should follow FINA's (admittedly poor) lead on suits.

How you feel about the first issue could certainly influence your opinion on the second, but they are still different issues.

pwb
September 16th, 2009, 11:53 AM
I love the quote from the FINA "press office": "The new rules relating to swimwear do not apply to open water. They apply to swimming."

I think we need to find out if any of the FINA leadership actually know how to swim themselves or even what sport they are overseeing. WTH does a remark like this say of their understanding of the sport?


I'm not sure I buy the rationale for keeping B70 swim skins in the OW, but not the pool. If it's to minimize negative effects from UV rays and coral, wouldn't a Pro bodysuit work as well as a swim skin? Last time I checked, B70s were pretty rippy. If it's for warmth, why can't swimmers wear a wetsuit and compete in the wetsuit division? The statement/announcement justifies the need for the swim skins as: assisting "progress" in a sport already experiencing a massive boom in popularity, providing "vital" commercial involvement, increasing participation and helping ensure confidence. Wouldn't these same rationales apply to the pool?

Right on. FINA's inconsistency is amazing.

On the bright side, maybe this is just the first shoe to drop in the inevitable back slide of full body tech suits back into the pool. Imagine this future FINA press release:

LAUSANNE, SWITZERLAND (21 September 2009) -- After recently attending the FINA 10KM MARATHON SWIMMING WORLD CUP in China, FINA leadership came to the realization that the propulsive activity used by competitors in open water events looks remarkably like the pool swimming stroke commonly referred to as freestyle or, more archaically, the front crawl.

The FINA president commented after the event, "I was amazed by this event. If I put on imaginary blinders to obscure the waves and conjured up some lane lines, I could have swore that both Fran Crippen and Maarten van der Weidjen were swimming freestyle. When we talked with these individuals after the competition, they even explained that they actually considered themselves swimmers! We had no idea this was so!"

After then touring the Beijing Water Cub and learning that swimming pools use an exceptionally strong chemical known as chlorine to keep the water clear, FINA leadership stated, "Much like in open water events where we must protect the competitors from the elements, we must have our pool competitors sheathed in chlorine resistant rubber over as much of their body as possible to provide a similar barrier to chemicals harmful to the health of the competitors."

Chris Stevenson
September 16th, 2009, 09:58 PM
I think we need to find out if any of the FINA leadership actually know how to swim themselves or even what sport they are overseeing. WTH does a remark like this say of their understanding of the sport?

And yet, if FINA reaffirmed tomorrow that "the suit rules don't apply to masters at all, they apply only to swimming," it would be met by cheers by quite a few in USMS, consistency be damned.

I have always felt this kind of stance is a slap in the face to masters swimming, and nothing to be hoped for, no matter what one's feelings are about the suits.

Curious at how very little invective is directed at USA-Swimming for their strong stance against the suits. FINA was mostly following their suggestions, after all. (Though doubtless Craig Lord would like to take sole credit for FINA's reversal.)

The Fortress
September 16th, 2009, 10:19 PM
And yet, if FINA reaffirmed tomorrow that "the suit rules don't apply to masters at all, they apply only to swimming," it would be met by cheers by quite a few in USMS, consistency be damned.

I have always felt this kind of stance is a slap in the face to masters swimming, and nothing to be hoped for, no matter what one's feelings are about the suits.

Curious at how very little invective is directed at USA-Swimming for their strong stance against the suits. FINA was mostly following their suggestions, after all. (Though doubtless Craig Lord would like to take sole credit for FINA's reversal.)

Do you feel like permitting swim skins in OW is a slap in the face to OW swimmers and has marginalized them despite OW's apparently booming popularity?

I dislike Lord and his abrupt and derogatory dismissal of competitive masters swimming as well. However, frankly, aren't we already somewhat "marginalized" just by virtue of being "masters." I don't mean "marginalized" in the negative and dismissive Lord type way. I just mean to suggest that we are, by definition, categorized differently. And I guess I'm more concerned with what the rest of the masters world is doing, not as much with USS swimming. Since Europe has already approved use of all suits (Europeans like their tech suits even more than us, from what I hear), I'd dislike competing against them in our newly prescribed zipperless tank or shorty suit.

I know many are a fan of the ban. But I think FINA should have engaged in regulation rather than punting. Frankly, I hope the tech suits fans are fairly represented at the Convention, as I have the impression we aren't.

gull
September 16th, 2009, 10:55 PM
I have always felt this kind of stance is a slap in the face to masters swimming, and nothing to be hoped for, no matter what one's feelings are about the suits.

And that is the crux of it, right there. FINA has already said that the ban does not apply to us, which I suppose could be seen as a dismissive gesture that diminishes the relevance of Masters swimming. So if we take it upon ourselves to ban the suits, we will somehow be redeemed. Or something like that.

chaos
September 17th, 2009, 04:13 AM
i think its ridiculous to allow the swim skins for OW competition.... but I believe b70 had gained fina approval of the point zero first specifically for OW.

doesn't change my opinion though.

Chris Stevenson
September 17th, 2009, 07:22 AM
Do you feel like permitting swim skins in OW is a slap in the face to OW swimmers and has marginalized them despite OW's apparently booming popularity?

I know many are a fan of the ban. But I think FINA should have engaged in regulation rather than punting. Frankly, I hope the tech suits fans are fairly represented at the Convention, as I have the impression we aren't.

I think saying OW swimming is not swimming is insulting, yes. Certainly there have to be some different rules governing the two, though, and I guess that's how they spin it. Wouldn't want to get stung by jellies.

For women, especially, FINA only rolled back the clock by 2 years. I don't think that is "punting." For men, I think jammers is consistent with the idea that the main purpose of the suit is modesty.

When you get right down to it, this is an argument about whether the suit should be for modesty purposes or for performance enhancement (which was always against FINA's own rules, they just side-stepped the issue).

I don't think anything major is going to happen at Convention wrt the suits. This is a "legislation" year which means most concern is about governance, not rules. Of course, USMS issued this statement months ago (in March, I think):

"FINA approval or rejection of new swimwear introduced after September 30, 2007, will be accepted by U.S. Masters Swimming for U.S.M.S. sanctioned and recognized competition."

In addition to the ban of double-suits, this is the current "law of the land" in USMS, I believe. I guess the Rules Committee needs to clarify what this means, exactly, after Jan 1.

I am not sure if the whole "FINA doesn't apply this to masters" thing flies with this rule...out of curiousity, I asked Rules chair Kathy Casey at LCM nationals if XTerra skinsuits were legal for USMS competition (I own one but didn't have it with me, so the question was largely academic). The Xterra suits did NOT make it thru the first round with FINA and I guess they didn't resubmit; only one model is on their current list. Kathy said that is the only one that could be worn at USMS meets.


And that is the crux of it, right there. FINA has already said that the ban does not apply to us, which I suppose could be seen as a dismissive gesture that diminishes the relevance of Masters swimming. So if we take it upon ourselves to ban the suits, we will somehow be redeemed. Or something like that.

Sure I think it is dismissive ("let masters with their creaky knees and beer bellies keep the suits while real swimmers do without") but I don't think there is any such intention of "redemption" on the part of USMS. There are two issues for USMS: compliance (or not) with new USA-S rules, and compliance with FINA rules for masters. Whenever USA-S changes their rules of competition, USMS usually follows it, unless there is reason not to do so. For example, if USMS keeps the suits, I don't know what happens to the whole dual-sanction thing. And certainly I don't see why USA-S would accept times done at USMS meets as legit (eg to meet qualifying standards for a particular meet).

It is only my opinion, but I don't believe that USMS will go against FINA (it would put us at a disadvantage compared to the rest of the world), but I also don't think that we've heard the last from FINA about how the suits will apply to masters. And there is a question about whether USMS would or should advocate a particular position (as USA-S did).

Leonard Jansen
September 17th, 2009, 08:03 AM
Just out of curiosity, why can't we go to the USMS top cheeses/committee members and ask them what they are thinking WRT this whole rat's nest? I'm not saying we ask for a ruling and I'm also saying we don't want a "We are going to wait and see..." - type response. Rather, I'd like to hear some of the give and take at that level. Maybe even a VERY informal and non-binding, blind straw poll for some of the most major possibilities. This issue is obviously important to a goodly number of people, even if they are not the majority of the USMS membership.

Also, for the record: I think FINA screwed this up by having a dichotomy between pool and OW swimming WRT suits allowed. Whatever it is, it should be the same for both. My personal preference is per the pool rules (i.e. max of jammers for the men, etc. I also think women should only be allowed jammers - fair is fair, after all - ahem - but I digress...) But if it stands as is, fine - I refuse to have a coronary over this. For we "recreational OW swimmers" ,the allowance of tech suits into events really isn't much different than allowing wetsuits - which numerous OW events already do. So no big change except maybe in USMS championship-type races, but again, no coronaries over this either.

-LBJ

The Fortress
September 17th, 2009, 08:42 AM
I think saying OW swimming is not swimming is insulting, yes. Certainly there have to be some different rules governing the two, though, and I guess that's how they spin it. Wouldn't want to get stung by jellies.

For women, especially, FINA only rolled back the clock by 2 years. I don't think that is "punting." For men, I think jammers is consistent with the idea that the main purpose of the suit is modesty.

Of course, USMS issued this statement months ago (in March, I think):

"FINA approval or rejection of new swimwear introduced after September 30, 2007, will be accepted by U.S. Masters Swimming for U.S.M.S. sanctioned and recognized competition."

In addition to the ban of double-suits, this is the current "law of the land" in USMS, I believe. I guess the Rules Committee needs to clarify what this means, exactly, after Jan 1.




As I said before, and as others have since agreed, I don't think there necessarily has to be a dichotomy between pool and OW swimming. Do swim skins provide more protection than textile suits? Not so sure ... I agree with LBJ that FINA screwed this issue up as well.

That's not correct about FINA rolling back the clock 2 years for women. I recall women wearing full body suits with zippers in the 2000 Olympics. And I disagree with the notion that suits are just for "modesty" purposes. That hasn't been the case for a decade, and I don't see why it should be. Other sports have specialty/speed enhancing equipment, and I don't see why swimming should be exempt from this reality and go backward in time. I think it's absolutely correct to say that FINA punted on this issue. There's no middle ground or regulation -- it's just an outright victory for purists.

My understanding is that the current USA/FINA "ban" is NOT the law of the land for masters and that we are currently permitted to wear B70s etc. That's why a majority of folks at Nationals had tech suits and why you will continue to see them at USMS meets.

If this issue isn't addressed at Convention, when will it be addressed? Do you really think USMS will advocate a position? I don't ... I think they will wait and see what FINA does.

geochuck
September 17th, 2009, 09:50 AM
I think we have asked what is going on. I sent a couple of emails a few months ago and have not had a response of any type. Not even that they received my note.


Just out of curiosity, why can't we go to the USMS top cheeses/committee members and ask them what they are thinking WRT this whole rat's nest? I'm not saying we ask for a ruling and I'm also saying we don't want a "We are going to wait and see..." - type response. Rather, I'd like to hear some of the give and take at that level. Maybe even a VERY informal and non-binding, blind straw poll for some of the most major possibilities. This issue is obviously important to a goodly number of people, even if they are not the majority of the USMS membership.

Also, for the record: I think FINA screwed this up by having a dichotomy between pool and OW swimming WRT suits allowed. Whatever it is, it should be the same for both. My personal preference is per the pool rules (i.e. max of jammers for the men, etc. I also think women should only be allowed jammers - fair is fair, after all - ahem - but I digress...) But if it stands as is, fine - I refuse to have a coronary over this. For we "recreational OW swimmers" ,the allowance of tech suits into events really isn't much different than allowing wetsuits - which numerous OW events already do. So no big change except maybe in USMS championship-type races, but again, no coronaries over this either.

-LBJ

psyncw
September 17th, 2009, 10:16 AM
I have always seen open water swimming as a separate discipline from pool swimming, so I find it understandable that there are different rules including what suits are appropriate for the sport. I have only done OWS in the summer with relatively warm water, but given that the nature of OWS includes fairly cold water temperatures, jellyfish, and other variables, it makes sense that more of the body needs to be covered in certain conditions.

Some of my friends competed in the Provincetown OWS with the water in the 60's i believe- even in a wetsuit I would not have liked water that cold!

With pool swimming, those variables do not exist. I agree with Chris' analysis and feel that the tech suit ban for 2010 is the best course for usms to adopt.

pwb
September 17th, 2009, 11:02 AM
In order of priority, I think USMS' adherence to swimsuit rules, in pool and open water, should be:


Aligned with FINA and the rest of the global Masters' community
Aligned with FINA and the rest of the global elite/age-group/USA-S community

Like everyone, I think FINA has botched this about every step of the way ... the recent OW ruling is just one more example.

Like Chris (I think), I'd like to see the same rules for #1 and #2. However, as there is even a smaller group of USMS swimmers who also compete in #2-style events, if there is a disconnect between #1 and #2, we should be in synch with the Masters community.

Now, like Fort (I think), I believe we should allow full body tech suits with defined, measurable criteria. I'd base those criteria on what's on the market today and some very objective regulation scheme (anathema to my libertarian leanings as saying that is) in place moving forward.

Whatever decision's made, I'll race in whatever I feel like racing in that is legal for the event I'm competing in. Like Leonard, I'm not going to have a coronary over this. I like the bodysuits, but believe my training (or lack of it) has far more to do with my times these days than a suit.

The Fortress
September 17th, 2009, 02:14 PM
In order of priority, I think USMS' adherence to swimsuit rules, in pool and open water, should be:


Aligned with FINA and the rest of the global Masters' community
Aligned with FINA and the rest of the global elite/age-group/USA-S community

Like everyone, I think FINA has botched this about every step of the way ... the recent OW ruling is just one more example.

However, as there is even a smaller group of USMS swimmers who also compete in #2-style events, if there is a disconnect between #1 and #2, we should be in synch with the Masters community.

Now, like Fort (I think), I believe we should allow full body tech suits with defined, measurable criteria. I'd base those criteria on what's on the market today and some very objective regulation scheme (anathema to my libertarian leanings as saying that is) in place moving forward.


As Clydesdale is wont to say, "100% agree" (I think. ;))

Since only a miniscule percentage of masters pool swimmers compete in USS meets, I don't think USS rules should automatically determine our fate. If a masters swimmer is competing in a USS meet, he/she can follow USS rules (just as I did this summer during the first ban of the B70).

The Fortress
September 17th, 2009, 02:44 PM
I don't think anything major is going to happen at Convention wrt the suits. This is a "legislation" year which means most concern is about governance, not rules.

Really? I just heard that USMS voted at convention to follow FINA?

I guess this puts competitive masters swimmers at a huge disadvantage compared to Europeans and possibly other countries.

thewookiee
September 17th, 2009, 02:54 PM
Really? I just heard that USMS voted at convention to follow FINA?

I guess this puts competitive masters swimmers at a huge disadvantage compared to Europeans and possibly other countries.

Who did you hear this from?

The Fortress
September 17th, 2009, 02:56 PM
Who did you hear this from?

Someone at convention. I'm trying to confirm it with someone else. Maybe it's just a committee rec?

What have you heard?

thewookiee
September 17th, 2009, 02:58 PM
Someone at convention. I'm trying to confirm it with someone else.

What have you heard?

I haven't heard a word. I think if other masters governing bodies are going to allow them, we should as well. If someone from usms wants to swim usa, then follow the usa rules.

Now, if other masters governing bodies ban them, usms follow.

pwolf66
September 17th, 2009, 03:02 PM
For those who say you don't step back from technology, how about the golf world, that is finally getting rid of square grooves after many years?

At best that could be viewed as sliding your feet backward an inch or two rather than a step back. The net affect on 99% of the golfers of the world is negligible.

Chris Stevenson
September 17th, 2009, 08:28 PM
Really? I just heard that USMS voted at convention to follow FINA?

The House of Delegates hasn't voted for anything yet (other than approving reports) so I guess it must be a committee (and not one I attended -- there are multiple meetings in parallel; no one has mentioned suits in any meeting I've been to).


That's not correct about FINA rolling back the clock 2 years for women. I recall women wearing full body suits with zippers in the 2000 Olympics. And I disagree with the notion that suits are just for "modesty" purposes. That hasn't been the case for a decade, and I don't see why it should be. Other sports have specialty/speed enhancing equipment, and I don't see why swimming should be exempt from this reality and go backward in time. I think it's absolutely correct to say that FINA punted on this issue. There's no middle ground or regulation -- it's just an outright victory for purists.

My understanding is that the current USA/FINA "ban" is NOT the law of the land for masters and that we are currently permitted to wear B70s etc. That's why a majority of folks at Nationals had tech suits and why you will continue to see them at USMS meets.

I forgot about the zippers thing (which I do think is kind of silly). And of course you disagree with the "suits for modesty thing," you like the suits. It is an opinion/preference kind of thing.

I think there are two types of swimmers: those who reacted with joy at FINA's announcement banning the latest suits, and those who were dismayed. I am one of the former, though I don't claim any special moral purity for it, it is just my preference. I like it when the swimmer determines the outcome and his/her suit is not a factor at all.

Masters could wear B70s etc at nationals because they are still FINA-legal, at least until Jan 1.

The Fortress
September 17th, 2009, 08:57 PM
I think there are two types of swimmers: those who reacted with joy at FINA's announcement banning the latest suits, and those who were dismayed. I am one of the former, though I don't claim any special moral purity for it, it is just my preference. I like it when the swimmer determines the outcome and his/her suit is not a factor at all.

Masters could wear B70s etc at nationals because they are still FINA-legal, at least until Jan 1.

Of course there are two types of swimmers! As long as someone isn't staking a claim to purity and morality, I'm fine with it. Everyone is entitled to their preference.

As of now, until USMS adopts the committee recommendation (which I'm sure is likely) or FINA says its ban actually applies to masters (which would be a reversal), B70s are still legal. I realize this is a technicality, and may not remain the case, but right now they are still FINA-legal post Jan 1. And there is a chance they will be FINA-legal for masters but not USMS-legal. That would suck.

Note: Midas makes a good point on the other thread. It could be that whatever is "adopted" at convention is just USMS's proposal to FINA who will likely consider the proposals of all member master organizations. It would be nice to have some confirmation that this is true or enlightenment on this issue.

srcoyote
September 17th, 2009, 09:43 PM
At best that could be viewed as sliding your feet backward an inch or two rather than a step back. The net affect on 99% of the golfers of the world is negligible.

A fun fact from the middle of the pack: Typically I prefer to compare my times to the overall pack. As soon as the wetsuit users are separated out I drop into a lower percentile.

As for me, I will still go with the outdated briefs, the cold water, the racing against myself, and the nice scenery. . . . oh and the swim so hard I wanna puke when the race adrenaline kicks in. But I would hope that this dialogue continues. This sport should still draw the many and not the few.

lefty
September 17th, 2009, 11:01 PM
interesting to point out that there are no WR in OPen Water swimming.

Leonard Jansen
September 18th, 2009, 08:04 AM
I find it somewhat ironic that pool swimming, which is an artificial construct, has swimmers wear the most basic suits and OW, which is supposed to be more basic, allows swimmers to wear the most artificial suits.

Strange tales from a strange time.

-LBJ

The Fortress
September 18th, 2009, 09:15 AM
basic

Thanks for using that word instead of the dread "pure" word, LBJ!

Laura 33
September 18th, 2009, 01:46 PM
FINA has announced that full body suits WILL be allowed in open water races, but not the pool.

See www.10kswimmer.com (http://www.10kswimmer.com) for the article.

-LBJ
Leonard,
Do you know if this includes long sleeves and zippers?
Thanks,
Laura

Leonard Jansen
September 19th, 2009, 09:05 PM
I have no idea about that. In truth, all I know is what I read in the article.

-LBJ