PDA

View Full Version : I Can't Use My Suit?



Lee Rider
May 5th, 2010, 12:15 PM
Well, I'm coming back to swim at Master's meets after a 5 year hiatus (surgeries, etc) and find that I cannot wear my "Farmer John" suit bought in 2000 and worn in 4 previous national meets (except this spring). Not a "tech" suit by any means but a hell of a beer-gut bra! Not sure I would get on the blocks without it so the hiatus may continue. Is it worth alienating us "plus-sized" guys over this silly rule? I suppose it will give me yet another reason to dump some weight. Looks like those other 50+ breaststrokers won't get beat by this fat guy any time soon.

Anyone else out there feel the same? I know most of you out there don't have this problem but to have a rule that reduces participation seems counterproductive.

Lee Rider
Fort Bragg, CA

Redbird Alum
May 5th, 2010, 01:46 PM
Well, I'm coming back to swim at Master's meets after a 5 year hiatus (surgeries, etc) and find that I cannot wear my "Farmer John" suit bought in 2000 and worn in 4 previous national meets (except this spring). Not a "tech" suit by any means but a hell of a beer-gut bra! ...

Lee Raises a good question....

Does the rule absolutely "prevent" him from swimming in the meet, or does it "disqualify" his results if he swims with his suit?

In short, could he still swim but not place? (Not suggesting he would WANT to do this, just wondering if he CAN do this?)

Karen Duggan
May 5th, 2010, 02:02 PM
Why would you want to swim in a meet and not have the results count?
Just asking. I wouldn't.

That is a good question though, would they let you on the blocks?
If they let you swim, knowing you will be DQd, that could start posing some challenges for officials. If more and more people do it...

In any sport, does anyone wear apparel that is not legal? Or would this be unique to swimming?

aquageek
May 5th, 2010, 02:04 PM
I guess you could still swim in your tech suit, although you'd be DQd and none of your times would be posted. I wonder if the meet ref would let you continue after the first DQ however.

That Guy
May 5th, 2010, 02:19 PM
I'm not sure what the answer is, but it seems like a slippery slope. If I can wear a tech suit after June 1 and take a DQ just to see how fast I would have gone, then couldn't I do the same with a wetsuit? Or a monofin? Or a kayak?

osterber
May 5th, 2010, 03:22 PM
All of this falls, I believe, into the realm of "Referee Discretion". My guess, 9 out of 10 times, the referee will pull you down off the blocks and not let you swim. If you tried to swim knowing you were violating a rule like that, you might get yourself an "unsportsmanlike conduct" DQ before you can even step up. Or at the very least, simply by stepping onto the blocks with an obviously illegal suit, you are DQed before you even start.

-Rick

Karen Duggan
May 5th, 2010, 03:32 PM
After considering this, I think I'd be a little miffed if someone showed up in an illegal suit. Play by the rules or don't play, IMHO. :D

aquageek
May 5th, 2010, 03:36 PM
After considering this, I think I'd be a little miffed if someone showed up in an illegal suit. Play by the rules or don't play, IMHO. :D

I have to agree with this. While Masters meets are very laid back and tolerant, intentionally showing up and cheating would certainly not be viewed favorably. It would be distracting to know the swimmer next to me would be DQd, if they weren't pulled off the block.

geochuck
May 5th, 2010, 03:41 PM
What is the difference and does it matter if you are wearing an approved suit or not. You should only be DQ'd if you set a record and are not wearing a Fina Approved suit.

Karen Duggan
May 5th, 2010, 04:08 PM
Depending on my particular mindset that day, I could be distracted by someone, in this case, blatantly cheating.

aquageek
May 5th, 2010, 04:11 PM
What is the difference and does it matter if you are wearing an approved suit or not. You should only be DQ'd if you set a record and are not wearing a Fina Approved suit.

Yes, George, that makes tons of sense, the speed at which you swim determines whether or not your suit is legal.

geochuck
May 5th, 2010, 04:11 PM
I don't think it is cheating if they don't win.

geochuck
May 5th, 2010, 04:13 PM
Do you consider it cheating when you use the frog kick in a butterfly race. I do.

lefty
May 5th, 2010, 04:19 PM
I have to agree with this. While Masters meets are very laid back and tolerant, intentionally showing up and cheating would certainly not be viewed favorably. It would be distracting to know the swimmer next to me would be DQd, if they weren't pulled off the block.

I was thinking about wearing my LZR for an off race at my next meet (whenever that is!). I would expect to be DQ'd but I would expect to be able to swim the race. I don't see how it effects anyone else?

If I decide to do this, I will seek consent of the referee before the race just to check (and) if they said they will pull me from the blocks then I wouldn't squawk.

6-7 years ago I swam a 100 fly instead of 100 IM. I don't know why, but I felt good on the fly and decided to keep going. The official insinuated that I displayed poor conduct and told me that I would be kicked out of the meet if I did it again. HA! I told him the 100IM is only swam once per meet! If you tell me that, honestly, you find such behavior distracting and (more importantly) detrimental to you own race then perhaps I will reconsider my stance...

osterber
May 5th, 2010, 04:28 PM
What is the difference and does it matter if you are wearing an approved suit or not. You should only be DQ'd if you set a record and are not wearing a Fina Approved suit.

From a technical perspective, it absolutely matters for team points. If your team loses by 1 point, and it's because you got beaten by someone who was cheating with an illegal suit... wouldn't you be upset?

Or top 10. So you're 11th on the list because one person in front of you swam a time with an illegal suit?

This is all not to mention the distraction issue.

If rules only matter to you if you set a record... then please don't ever come to a meet that I'm at.

-Rick

osterber
May 5th, 2010, 04:33 PM
If you tell me that, honestly, you find such behavior distracting and (more importantly) detrimental to you own race then perhaps I will reconsider my stance...

It's absolutely distracting and absolutely detrimental to someone else's race.

If I'm next to you, and we're the same speed (which would be expected if we're seeded next to each other), then there are at least two issues:

Distracting: I don't notice anything during fly, since you're doing fly. During the backstroke, I probably don't notice anything because I'm on my back, and you're probably just out of my view. However, when I turn onto breaststroke, I'm going to naturally spend the entire breaststroke length wondering why the %$#$% you're still doing fly. That distracts me from me race. Maybe I don't notice the person on the other side of me who's catching me on the breaststroke.

Detrimental: Butterfly is a stroke that naturally causes a lot of water turbulence. Anyone who has ever done a butterfly set with more than one person per lane knows this. In the aforementioned race, when I turn onto the breaststroke, you're going to at least then be pulling ahead of me. I'm going to be doing my breaststroke eating your butterfly kick wake, which is quite turbulent. That will slow me down since my water will be far less smooth.

So there you are... distracting, and detrimental.

-Rick

thewookiee
May 5th, 2010, 04:35 PM
Do you consider it cheating when you use the frog kick in a butterfly race. I do.

Nope. The rules state that a breastroke kick maybe used in masters swimming in butterfly races. The rules are clear. It's not cheating.

aquageek
May 5th, 2010, 04:37 PM
I was thinking about wearing my LZR for an off race at my next meet (whenever that is!). I would expect to be DQ'd but I would expect to be able to swim the race. I don't see how it effects anyone else?

Your decision to cheat and invoke an automatic DQ keeps a non cheating swimmer from participating in the heat where they belong. Therefore, your actions have affected the entire meet. Not real complicated.

knelson
May 5th, 2010, 05:15 PM
So there you are... distracting, and detrimental.

I agree, and I'd also add it's just a breach of decorum--for lack of a better word. You are expected to attempt to swim your events legally. I think anyone who does something illegal, and clearly does it on purpose, should be thrown out of the meet. It's bush league.

Allen Stark
May 5th, 2010, 05:19 PM
I suspect you would be able to swim if you went to the Clerk of the Course and requested to swim an exhibition race and let the others in the heat know what you were doing.

lefty
May 5th, 2010, 05:47 PM
It is only "cheating" because someone wrote a rule that outlawed a $575 suit that I only got to wear once and was not consulted with in the matter. Of course consulting with each of the 50,000 members would be impossible which is why I therefore conclude that really, in the end, what is cheating is left to the individual. Put another way I am the one who get determines the utility of the purchases I make.

Besides, there is a difference between breaking a rule, which leads to disqualification, and cheating. It is comforting to those who see the world in black and white to call "rule breaking" cheating because behavior has to fit neatly into collumns for it to make sense.

PS: I didn't really to the IM / fly thing. I was just trying to fan the flame! But reviewing the matter more carefully those aren't really the same thing (the suit versus the IM/fly switch)!

fatboy
May 5th, 2010, 06:17 PM
I suspect you would be able to swim if you went to the Clerk of the Course and requested to swim an exhibition race and let the others in the heat know what you were doing.

Allen, I would agree that if you had permission to swim as an exhibition race it would be allowed and you would likely get a time. It still would not count for place in the event or for team points.

What would the USMS stance be if a meet included an exhibition race or races allowing tech suits as a separate event(s)? Would this meet be sanctioned?

The Fortress
May 5th, 2010, 06:51 PM
Why would an exhibition heat or race cause a meet to lose a sanction?! I recently swam in a fun exhibition relay that was DQ'd. What's the big deal? Can't we have any fun at meets? Last fall, I also swam a 50 shooter in the course of a 100 free race right next to someone doing a 50 fly for time in the same race. Can't we have some flexibility and less rigidity?

And perfectly legal races, like split requests, can cause "disruption ..."

aquageek
May 5th, 2010, 07:30 PM
Besides, there is a difference between breaking a rule, which leads to disqualification, and cheating.

No, there really isn't any difference. Of course, your logic has also been employed by some of our greatest athletes - Ben Johnson, Floyd Landis, Roger Clemens, A-Roid - those are the first few stellar examples that come to mind.

You can pull your stunt at 2011 Nationals and see how it pans out for you. That can be your test kitchen since it's all about you and no one else.

kristilynn
May 5th, 2010, 07:49 PM
I'm confused... Is this question about what we can wear at Nats this spring? Why is wearing a 5-year old farmer john considered cheating when we can wear the long-legged neoprene suits there anyway? Maybe I'm off, but I didn't think that wearing old tech suits was illegal for Nats this year.

Lee Rider
May 5th, 2010, 08:35 PM
Wow. This really morphed into a complicated issue. I really have not looked back at previous discussions relating to this rule, so I am really unaware of what has been said. What I was told is that men cannot wear a suit that is above the waist or below the knee. Is that correct?

If it is correct, then is that true for both sexes or do women have to leave their midriff bare? That would only seem the fair way to interpret the restriction on a male swimmer.

I don't think that I indicated that I would try to swim in a meet with an illegal suit, just that I may not want to swim in a meet with a legal suit. There is a big difference there.

I do believe it gives someone like me a distinct advantage having "natural" sub-cutaneous buoyancy with an unnaturally tight skin. I haven't swam at a meet in 20 years without this type of suit.

I do believe that the full length "tech" suits were excessive. I don't think that any part of the body being used as a propulsive force should be covered (legs, arms, hands). I don't see that the torso should be considered propulsive even though it may be minimally.

Chris Stevenson
May 5th, 2010, 08:47 PM
Wow. This really morphed into a complicated issue. I really have not looked back at previous discussions relating to this rule, so I am really unaware of what has been said. What I was told is that men cannot wear a suit that is above the waist or below the knee. Is that correct?

If it is correct, then is that true for both sexes or do women have to leave their midriff bare? That would only seem the fair way to interpret the restriction on a male swimmer.

Here (http://www.usms.org/rules/20100119swimsuits.pdf) is the current rule in USMS. So you can wear full body suits at nationals, since it is SCY and before the June 1 deadline. After that you need to wear FINA-approved jammers. And in SCM and LCM meets right now (ie, even before June 1) you have to wear FINA-approved jammers.

Lee Rider
May 5th, 2010, 08:53 PM
Here (http://www.usms.org/rules/20100119swimsuits.pdf) is the current rule in USMS. So you can wear full body suits at nationals, since it is SCY and before the June 1 deadline. After that you need to wear FINA-approved jammers. And in SCM and LCM meets right now (ie, even before June 1) you have to wear FINA-approved jammers.

Thanks for the info Chris. Cannot make nationals this year.

The Fortress
May 5th, 2010, 09:41 PM
I do believe that the full length "tech" suits were excessive. I don't think that any part of the body being used as a propulsive force should be covered (legs, arms, hands). I don't see that the torso should be considered propulsive even though it may be minimally.

I swim with my core.

Men have traditionally worn jammers and briefs. Women never have.

Glider
May 5th, 2010, 11:53 PM
Lee,

Come on out to nats and race just for fun. We can compare beer guts:D I'm right next to you in the 50 breast, heat 16, lane 7.


Well, I'm coming back to swim at Master's meets after a 5 year hiatus (surgeries, etc) and find that I cannot wear my "Farmer John" suit bought in 2000 and worn in 4 previous national meets (except this spring). Not a "tech" suit by any means but a hell of a beer-gut bra! Not sure I would get on the blocks without it so the hiatus may continue. Is it worth alienating us "plus-sized" guys over this silly rule? I suppose it will give me yet another reason to dump some weight. Looks like those other 50+ breaststrokers won't get beat by this fat guy any time soon.

Anyone else out there feel the same? I know most of you out there don't have this problem but to have a rule that reduces participation seems counterproductive.

Lee Rider
Fort Bragg, CA

bamueller
May 6th, 2010, 12:07 AM
It sounds like you don't want to draw attention to yourself. That's understandable. If you swim in a jammer or speedo, you'll feel uncomfortable. If you swim in your farmer john, you'll feel better, swim faster, but be DQ-ed. This might draw attention to you as well, especially if the ref comes over to your lane to tell you about the rules, to which you reply, "I know. Look, it's a long story, and I have put much thought into it, I'll spare you the details, so let's just start the race."

If I were in your shoes, I guess I would just keep training until you feel comfortable on the blocks.

Lee Rider
May 6th, 2010, 01:05 AM
Lee,

Come on out to nats and race just for fun. We can compare beer guts:D I'm right next to you in the 50 breast, heat 16, lane 7.

Wish I could Mark. I'm swimming pretty well and think I could beat my seed times, but I have to attend a college graduation for a family member.

Have fun and good luck.

arthur
May 6th, 2010, 02:44 AM
Allen, I would agree that if you had permission to swim as an exhibition race it would be allowed and you would likely get a time. It still would not count for place in the event or for team points.

What would the USMS stance be if a meet included an exhibition race or races allowing tech suits as a separate event(s)? Would this meet be sanctioned?

At the B.C. Provincial Championships masters meet a week and a half ago there was a pink flamingo relay:

http://web.mac.com/englishbay/iWeb/swim2010/Pink_files/_DSC9295.png

osterber
May 6th, 2010, 09:20 AM
I suspect you would be able to swim if you went to the Clerk of the Course and requested to swim an exhibition race and let the others in the heat know what you were doing.

To the best of my knowledge, I don't believe the USMS rules make any accommodation for exhibition swims.

-Rick

osterber
May 6th, 2010, 09:26 AM
It is only "cheating" because someone wrote a rule that outlawed a $575 suit that I only got to wear once and was not consulted with in the matter.

Let me translate your statement.



It is ... cheating because ... a rule ... outlawed a ... suit ....




Besides, there is a difference between breaking a rule, which leads to disqualification, and cheating.


I agree that there is a difference between a disqualification and cheating. In my book, they are both due to breaking the rules. If you break the rules and get caught, it's a disqualification. If you break the rules and don't get caught, it's cheating. Either way, you broke the rules.

Here's the deal. If you want to play in this sandbox, then you have to abide by the rules of this sandbox. If you don't like the rules of this sandbox, then go find your own sandbox, and you can play by yourself.

-Rick

osterber
May 6th, 2010, 09:32 AM
What would the USMS stance be if a meet included an exhibition race or races allowing tech suits as a separate event(s)? Would this meet be sanctioned?

This is allowed. It is covered in rule 202.1.1(F)(3).



Sanctioned events may include nonconforming swimming events
so long as they are conducted in a safe manner. Nonconforming
swimming events are events not defined in article 102.5 or that
would typically result in the disqualification of participants as
defined in article 102.15. USMS records and Top 10 times shall
not be maintained in nonconforming events except for initial
distances and relay leadoff split times for distances that are also
events defined in article 102.5.


So you could certainly have a 'tech suit shootout' event. I think you could even allow it to score points for team awards, etc. (I don't see a rule to prohibit that.) But the times don't count for anything.

-Rick

osterber
May 6th, 2010, 09:40 AM
To the best of my knowledge, I don't believe the USMS rules make any accommodation for exhibition swims.


To clarify this statement in contrast to what I said right after that.... I don't believe USMS rules allows for an exhibition swim within an otherwise official swimming event. It does allow for a meet to setup fully exhibition events, where the entire event is either unscored, or "non-conforming", or both.

For example, we do an unscored 800 free relay at the New England SCY meet. This is because USMS rules also don't allow for time trials, so we have to have an official 800 free relay so that people can swim it officially for a time/record/etc. But we don't score it so that we don't get 4 hours of 800 free relays trying to score team points.

Technically speaking, you could take advantage of the discretion of the Referee to swim multiple events in the same heat to save time. So you could have:

Event #1: Mixed 100 free ("official")
Event #2: Mixed 100 free with tech suits ("non-conforming")

Technically speaking, you could have swimmers in both of those events swim in the same heat, as long as everyone in Event #1 were in adjacent lanes, and everyone in Event #2 were in adjacent lanes, and there was an empty lane between the swimmers.

-Rick

pdjang
May 6th, 2010, 10:59 AM
Wish I could Mark. I'm swimming pretty well and think I could beat my seed times, but I have to attend a college graduation for a family member.

Have fun and good luck.

Hi Lee -
I was looking forward to seeing you again in Atlanta. I'm glad your back is better and that your swimming is coming along. Puerto Rico is around the corner and I hope you can make that meet.

Best wishes,
Philipp

lefty
May 6th, 2010, 11:36 AM
No, there really isn't any difference. Of course, your logic has also been employed by some of our greatest athletes - Ben Johnson, Floyd Landis, Roger Clemens, A-Roid - those are the first few stellar examples that come to mind.

Calling someone a cheater is a moral judgment. The only way one can conclude that asking if it is okay to swim a race in a LZR expecting to be DQ'd is the moral equivalent of hiding and denying steroid use is if you defer to authority and "rules" as your moral guide. I am not saying you are right or wrong about those being equivalent, I am just illuminating where you stand on moral guidance.

The reason that I view things differently than you is because I do not defer to rules as my moral guide. I think there are plenty of times when an individual can use their own judgment to determine what is right and wrong even if society or the "rules" disagree with them.

(and) As it turns out, there is a philosopher named Kohlberg who theorized on morality and the conclusion he would draw is that I operate at a higher level of morality than you. Don't kill the messenger Geek, I am just reporting what an expert has to say on the matter. See for yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development

The Fortress
May 6th, 2010, 11:41 AM
Calling someone a cheater is a moral judgment. The only way one can conclude that asking if it is okay to swim a race in a LZR expecting to be DQ'd is the moral equivalent of hiding and denying steroid use is if you defer to authority and "rules" as your moral guide. I am not saying you are right or wrong about those being equivalent, I am just illuminating where you stand on moral guidance.

The reason that I view things differently than you is because I do not defer to rules as my moral guide. I think there are plenty of times when an individual can use their own judgment to determine what is right and wrong even if society or the "rules" disagree with them.



Agree.

Theoretically, if you wear a LZR expecting a DQ, have alerted and/or cleared it with a ref and having informed swimmers adjacent to you, what is the problem exactly? That person is a "cheater"?! Many people use meets as training tools, as Craig pointed out above. And there is no need to be pilloried if you get a 50 fly split in a 200 IM, though some people seem to object to this. Why? I have no clue .. it seems like nit picking.

osterber
May 6th, 2010, 12:16 PM
The reason that I view things differently than you is because I do not defer to rules as my moral guide. I think there are plenty of times when an individual can use their own judgment to determine what is right and wrong even if society or the "rules" disagree with them.


Next time you get DQ'd for a 1-hand-touch, tell the official that you shouldn't be DQ'd because your moral guide said it was OK for you to do a 1-hand-touch and that your moral guide supersedes their "rule book". Let me know how that goes.

-Rick

The Fortress
May 6th, 2010, 12:21 PM
Of course, this pre-supposes that officials actually know and follow the rule book ... (This has not always been my experience.)

lefty
May 6th, 2010, 12:45 PM
Next time you get DQ'd for a 1-hand-touch, tell the official that you shouldn't be DQ'd because your moral guide said it was OK for you to do a 1-hand-touch and that your moral guide supersedes their "rule book". Let me know how that goes.

-Rick

Morality is useful for determining what is MORAL not for determining how rules should be enforced. If I knowingly 1-hand touch (for a legit reason... I don't know let's say I jammed my finger) I would expect to be DQ'd. I would not expect to be labeled a cheater (actually I would expect to be labeled a cheater by some because I recognize that there are people out their who can only operate on a rules based level of morality.).

sjstuart
May 6th, 2010, 12:49 PM
Calling someone a cheater is a moral judgment.

Not according to my dictionary:


cheat
v. intr.
2. To violate rules deliberately, as in a game


or




5. to violate rules or regulations

lefty
May 6th, 2010, 01:17 PM
Not according to my dictionary:


cheat
v. intr.
2. To violate rules deliberately, as in a game


or




5. to violate rules or regulations


Proof that there are people who have a rules based sense of morality. (and) Indication that you are confused about what that even means.

The Fortress
May 6th, 2010, 02:31 PM
Proof that there are people who have a rules based sense of morality. (and) Indication that you are confused about what that even means.

Safe to say he missed your point.

philoswimmer
May 6th, 2010, 02:35 PM
Well, I'm coming back to swim at Master's meets after a 5 year hiatus (surgeries, etc) and find that I cannot wear my "Farmer John" suit bought in 2000 and worn in 4 previous national meets (except this spring). Not a "tech" suit by any means but a hell of a beer-gut bra! Not sure I would get on the blocks without it so the hiatus may continue. Is it worth alienating us "plus-sized" guys over this silly rule? I suppose it will give me yet another reason to dump some weight. Looks like those other 50+ breaststrokers won't get beat by this fat guy any time soon.

Anyone else out there feel the same? I know most of you out there don't have this problem but to have a rule that reduces participation seems counterproductive.

Lee Rider
Fort Bragg, CA

Seems like most people are missing Lee's original question. We might disagree over whether the rule against tech suits is silly or not, but does it make sense to have a rule against non-tech "farmer john" suits, especially if the rule discourages some from participating?

Chris Stevenson
May 6th, 2010, 04:40 PM
does it make sense to have a rule against non-tech "farmer john" suits, especially if the rule discourages some from participating?

I suppose one way that it makes sense is if it is difficult to distinguish a "non-tech" from a "tech" suit. For men, anyway, the rule as written is relatively easy to enforce. You can also argue that even non-tech body suits provide a competitive advantage by making a flabby person more streamlined through compression.

As far as discouraging participation, based on the heated arguments from both camps I think you can argue that any rule regulating or allowing swim suits will do that one way or another.

To be blunt (and I'll probably catch grief about this) I'm just not that impressed by this statement from someone who hasn't competed in five years. Just saying.

Most people who suffer from "modesty" issues (or whatever you want to call it) don't seem to have a problem wearing much more revealing suits in practice; few of them wear full-coverage suits in practice. So why is it an issue for meets? The strangers who are present? This is an honest question, not a put-down.

There are definitely times where I'm not always proud of my physique, but the bottom line is that swimming is simply not the sport of choice for those who are ashamed of their bodies.

I think the other issue of fairness for "equal coverage" for men and women is silly. Life isn't fair, and I think generally women get the short end of the stick more than men, so I don't mind a reversal here. Aside from the issue of modesty (which requires upper body coverage for women), it is harder for most fit women to be streamlined than fit men, for obvious reasons, so unequal coverage seems warranted.

sjstuart
May 6th, 2010, 08:05 PM
Proof that there are people who have a rules based sense of morality. (and) Indication that you are confused about what that even means.

Wrong on both counts. Fortress is, too.

I was merely pointing out that an accusation of cheating is not (necessarily) a statement about your morality, as you claim. It can be merely a statement of fact, if you intentionally dive in with an illegal suit, or intentionally convert your 100 IM to a 100 fly. I haven't said anything about the ethics of it.

philoswimmer
May 6th, 2010, 08:24 PM
To be blunt (and I'll probably catch grief about this) I'm just not that impressed by this statement from someone who hasn't competed in five years. Just saying.


Really? Don't a lot of people come to Masters after a number of years of not competing?



Most people who suffer from "modesty" issues (or whatever you want to call it) don't seem to have a problem wearing much more revealing suits in practice; few of them wear full-coverage suits in practice. So why is it an issue for meets? The strangers who are present? This is an honest question, not a put-down.


What makes you so sure it's not an issue for practice? I recently was trying to talk a friend of mine to coming to a workout, but he didn't want to wear one of those "little suits."

Chris Stevenson
May 6th, 2010, 09:51 PM
Really? Don't a lot of people come to Masters after a number of years of not competing?

Sure. So?

I am all for increasing participation. But I suppose I am not willing to endure tech suits so that someone might compete in two meets every decade.

I am also not at all convinced that the suits increase participation, anyway; there is anecdotal information both ways.


What makes you so sure it's not an issue for practice? I recently was trying to talk a friend of mine to coming to a workout, but he didn't want to wear one of those "little suits."

I said "most people," one exception doesn't disprove my point. I have been to many, many masters practices. I can count on one hand the number of times I've been to a practice where a male wore a full body suit. Every once in awhile I'll see someone in swim trunks, though not in the faster lanes.

I'm not saying there aren't people with modesty issues. Those people usually find sports other than swimming to participate in.

philoswimmer
May 6th, 2010, 10:01 PM
Sure. So?

I am all for increasing participation. But I suppose I am not willing to endure tech suits so that someone might compete in two meets every decade.

I am also not at all convinced that the suits increase participation, anyway; there is anecdotal information both ways.


Again, I'm not discussing tech suits; I'm discussing non-tech suits that have more body coverage (the original question). I guess I have more sympathy for a person who is uncomfortable revealing a lot of skin than I do for a person who wants to go faster in a suit.



I said "most people," one exception doesn't disprove my point. I have been to many, many masters practices. I can count on one hand the number of times I've been to a practice where a male wore a full body suit. Every once in awhile I'll see someone in swim trunks, though not in the faster lanes.

I'm not saying there aren't people with modesty issues. Those people usually find sports other than swimming to participate in.

Sure, one example doesn't disprove your point. But maybe more would show up if they knew they didn't have to wear a tiny suit. I guess I'd rather encourage more participation by everyone, including those that are overweight or are in the slower lanes. I don't think it's necessary to say "find another sport" when we could just allow people to wear suits with more coverage.

pwolf66
May 6th, 2010, 10:24 PM
But maybe more would show up if they knew they didn't have to wear a tiny suit.



when we could just allow people to wear suits with more coverage.

Um, I'm confused. This seems to be a circular argument. If they don't know what is allowed, then why is what being allowed even relevant?

Chris Stevenson
May 6th, 2010, 11:32 PM
Again, I'm not discussing tech suits; I'm discussing non-tech suits that have more body coverage (the original question). I guess I have more sympathy for a person who is uncomfortable revealing a lot of skin than I do for a person who wants to go faster in a suit.

Sure, one example doesn't disprove your point. But maybe more would show up if they knew they didn't have to wear a tiny suit. I guess I'd rather encourage more participation by everyone, including those that are overweight or are in the slower lanes. I don't think it's necessary to say "find another sport" when we could just allow people to wear suits with more coverage.

I'm not seeing it. If this group of people is so modest that they need to cover their bodies in practice, where are they? I haven't seen them. There are no rules against wearing any body suit you want in practice, no barriers to participation in that manner.

So I guess you are talking about people who are okay with jammers or briefs in practice but not in meets. Again I ask: why would that be? It seems inconsistent to me.

I am not trying to be callous in saying "find another sport." I just think that people who participate in swimming tend to be those who are less embarrassed to be seen in (brace yourself) swim suits. Allowing woolen or cotton body suits would do little to broaden participation in swim meets, IMHO.

And I am happy to report that I see plenty of overweight people or people from the "slow lanes" in meets.

Bobinator
May 6th, 2010, 11:33 PM
What is a "farmer john" suit? :confused:

david.margrave
May 7th, 2010, 12:03 AM
There is bound to be confusion! I feel sorry for folks all around. The folks who shelled out a lot for the suits, the volunteers and officials running the meets who have to parse the new rules in excruciating hair-splitting detail, look for zippers, and be able to quickly perform legal/illegal classification before someone gets on the blocks, etc.

geochuck
May 7th, 2010, 04:31 AM
I worked out during my stay in Mexico this past winter, in a very modest heavy duty Jammer with a modesy panel. It soon became a very revelling suit and my wife decided it was to be put in the garbage :bouncing::bouncing::bouncing:

Chris Stevenson
May 7th, 2010, 10:57 AM
I worked out during my stay in Mexico this past winter, in a very modest heavy duty Jammer with a modesy panel. It soon became a very revelling suit and my wife decided it was to be put in the garbage :bouncing::bouncing::bouncing:

Freudian slip, George? Exactly what kind of beach was this? :)

rev·el [rev-uhl] Show IPA verb,-eled, -el·ing or (especially British) -elled, -el·ling, noun
–verb (used without object)
1. to take great pleasure or delight
2. to make merry; indulge in boisterous festivities.

geochuck
May 7th, 2010, 11:32 AM
You are right I meant to say revealing, some at the pool did want to

1. to take great pleasure or delight
2. to make merry; indulge in boisterous festivities.

My meaning was to be Revealing (Clothing & Fashion) showing or designed to show more of the body than is usual or conventional a revealing costume
revealingly adv



Freudian slip, George? Exactly what kind of beach was this? :)

rev·el [rev-uhl] Show IPA verb,-eled, -el·ing or (especially British) -elled, -el·ling, noun
–verb (used without object)
1. to take great pleasure or delight
2. to make merry; indulge in boisterous festivities.

philoswimmer
May 7th, 2010, 11:59 AM
Um, I'm confused. This seems to be a circular argument. If they don't know what is allowed, then why is what being allowed even relevant?

There's nothing circular about my argument unless you completely misread it. But hey, if you'd rather engage in pointless quibbles than think about what might make the sport more attractive to more people, go for it.

aquageek
May 7th, 2010, 12:18 PM
There's nothing circular about my argument unless you completely misread it. But hey, if you'd rather engage in pointless quibbles than think about what might make the sport more attractive to more people, go for it.

You can wear whatever you want to practice, where you will spend the vast majority of your time. And, considering 99.99% of swimmers wear some style of speedo, your argument falls very flat.

The Fortress
May 7th, 2010, 01:19 PM
I think the other issue of fairness for "equal coverage" for men and women is silly. Life isn't fair, and I think generally women get the short end of the stick more than men, so I don't mind a reversal here. Aside from the issue of modesty (which requires upper body coverage for women), it is harder for most fit women to be streamlined than fit men, for obvious reasons, so unequal coverage seems warranted.

Right on!

Men have been downright whiney on this subject! And, aside from the "obvious" issues, they don't even have to worry about AF ruining a meet. :bolt:

That Guy
May 7th, 2010, 02:00 PM
You can wear whatever you want to practice

No. See Swim Rant thread. The man in the pink thong. It's much worse than I've described. There are things I wish I didn't know.

Novaova
May 7th, 2010, 02:40 PM
If I were in charge of a meet and some guy who hasn't competed in five years asked for a lane to do his own thing, I'd firmly but politely tell him to go away, because I have a meet to run.

Of course, if it were a really, really small and intimate meet where there's just a dozen or so competitors total and we planned to have the whole thing knocked out in just an hour or so, I might find a way to make it happen, but just once as an extra-special favor. If the meet were any larger, hell no.

philoswimmer
May 7th, 2010, 03:27 PM
You can wear whatever you want to practice, where you will spend the vast majority of your time. And, considering 99.99% of swimmers wear some style of speedo, your argument falls very flat.

Wow, you've polled Masters swimmers across the country? I counted four swimmers today wearing "rash guards" (not me, by the way -- I just wear an ordinary women's suit).

I don't mean to argue this to death -- I'm just a little surprised at why there is so much resistance to the idea of allowing people to wear suits with more coverage, and why people seem to think you need to wear the appropriate suit or hit the road. Again, this isn't about tech suits -- I'm not a proponent of tech suits, although I can see the argument on both sides.

aztimm
May 7th, 2010, 04:01 PM
Wow, you've polled Masters swimmers across the country? I counted four swimmers today wearing "rash guards" (not me, by the way -- I just wear an ordinary women's suit).

I don't mean to argue this to death -- I'm just a little surprised at why there is so much resistance to the idea of allowing people to wear suits with more coverage, and why people seem to think you need to wear the appropriate suit or hit the road. Again, this isn't about tech suits -- I'm not a proponent of tech suits, although I can see the argument on both sides.

Four swimmers wearing rashguards to a masters workout on the same day? Where was this?

In 12+ years of swimming with masters teams, I have yet to see a single person wear a rashguard or other top for modesty reasons. I have however seen people wear wetsuits, in preparation for open water swimming.

Chris Stevenson
May 7th, 2010, 06:53 PM
It is a little difficult to separate the issue of "body coverage" for modesty purposes, and performance-enhancing suits. There are lots of men's body suits out there, and I believe all of them have claimed to make you swim faster. So people are going to object to them on that basis.

But let's consider a thought experiment for a minute. Let's just say that, for one large regional meet (say, a Zone Championship), t-shirts were allowed for modesty purposes. I doubt anyone would worry about performance enhancement, and a t-shirt would seem to be as good as any body suit in covering whatever parts causes people to be uncomfortable.

How many swimmers do you think would show up and compete in a t-shirt? My guess would be zero.

I don't even know what a "rash guard" is, so I don't think I've ever seen someone wear one to a masters practice (in over 20 years of participating in them). The only time I've ever seen body suits (tech suits, wetsuits) in practice is when people are trying them out, pre-race.

People who are apt to wear "rash guards" or t-shirts or whatever to swim practices for modesty purposes -- the same sort of person who might wear swim trunks to practice -- are very unlikely to compete in a swim meet no matter what the suit rules are.

That's just my opinion, of course. And without real data, that's all anyone has to offer on this thread as far as I can tell.

geochuck
May 7th, 2010, 07:03 PM
Here are some rash gaurd suits. http://www.swimoutlet.com/Rash_Guards_s/393.htm

Lee Rider
May 10th, 2010, 12:12 PM
Hi Lee -
I was looking forward to seeing you again in Atlanta. I'm glad your back is better and that your swimming is coming along. Puerto Rico is around the corner and I hope you can make that meet.

Best wishes,
Philipp

Thanks Phil: Was looking forward to seeing you there too but cannot make it. I do have a good friend and former teammate, Rafi Gonzales, who lives down there. I have visited him 3 or 4 times and he always puts me up (on the beach in Isla Verde!) so I may go, but I suck at LCM. Bill is going. I am swimming for Santa Rosa Masters now and see you are swimming for a Florida team? We need to get the WR relay back together when it is attainable.

Lee

Karen Duggan
May 10th, 2010, 12:49 PM
We have a lot of people wearing rash guards at our workouts. Too much sun. I see people wearing bikinis with not much to them, jammers, tech suits, rash guards over suits (and these people don't need to hide anything), and regular 'ol suits.

It doesn't matter what you wear to practice.

It does matter what you wear to a meet though.

I was really surprised to see a guy this weekend wearing a full body suit with arms covered too. I thought this was illegal. What cracked me up was he had this suit on, but had a big bandaid on his thumb that was not secured very well! All this effort for less drag and this band aid was was definitely dragging.

I am of the persuasion that the damage has been done (to the record books anyway) with tech suits, so masters should just keep 'em. :bolt:

There are some people who are truly trippin' on the fact that they have to go back to regular suits. They are not happy. Someone tried to convince me that I would hate life w/out my tech suit, that I wouldn't swim as fast, etc. until I told them that I haven't come close to my best times (save the 1650) with a tech suit. "Oh," was the end of the conversation. (There was an advantage to having 4 kids in the last decade when swimsuits evolved!)

BillS
May 12th, 2010, 05:31 PM
Lee Raises a good question....

Does the rule absolutely "prevent" him from swimming in the meet, or does it "disqualify" his results if he swims with his suit?

In short, could he still swim but not place? (Not suggesting he would WANT to do this, just wondering if he CAN do this?)

My team is hosting an SCM meet this weekend. One of my buddies who will be going to Atlanta asked if he could wear his B70 for the 50 back. He knows it's not legal and that he will be DQ'd, but he wanted to get a race pace practice swim in it. The meet director emailed the referee, and got this response:


We are supposed to prevent swimmers from using the suit. If we catch them before the race, we are supposed to tell them to change to a legal suit or they can't swim. If we catch it after the race has started, then we have to DQ them.

Lee Rider
May 13th, 2010, 02:52 AM
I suppose one way that it makes sense is if it is difficult to distinguish a "non-tech" from a "tech" suit. For men, anyway, the rule as written is relatively easy to enforce. You can also argue that even non-tech body suits provide a competitive advantage by making a flabby person more streamlined through compression.

As far as discouraging participation, based on the heated arguments from both camps I think you can argue that any rule regulating or allowing swim suits will do that one way or another.

To be blunt (and I'll probably catch grief about this) I'm just not that impressed by this statement from someone who hasn't competed in five years. Just saying.

Most people who suffer from "modesty" issues (or whatever you want to call it) don't seem to have a problem wearing much more revealing suits in practice; few of them wear full-coverage suits in practice. So why is it an issue for meets? The strangers who are present? This is an honest question, not a put-down.

There are definitely times where I'm not always proud of my physique, but the bottom line is that swimming is simply not the sport of choice for those who are ashamed of their bodies.

I think the other issue of fairness for "equal coverage" for men and women is silly. Life isn't fair, and I think generally women get the short end of the stick more than men, so I don't mind a reversal here. Aside from the issue of modesty (which requires upper body coverage for women), it is harder for most fit women to be streamlined than fit men, for obvious reasons, so unequal coverage seems warranted.

Wow: Actually, I feel worse for you guys getting beaten by a fat guy! I can say that with authority; swimming right at a minute for the 100 breaststroke in my late '40's and getting beaten exactly three times in 7 events at 3 SCY Nationals (2 times after spinal surgery in '05), 5 national and 2 world records, as well as beating Roque Santos in the 100 breast at Pac Masters SCY 12 years his senior (though I was tapered and he wasn't). So, after 2 spinal surgeries, a little weight gain to augment an already prodigious body, I guess I'll just have to swim a meet this year at the age of 54 (which I was planning on doing any way).

I didn't start this thread to discuss cheating, rules, etc. I didn't consider not swimming another meet because of the suit changes, but I thought that if the changes would discourage just one person from competing because of body issues, and that one meet could change that person's life, the new rules just weren't worth it. I would think that the USMS would be more inclusive than that.

I just don't understand why masters swimming has to go along with the FINA non-masters rules. Could it be that one could qualify for a senior national meet at a masters event, so the same rules for suits would be needed? This seems odd since there are some masters rules (breaststroke kick in the butterfly comes to mind) would disqualify you in a senior meet.

The comment "the bottom line is that swimming is simply not the sport of choice for those who are ashamed of their bodies" is really repugnant. I guess getting your ass kicked in a race while looking good is more important than providing an opportunity for an overweight person to feel just a little better about themselves on the blocks.

'nuff said.

Chris Stevenson
May 13th, 2010, 09:52 AM
The comment "the bottom line is that swimming is simply not the sport of choice for those who are ashamed of their bodies" is really repugnant.

Why? It is simply an observation that such people generally tend not to be the ones who wear form-fitting competition suits by choice. They may prefer sports like running, where you are fully clothed. I have no opinion on whether this is a good or bad thing; it is a personal preference, not a moral issue.

I've seen plenty of fast overweight people. I am neither more nor less impressed by them (or you) than any other fast person.

By the way, I do not equate "being ashamed of your body" with "being overweight." They are not the same, and plenty of overweight people have no problem wearing jammers or briefs. I have also seen plenty of skinny people who are nevertheless very self-conscious of their body.

knelson
May 13th, 2010, 10:37 AM
Lee, one thing you might not realize is this topic has been rehashed over and over again for about the last two or more years on this forum. People had good arguments both for and against the suits, but I think at this point most of realize the die has been cast and we just want to move on. So if some people seem to be a little snippy about this that's one reason why.

thewookiee
May 13th, 2010, 10:54 AM
Lee, one thing you might not realize is this topic has been rehashed over and over again for about the last two or more years on this forum. People had good arguments both for and against the suits, but I think at this point most of realize the die has been cast and we just want to move on. So if some people seem to be a little snippy about this that's one reason why.

Agreed. I was one of those in favor of keeping coverage, even if it were farmer john style suits. The ruling bodies made their decision. Time to move on.

orca1946
May 13th, 2010, 11:27 AM
Why do women get to wear farmer johns & guys do not ? :confused:

Chris Stevenson
May 13th, 2010, 11:52 AM
Why do women get to wear farmer johns & guys do not ? :confused:

Two reasons.

BillS
May 13th, 2010, 12:01 PM
Two reasons.

Two of my favorite reasons.

scyfreestyler
May 13th, 2010, 12:12 PM
Wow: Actually, I feel worse for you guys getting beaten by a fat guy! I can say that with authority; swimming right at a minute for the 100 breaststroke in my late '40's and getting beaten exactly three times in 7 events at 3 SCY Nationals (2 times after spinal surgery in '05), 5 national and 2 world records, as well as beating Roque Santos in the 100 breast at Pac Masters SCY 12 years his senior (though I was tapered and he wasn't). So, after 2 spinal surgeries, a little weight gain to augment an already prodigious body, I guess I'll just have to swim a meet this year at the age of 54 (which I was planning on doing any way).







Can I get you to autograph my swim cap?

ourswimmer
May 13th, 2010, 12:23 PM
Lee, one thing you might not realize is this topic has been rehashed over and over again for about the last two or more years on this forum.

Alas, however, the masters swimming community did not have input on this question from anyone with real swimming skillz, and had to settle for the opinions of noodlers like Chris Stevenson, Jeff Commings, Erik Hochstein, and The Fortress.

thewookiee
May 13th, 2010, 12:28 PM
Alas, however, the masters swimming community did not have input on this question from anyone with real swimming skillz, and had to settle for the opinions of noodlers like Chris Stevenson, Jeff Commings, Erik Hochstein, and The Fortress.

I do hope your comments toward the aboved mention are a joke.

geochuck
May 13th, 2010, 12:29 PM
Train in what you want. If you are required to wear an approved suit in your races wear one. If you need a modesty panel and they allow you to, wear one wear it. The modesty panel in most suits is not a speed enhancer. You can actually buy a FINA appproved suit at a resonable price. Of course some approved swimwear is very expensive.

Redbird Alum
May 13th, 2010, 01:36 PM
My team is hosting an SCM meet this weekend. One of my buddies who will be going to Atlanta asked if he could wear his B70 for the 50 back. He knows it's not legal and that he will be DQ'd, but he wanted to get a race pace practice swim in it. The meet director emailed the referee, and got this response:...

Thanks... Finally, a response from an official!!

tjrpatt
May 13th, 2010, 01:52 PM
Yeah, I think that it is time to move on from the suits, like 5 months when the final day of the cheating suits was announced. Use them for training if they are still good, but if they are worn out, burn those puppies!!!

Chris Stevenson
May 13th, 2010, 02:48 PM
I do hope your comments toward the aboved mention are a joke.

I'm certain the poster was being sarcastic, but without a "sarcasm emoticon" it is hard to tell, isn't it? For example, consider the following:

"The ability to conceal thewookiee's overly-hairy body is perhaps the strongest argument I've heard for keeping the full-body tech suits!"

Sarcastic? Serious? Or just plain right? You decide. :bolt:

swimshark
May 13th, 2010, 02:55 PM
I'm certain the poster was being sarcastic, but without a "sarcasm emoticon" it is hard to tell, isn't it? For example, consider the following:

"The ability to conceal thewookiee's overly-hairy body is perhaps the strongest argument I've heard for keeping the full-body tech suits!"

Sarcastic? Serious? Or just plain right? You decide. :bolt:

They don't make a suit thick enough for that.

thewookiee
May 13th, 2010, 03:01 PM
I'm certain the poster was being sarcastic, but without a "sarcasm emoticon" it is hard to tell, isn't it? For example, consider the following:

"The ability to conceal thewookiee's overly-hairy body is perhaps the strongest argument I've heard for keeping the full-body tech suits!"

Sarcastic? Serious? Or just plain right? You decide. :bolt:


They don't make a suit thick enough for that.

Both of you can kiss hairy :mooning:

aquageek
May 13th, 2010, 03:07 PM
Both of you can kiss hairy :mooning:

When the thread turns to wookie's backside I think we can say it has run full course.

Oh, the humanity.

Jazz Hands
May 13th, 2010, 03:19 PM
Why would you want to swim in a meet and not have the results count?
Just asking. I wouldn't.

I do this all the time. Like, swimming freestyle races butterfly. It works out fine. I know how fast I swam.

pwolf66
May 13th, 2010, 03:22 PM
I do this all the time. Like, swimming freestyle races butterfly. It works out fine. I know how fast I swam.

Jazz, gotta call you on this one. Swimming butterfly in a freestyle race is perfectly legal and the results count, just not as butterfly results.

pwolf66
May 13th, 2010, 03:24 PM
They don't make a suit thick enough for that.

Game


Set


MATCH!!!!

thewookiee
May 13th, 2010, 03:25 PM
When the thread turns to wookie's backside I think we can say it has run full course.

Oh, the humanity.

You are jealous that my backside looks better than your frontside.

pwolf66
May 13th, 2010, 03:32 PM
Sorry, Wookiee, you are done in this thread. Move on, nothing left for you here.

thewookiee
May 13th, 2010, 03:33 PM
Sorry, Wookiee, you are done in this thread. Move on, nothing left for you here.

This is between leeky and myself. Don't you have to go hibernate for awhile longer?

pwolf66
May 13th, 2010, 03:36 PM
This is between leeky and myself. Don't you have to go hibernate for awhile longer?

I wasn't referring to you get owned by Geek, SwimShark blew you out of the water.

stillwater
May 13th, 2010, 03:37 PM
The past mantra from techies was, "You're swimming against yourself, leave us alone. We're not hurting anybody." Interesting to see the switch.

At first I thought, I don't give a hoot if someone wears an illegal suit. They will be disqualified anyway.

But, after some thought, I care. I don't want to see people wearing fins, paddles, pull bouys, watches, or other aids in competition.


Now if we can just add the asterisks.

swimshark
May 13th, 2010, 03:45 PM
I wasn't referring to you get owned by Geek, SwimShark blew you out of the water.

I'll take that. :banana::banana:

pwolf66
May 13th, 2010, 03:50 PM
The past mantra from techies was, "You're swimming against yourself, leave us alone. We're not hurting anybody." Interesting to see the switch.


What switch? I haven't switched, nor have many of the other pro-suit folks that I know, but at this point the rules are the rules. And wearing unapproved swimwear in a sanctioned competition is against the rules. Diving in for a butterfly race intending to swim freestyle is also against the but at least the race starts with the presumption that you intend to follow the rules. Wearing approved swimwear fails that check.

I don't like the ruling, I voiced my point of view to appropriate folks but it is the ruling so now I'm trying to deal with it by building a better boat.

The Fortress
May 13th, 2010, 03:51 PM
The past mantra from techies was, "You're swimming against yourself, leave us alone. We're not hurting anybody." Interesting to see the switch.



I never said "we're not hurting anybody." That would have been way too defensive for someone wearing perfectly legal suits.

Don't hold your breath on the asterisks.

stillwater
May 13th, 2010, 04:07 PM
Don't hold your breath on the asterisks.


Fortress*,

I won't.