CHICAGO, Illinois, September 19. AT its annual Convention on Saturday, more than 400 USA Swimming Delegates, representing swim clubs from all 50 states, voted overwhelmingly for early implementation of a ban on high-tech swimsuits. The legislation, which will go into effect on October 1, regulates swimsuits worn in all USA Swimming–sanctioned competitions.
The Amendment to Rule 102.9 reads, in part:
"All swimsuits shall be made from textile materials. For men, the swimsuit shall not extend above the navel nor below the knees, and for women, shall not cover the neck, extend past the shoulder, nor extend below the knee."
Textile fabric is defined as material consisting of natural and/or synthetic, individual and non-consolidated yarns used to constitute a fabric by weaving, knitting and/or braiding.
The legislation will go into effect here in the U.S. three months before FINA, swimming's international governing body, is expected to implement the same rule for international competition.
"As an organization, we have been working with FINA and other swimming nations to find a solution that will ensure a fair and even playing field for all swimmers, and that will ultimately advance the best interests of our sport," said Chuck Wielgus, USA Swimming Executive Director. "With Saturday's vote, our membership has sent a clear message that it wanted this action taken sooner, rather than later. We hope that this action will put the emphasis back where it belongs – on our athletes, their training and hard work."
The regulation will apply to all levels of USA Swimming meets.
The full text of this legislation will be posted on www.usaswimming.org and communicated to members of USA Swimming on Monday.
The above article is a press release submitted to Swimming World Magazine. It has been posted in its entirety without editing. Swimming World offers all outlets the chance to reach our audience by contacting us at Newsmaster@swimmingworldmagazine.com. However, Swimming World reserves the right to choose what material is posted.
Search For More News About: Chuck Wielgus
Reaction Time Comments
Reaction Time responses do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions
of Swimming World Magazine or SwimmingWorldMagazine.com.
Reaction Time is provided as a service to our readers.
September 19, 2009 Good Job! Now we are in a complete uneven playing field. So let me ask them who is going to go to the world cups now? Submitted by: swimfan3
September 19, 2009 In my opinion this is," I'm not letting my swimmer ever swim against those suits again." As I recall isn't that how Bob Bowman put it. Well I guess he made that decision for all U.S.A swimming. Submitted by: swimfan3
September 19, 2009 I won't compete at the masters level in 2010 if suits are banned, nor will I join the USMS in 2010! Submitted by: Groovydoo
September 19, 2009 While they're at it, they should ban shaving down, effective immediately! Swimming should be defined by hard work and suffering. Anything that might alleviate drag means swimmers will no longer work hard to earn their times.
Every day this kind of stupidity continues, it drives me closer to cycling or some other sport. The frustration of moving goalposts and inconsistent rules driven by hysterical reactions rather than sound thinking has taken the joy out of the whole thing. I love swimming but I'm beginning to hate the sport. I'm just about ready to throw in the towel and leave it to the morons and dinosaurs to sort out the mess they've made. Submitted by: fluidg
September 19, 2009 I agreed with "fluidg". Couldn't have been better said. Also, I agreed Bowman and Schbert made the deceision for everyone. It doesn't surprise the vote was "overwhelmingly". You got to remember, this is the "good o'le boy" network. If one doesn't play along, he doesn't get to play.
Remember how some of these coaches complained about the cost and not being a level field. Well, our monthly fees, membership fees and entry fees just went up to an annual sum approxiamtely $650 for each of our swimmers. It didn't take the club coaches long to take the money going for these hi tech swimsuit and put it into their pockets.
I'd like to know if others are facing the same $$ increase as well. Submitted by: speedboat
September 19, 2009 Glad to see some reasonable parameters have been laid down. Too bad the issues been driven to this point. Submitted by: sparkycrane
September 19, 2009 Hey fluidg, I am actually thinking of doing a triathlon and some relay tris next year since the USTA cares more concerned about the "fun factor" rather than the "Phelps/Bowman factor." Submitted by: Groovydoo
September 20, 2009 Without an appropriate list of permissible suits from FINA which may or may not arrive by 2010, there will be some shenanigans on deck. I don't live in the world of litigation but there will be trouble ahead.
I believe that everyone would have been better served by USA Swimming if it went along with FINA's timetable. My guess is that everyone will be wearing tech suits in international competition anyway. A slightly inclined level playing field!
However I think that FINA will eventually decide to issue parameters that will allow the limited reintroduction of technical suits of some description. They were obviously content with the LZR when it made its debut but without adequate guidelines it blew up in their faces. They just need to work out those guidelines. Submitted by: Godolphin
September 20, 2009 I thinking of getting a suit for SC Nationals. Without a list, I'd hate to spend $240 on a knee high suit only to have some official tell me its not legal and there is no list. Are thongs ok? Submitted by: blue.water
September 20, 2009 I thinking of getting a suit for SC Nationals. Without a list, I'd hate to spend $240 on a knee high suit only to have some official tell me its not legal and there is no list. Are thongs ok? Submitted by: blue.water
September 20, 2009 Haha, go ahead... Cycling, triathlon. While you're at it, why don't you "promote" yourself to Formula 1 where the equipment is even more costly and will do ALL the work for you? No need to then feel inadequate because your own body and talent aren't good enough.
When you grow up and realize the suits are no less a piece of equipment than a monofin, then you're welcome back! :) Submitted by: JakedBadForYou
September 20, 2009 Cycling more costly? Ha! To belong to my cycling club costs a whopping $60 annually, which includes a team jersey. Training fees? $0. Lots of people complain about the cost of the newest tech suits in swimming even though body suits have been a central part of swimming for a decade. I love how people say swimming is a non-equipment sport. What is the single most essential and extremely expensive piece of equipment? The pool, of course. Unless you ride on a track, there's nothing is cycling with that kind of monster price tag. And your assertion that a suit propels you like a monofin is evidence that you are not playing with a full deck. But don't let the facts get in the way of your beliefs. Submitted by: fluidg
September 20, 2009 I was a delegate for Iowa Swimming Inc. at the USA-Swimming convention In Chicago as Sr. Coach Representative. I voted "yea" along with most of the membership to help the majority of the sport. Three things played into why I voted the way I did. 1. These suits are producing a problem on my team for single income and low-income families who had kids over the age of 13 or 14 years old. 2. These suits took away from the tradtional tennents of the sport I have been involved with for over 20 years as an athlete and coach (mainly - training and technique). 3. These suits were very cool but they took away the focus on the athlete, coach, and clubs that the produced the swims.
I was not influenced by Mark Schubert or Bob Bowman. I have the upmost respect for both men as coaches but I was influenced ONLY by the swimmers in the sport who were coming along in the age-group ranks and the time frame we had for this short course season (before the FINA Jan. 1st date). We needed to address the suits AND we had to pick a date that would allow FINA time to define "textiles" (which comes up later this month). This was not USA-Swimming handing this down to the membership - this was the coaches and athletes and a broad cross-section of representatives of the sport from many LSC's voting to do this. The sooner these suits left the sport the better for all of us. FINA made a mess of this at the international level and we (USA-S membership) had a hand in cleaning it up at the local and national level.
I was very proud of how the democratic process worked for USA-Swimming on Saturday in IL. and I was glad to be part of all of it.
Donald P. Spellman
Head Coach - Iowa City Eels Swim Club
President - Iowa Swimming Coaches Association Submitted by: thedon
September 21, 2009 Ya, Not the NISCA or USA Swimming or Fina has published which suits are legal only the ones that are not. So name some brands and models so we can start buying more new suits and spend more money, isnt this what it is all about.10 years from now the fast suits will have been reintroduced and also will be the dinasour of newer suits. We should keep the suits Submitted by: askme10
September 21, 2009 Spellman, so you past a rule with little or no guidelines. Everyone knows what a brief, jammer or knee hi suit is. So what is legal outside the polyurethane suits?? Textile fabric material covers a wide range of material. If i asked you tell me what suits are legal, I don't think you have an answer. You're waiting on some list from FINA which you just "shot down" as creating a big mess and USA Swimming is cleaning it up. Sounds like you're confused. Now everyone is waiting on a list from the "Devil" himself. And, if you don't like the list what are you going to do about it? Threaten to pull your top swimmers out of the FINA meets? Next three months some will buy a suit and be disqualified because some official at the meet has his / her on opinion of what is a fabric material.
I just talked to our club coach who just got back from Chicago. He has no idea and its best just to wait till next summer to get a suit and swim in a practice type suit.
Seem to me, you guys just created a bigger mess by not following FINA's time line without explict instructions. Submitted by: blue.water
September 21, 2009 So where is the approved swim suit list I doubt anyone knows. Submitted by: askme10
September 21, 2009 With a name like "JakedBadForYou" and phrases like "HaHaHa" to make a point; that really showed us!? Submitted by: Groovydoo
September 21, 2009 JakeBadForYou seem to have a problem over people swimming in polyurethane suits. I'm not a fan of them, I prefer the LZR technology as a step in advancing the suit technology.Going back to 1996 technology is a little extreme. Its like shooting a duck 10 times to kill it when it only takes one to do the job.
askme10...where are the suits?? These coaches are just a bunch of sheep following their leader. If one goes over the cliff they all follow. Their Plan B,C,D sounds like "confusion". But what do you really expect from a bunch of "jocks"..
I'm waiting for one to tell us the "Rest of the Story" Submitted by: blue.water
September 21, 2009 We know that these factors on the suits from FINA:
1. These suits are going to be certain lengths on the body (up jammers for men and neck to knee to neck for females). FINA voted on those in Rome and the international coaches had influence on that vote.
2. These suits will be made of limited thickness on fabric except for the seams and stiching areas. FINA has the actual thickness requirements already approved (which you can find on thier website). The suits have to be under 1mm thick for the majority of the fabric and there can not be any material or matted products on top of the fabric (such as the panels on the LZR).
3. My fellow delegates and I got rid of these old suits - the tech. suits we all saw in Rome AND China in 2008 - in one clean break for the entire short course season. We avoided having half a season under a different set of rules and we avoided having swimmers (most swimmers, not the pros) going out to purchase these things in time for Jr. and Sr. Short Course Nationals (not to mention buying the products to get into the meet in October or November).
4. FINA is under new leadership, FINA affilated NGB and National team coaches are now involved, and we have the blueprint there for how to proceed. I don't see how, if you actually do a little more homework blue.water, there are little to no "guidelines" on this. FINA will be defining the term "textile" before the Oct. 1st date that USA-Swimming established.
I do not fully trust FINA either (like any political organization) but the process to get rid of these suits has already started and it will take time to play out. The other coaches and I did what we could (on a demoestic level) at our convention to fix this problem.
DP Spellman Submitted by: thedon
September 21, 2009 ok "thedon"..answer this. Does FS PRO & FSII meet the FINA guidelines? Submitted by: blue.water
September 21, 2009 thedon: "the guidelines" comes from a quote from President Woods stating on official concentrating on the shape of the suit and not its material over the next three months. Any moron can tell the shape, but what is in the material is another question and more confusion. So what happens if a swimmers comes out in a FS PRO on Oct 4th and meets the shape requirements? Submitted by: blue.water
September 21, 2009 Hello - I talked with people (both before and at the convention) and both companies told me FINA will have a list done before Sept. is over (I do not recall the exact date but that played into the Rules and Regualtion Comm. AND the Coaches picking the Oct. 1st date). This did not come from Pres. Wood but from people who actually deal with the suits (and make them and sell them) and those people who will actually have to regulate the new suit rules at meets.
My gut feeling (after talking a bit with Nike's rep. Nelson Diebel - 1992 Olympic gold medalist and a cool guy by the way) is that FS Pro and FSI materials will be approved. The FS II suits are an issue due to the side panels being a different material but I am sure Speedo will submit them and see what happens. Nelson showed me the Nike prototype (and former suits - I think the Hydra models will be OK) but the Swifts will have issues due to the silicone strips. Give Nike or Speedo or TYR a call and have them talk to you (or send them an e-mail). They all have an idea of what they will be realeasing in the short term. What is going away is multiple panels and blocks of materials or "coated" materials like we have seen the last two years from the LZR to the Jaked.
Take a deep breath, chill out, and let this play out a bit blue.water - we will know what materials are OK in a few days. FINA said it will be done before the Oct. 1st that USA-Swimming voted on.
DP Spellman Submitted by: thedon
September 21, 2009 "thedon": Everyone waits for the list. Its published and 200,000 orders for these suits go out on the same day for these suits. I don't think the manufactures will be able to fill these orders before the National & Juniors. It'll be like when Speedo introduced the LZR, FSII & FS PRO, had to wait several months if you weren't one of the lucky ones. I'm sure someone in your group brought up that question, what is their production time table? Submitted by: blue.water
September 21, 2009 blue.water - A swimmer showing up at a meet in October 4th with an FS Pro suit that does not have legs and meets the gender required suit cut requirements will be OK to swim in a meet. I do not think - along with the majority of those I talked to the past three months - that the FS Pro materials are going to be a problem.
My question as a coach would be why would you be wearing a fast suit like that at an early season meet? I would tell my swimmers to change back into a lycra suit for any meet in Oct. Heck - there are not even Grand Prix meets until Nov. anyway. Those would be the first meets (other than High School championship meets) that suits like that should really be used that much.
DP Spellman Submitted by: thedon
September 21, 2009 "thedon"...It was just a hypotical question. Our top swimmers never went to an LZR, PRO or FSII until was a State Championship Meet, National or Juniors Meet. It was like an unwritten rule among the swimmers, everyone wore what everyone else wore. Its like someone not wanting to over dress for a party and stand out. Submitted by: blue.water
September 21, 2009 blue.water - you are totally right on that point about what will be available for sale in the short term. I am less worried about the Jr. and Sr. SCY National swimmers as when I had athletes at the big meets before we have access to those suits by the companies present at the meet (which in my club's case was Speedo and TYR in the past). In fact - at the 1999 LC Nationals we got a suit at the meet from the Speedo rep. when our original suit did not fit the athlete. At Olympic Trials in 2008 my athlete had no problem getting a suit for his event (and time trial events) from both Speedo and other companies at the meet. At the time my club had a Speedo contract and they took care of him well.
I was present with two swimmers at the MO. Grand Prix and the LZR's came out that weekend. That was the start of this mess and it was hard to get those prototype suits LOANED to us even at that meet (since my kids were not on a high profile time and they were not seeded in the top 8 in any events). The distribution problem will take some time to solve. I have already talked to Splash Mulitsport (who my club works with) about what to expect for the next few months.
The main issue I saw was the amount of coverage by materials - other than "textiles" - that was going to be legal prior to Jan. 1st. We will not see anymore swimmers in "spiderman" outfits at USA-Swimming sanctioned meets this season. I also feel that most non-profession swimmers and the college swimmers will be purchasing these suits for meets in March and Feb. We have a decent amount of time there for all the suit companies to get going on production if you look at that time frame. There will only be a handful or swimmers at SCY National meets who need these in December (one of them will be on my team) so I will have to deal with that issue too. I knew that before I voted.
DP Spellman Submitted by: thedon
September 21, 2009 To everyone - the tech. suits will be OK to use at FINA sanctioned events until the Jan. 1st deadline. If a swimmer from the USA wishes to swim in those events they are OK to wear the same suits as everyone else until Jan. 1st.
Then the whole world should be back on a normal playing field new regulations in place for materials and suit cut lines.
DPS Submitted by: thedon
September 21, 2009 "thedon" When the list comes out every team / swimmer that has their championship meets from October through March will be ordering because of what they went through in the past. I'm sure as sure as the sun will come up tomorrow there will a huge backlog creating more problems. At some State meets that are held in October through November, some will have approved suits and others will be in their practice suits. Not a level playing field? The manufactures should "ear mark" a certain number of suits for those meets through a local distributor so as to level the field at these early meets. Hopefully, we'll get ours suits prior to the National & Junior National. Later, thanks for the info Submitted by: blue.water
September 21, 2009 Question for 'thedon' What happens when the US swimmer in a FINA sanctioned meet breaks an American record in a tech suit? Will the record be recognized?
I applaud the vote and understand the reasoning but feel that it would have been wiser to have followed FINA's schedule. We have merely created more uncertainty for swimmers, coaches and officials. Submitted by: Godolphin
September 21, 2009 GoDolphin, you should have been their project manager for this transition. The answer is an obvious. "ooops , we never thought of that!" Submitted by: groovydoo
September 21, 2009 Groovydoo: My guess is that it was discussed but that for the few that it may potentially affect it wasn't considered material to the decision. "We'll cross that bridge when we come to it".
It's just that when considering a level playing field I prefer everything to be equal. Submitted by: Godolphin
September 21, 2009 USA Swimming followed what Canada and some other NGB's for swimming are doing to address our meets for the SC season and put rules into play before pre-season meets hit. The fact that the high school federation and the NCAA already addressed this made it an immediate issue for this House of Delegates meeting at convention.
Godolphin - that is a good question. My gut feeling is the record will be ratified if it is done at a FINA sanctioned meet under CURRENT FINA rules. The key to your question is the sanctioning and who is running the meet.
Keep checking the FINA site for updates on the defintion of "textiles" this month. I agree that there will be some issues with distribution and sales but the sport will be better for it in time for the LC season this summer which will include some important meets concerning both age-group (up to Zones) and national level swimmers. Since the Olympics is held in 50 meter pools we need to take a hard look timing this all around the long course season. We need to focus the time-table for the suits on Long Course season and use this short course period as a transition.
DP Spellman Submitted by: thedon
September 21, 2009 USA Swimming followed what was in their best interests only! There job is to rake in gold metals and make swimming bigger in the the United States. They have 300k members plus.
The United States Triathlon body has almost half that and those members love to spend money.
Taking away speedsuits does not grow swimming but leaves in place the Australian/USA dominance of the sport.
Taking speedsuits out the equation may not hurt USA Swimming but the sport of swimming will suffer greatly and have fewer sponsors, the racers laughed at for wearing "speedos," and swimming will be as relevant to the sports section as a swanky game of chess in a country I cannot spell.
No profit centers mean no growth! Submitted by: groovydoo
September 21, 2009 USA Swimming followed what was in their best interests only! Their job is to rake in gold metals and make swimming bigger in the United States. They have 300k members plus.
The United States Triathlon body has almost half that and those members love to spend money.
Taking away speedsuits does not grow swimming but leaves in place the Australian/USA dominance of the sport.
Taking speedsuits out the equation may not hurt USA Swimming but the sport of swimming will suffer greatly and have fewer sponsors, the racers laughed at for wearing "speedos," and swimming will be as relevant to the sports section as a swanky game of chess in a country I cannot spell.
No profit centers mean no growth! Submitted by: groovydoo
September 21, 2009 What about the idea of following the rules? There must be a philosophical basis for how rules are established and modified, and that philosophy cannot be violated because it is inconvenient. It's the same idea as the rule of law. We've enter the murky waters of a rule making process distorted by politics (Schubert) and sensationalism (Lord) rather than one guided by the fundamental and historic underpinnings of the sport. Just at the moment when swimming had its opportunity to come of age, it has made a mockery of itself and discredited its own past and future. As a lifelong swimmer, it is demoralizing to witness. Submitted by: fluidg
September 21, 2009 thedon, you all didn't fix any problems. You only made a big mess bigger and more complicated. Getting rid of something that has been rightfully accepted as part of the sport for 10 years doesn't solve anything. It only undermines the past decade and the next one. Way to go. You all should give yourselves the same award you gave to Craig Lord. Apparently you mean well, but you are partly responsible for ruining the sport. Restoring swimming's credibility is going to be a long and painful process. Just wait. Submitted by: fluidg
September 21, 2009 I did not for for a NGB in the USA (or AUS). I voted in the best interests of the swimmers and sport. This is a bit about money too. I don't want to have high school and college aged kids having to fork over $1000 per year for suits AND I did not want to have kids who love the sport LEAVE the sport when they got to a certain level because the suit / equipment equation did not fit into the social/economic realities of certain households.
I am all for afforable progress in the sport and I even didn't mind the cuts or styles of the suits but they had a RADICAL ripple effect both in and out of the pool that overall had a negative impact on the sport. This was not like the clap-skate in speed skating - it was much more costly and drastic in nature to the sport and the athletes. It would be similar if $400 mercury filled / metal baseball bats became legal in MLB. That is how much these suits changed the face of swimming since the Mo. Grand Prix in 2008. Up to that point I had been coaching for over a decade and witnessed in person 2 world record swims in person at Olympic Trials and National meets. I saw 2 in one weekend at that meet alone (both Women's backstroke events)in the middle of Feb. in an Olympic year. It was a crazy sport for the months that followed and had a huge impact on the sport at a local level in terms of dollars to stay competitive with the other kids. Submitted by: thedon
September 21, 2009 Jaked and the Arena wetsuits(and even the LZR) were in the sport for 2 years - not 10 years.
DPS Submitted by: thedon
September 21, 2009 TheDon - look; of course age groupers should not wear tech-suits, but adults in international competition should be able to. It benefits the sport. If you want them banned for college, ban them, but for swimmig to grow, it needs capitalism.
FluidG - Swimming is a recreation and a sport; it is not chess where nothing changes for centuries. If you feel it should remain chess-like, fine. The strokes changed but you think the suits shouldn't, ok.
I think our only common ground here is the belief that FINA is garbage! I would be open to a replacement. Submitted by: Groovydoo
September 21, 2009 I guess Mr. Phelps won't be getting his 200 m free WR back anytime soon.
Submitted by: philipmj24
September 22, 2009 The polyurethane suits have been in the sport for two years (the best two years in the sport's history), but full body suits have been a mainstay in the sport for a decade. Now you are throwing them all out and going to jammers. $1000/year? That's only if you want the LZR. Other, better suits are available for under $300 (comparable to the price of lycra, but far longer lasting). It is a small and reasonable price for a sport to absorb. It appears that Speedo wants its monopoly back and is willing to damage the sport to kill off its competition. Competition in the marketplace is obviously the best thing for consumers. You have played right into Speedo's plan.
As for rules, it has always been within the boundaries of the sport to seek ways of reducing drag. Suit manufacturers have developed new and better materials and designs throughout swimming's history. Swimmers have always been willing to pay more for higher performance suits. Why do swimmers shave down? To reduce drag. Non-permeable caps are legal. Why? The widely held misconception that urethane suits are buoyant is the problem. Devices that add buoyancy obviously have no place in the sport. These suits do not make a swimmer buoyant, yet they are being banned because of claims that they do. There is not a single, empirical study, not one shred of evidence to support the claim that the suits add buoyancy. You can't measure something that doesn't exist.
Suits also reflect the era. They follow the fashion trends of their time. That's how jammers evolved. They aren't faster than briefs. They exist because long shorts are in style. The tech suits are a quantum leap forward for the sport. They made swimming current and relevant, cutting edge. That made the some of the old school coaches very uncomfortable. Too much change too fast for them to digest. What happened? Manufacturers developed a technology that actually works. Their methods are entirely within the existing and historic rules of the sport, so to get rid of them, coaches like thedon are willing to throw out the fundamental underpinnings, the compass that guides the evolution of rules, and replace them with a vague and capricious short term agenda. Submitted by: fluidg
September 22, 2009 I believe I helped set the "compass" of the rules and future of swimming by going to convention and helping set rules under the established methods of USA-Swimming and the USOC. I do not get paid to do that (other than reimbursement) and I had to take time away from my team and my family to do that for a week. This is how the "evolution" of rules takes place. My agenda was to fix a growing problem in the sport that MOST coaches saw as a problem.
My $1000 estimate was based on having at least one tech. suit and a similar "back up" suit. These things (including the Blueseventy, LRZ, and Jaked) ripped easily. Ask Ricky Berhens or T. Alshammer about that too. Fluidg is correct that the manufacturers did thier job under the rules that FINA had (which were not very clear) but did we want the sport to shift as drastically as it did? The majority of the athlete reps., offcials, general chairs, and other delegates at the USA-S Convention voted along with the coaches in the room. The "nays" in that hall were but a murmur and limited to about 9 or 10 people by my estimate. I don't know how anyone at the USA-S convention threw out any "fundemental underpinnings" of the sport in any way.
Fluidg is also correct that Speedo is the elephant and I blame them for having a huge hand in starting this problem from the FS I to the LZR. They acted similar to any big corperation in this instance. Most the kids on my team (high school to college) purchased blueseventy suits due to cost and availibility issues in our area. A few had LZR suits and one a TYR male tracer (a Matt Grevers fan there). We had to buy something to keep up with the other kids and my athletes (and thier parents) were amazed with what was taking place in the sport down to the LSC level. These suits were negative for the sport (in my professional coaching opinion) both in and out of the pool. Aquablades were an advancement too in 1996 but they did not have dramatic effect as the Jaked and Arena and LZR did in just two years.
DP Spellman Submitted by: thedon
September 22, 2009 Check out USA-Swimming.org for a memo from Bruce Stratton (Rules and Regs. chair) on the suits.
DP Spellman Submitted by: thedon
September 22, 2009 The Japanese Company Toray ie Mizuno Sports,Inc developed "Reospec" commonly known as Aquablade outside of Japan. "Aquapion" was developed 1988 Seoul Olympics; "Aquaspec" high-level products for the 1992 Barcelona Olympics; 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta; and then "Reospec"....Suit technology has been advancing for 20+ years. Why stop it now? Maybe this what swimming was suppose to be in the first place.
Submitted by: blue.water
September 22, 2009 "thedon" I've read those rules many time over the last month. The suit makers will use advance technology on the "textile fabrics" and in another few years, some will start crying on how its ruining the sport. We live in a World of Hi Tech and the public wants it. Submitted by: blue.water
September 22, 2009 thedon, I appreciate your dialog and your sacrifices for the sport. The underpinnings that are now eroded apply to the basis of suit evolution. There is nothing in the rules that say suits must create a certain drag coefficient. Reducing drag does not in any way run counter to the established history and philosophy of the sport. In fact, it is central to the sport's mission. Devices that add floatation or propulsion have always been outlawed for obvious reasons. What I object to is the new supremacy of the arbitrary. The new rules have no real logical basis; they are driven by hearsay, misinformation, and hysteria. Navel to knee? Shoulder to knee? These criteria are simply arbitrary. Do swimming rules require the absolute minimum of coverage? No. Why is it ok to cover the thighs, but no further? What specifically determines that line? Why aren't the rules the same for men and women? Why textile only? The answers to all of these questions are spurious unless they can be clearly articulated.
I believe that there should be restrictions on suits for younger age groups for the economic reasons you describe. But certainly when a swimmer reaches the Jr National level, they should be able to wear a technical suit. There are valid economic concerns, but they really only apply to the younger age groups.
Allowing the industry to grow around the sport can only strengthen it, and with more competition among manufacturers and pressure to find ways to deliver more affordable products, the price of advanced suits will fall dramatically. There is no sound and fundamental justification for the outright banning of the latest generation of suits.
Did they change the landscape? Absolutely. For the better? Absolutely. Will they eventually find their way back into the sport regardless of the recent action taken by USA-S and FINA? Absolutely. It's only a matter of time. It is inevitable because there is no clear rationale for preventing the sport's evolution. When the fear and hysteria subside, swimming will resume its natural course. Submitted by: fluidg
September 22, 2009 I think me and many coaches are OK with swimsuits and even more coverage than what was approved by FINA in July. I actually asked why (a few times) the suit rules are not made even more uniform for both males and females in terms of coverage. Everyone being able to swim in suits covered from neck to knee is OK with my ideals.
I am not down with thick wetsuits coming into the sport and $400 (flimsy and fragile) pieces of equipment coming into the sport. Just look at the recent WR splits from 2004 to 2009. Look at the last 50 to 25 of the races. Look at how fast those splits are compared to the past WR splits and then watch the video of the swims. Watch the difference of the position of the swimmer's hips and lower body in the tech. suits compared with what the body position of the swimmer who held those records pre-tech. suits. There is no way that our training and tech. and even more focus on core fitness accounts for some of those occurances. In Rome you can just watch a few swims and look at the imposed WR "red line" and see the swimmers coming UP to the line at the end of races. We did not see such things in 2007 with the FS Pro generation of suits. Many of these records - espcially in the 100's and up - where being done in the later stages of the swims. Submitted by: thedon
September 22, 2009 "thedon": Everyone talks about the advantages of the hi tech suits to the swimmer. No talks about the professional swimmers. Take a person like Phelps, he has the sponsorship and the money. He doesn't have to worry about getting a job. His whole day is planned to develop certain aspect of the stroke. He has the money to have the best coaches and swimming tools to anaylsis and perfect his stroke so he and those like him can beat the amatuer swimmers. Is that leveling the playing field?? Probably 99.99% of the swimmers are amatuers who now with the reduce sponsorship money have little or no opportunity to have what Phelps has. Submitted by: blue.water
September 23, 2009 Coach Spellman,
With all due respect to your contribution in this process and the manufacturer's representatives that you talked to at USAS, there is no reason to assume that a tech suit used from 2000-2007, or any suit, will pass the FINA suit approval process. We just received our first response from FINA regarding the suits we submitted and I can tell you everyone is in for a big surprise as to what will pass. Due to the move to October 1st for this rule, it would be wrong for any manufacturer or dealer to supply athlete's new suits until the FINA list is published.
As an example, for this first round we submitted our basic polyester team suits and a new textile suit design that focuses on durability (we are submitting additional suits for approval in November). None of the suits were rejected for technology purposes; however, most were rejected due to thickness and set-up of linings. Including a one layer polyester brief. Our materials and linings on these suits are as thin, or thinner, than our competitors. We will also not be allowed to use a full interior lining that is similar to some of the suits every manufacturer sells. These are the more durable polyester team suits with the loose full lining that kids use in practice AND low level competition. All of the adjustments we are being asked to make are easy enough and will be done, but they outline the need to be very careful about assuming what will pass.
My understanding is that not all manufacturers are turning in their polyester suits for testing. We did so to adhere to the process as we have all along. We are a new brand and we want our athletes to be able to step up to the blocks in suits with the "FINA approved" logo on them. To keep this an honest and fair process going forward, and with an understanding of how this situation has progressed for 20 years, that should be the expectation of everyone involved in this at this point. If a manufacturer has not submitted a suit for approval, regardless of is "technical" aspects, it should not be used. Anything short of that is sending a bad and inconsistent message to our athletes.
Kelvin Koch
Rocket Science Sport
Submitted by: cgkkpk
September 23, 2009 fluidg - If you think the economic difficulties of tech suits apply only to age group swimming you need your head examined. It's even more of a problem at the college level right now. In the current economic time it's a bad idea for a sport to become "more expensive" at the college level. Submitted by: xalcyx
September 23, 2009 ....And to call the past two years the "two best" in the history of the sport is rediculously insulting to the great swimmers of the past. The World Champs were a farce this year. Submitted by: xalcyx
September 23, 2009 No surprise -- several of the same anonymous people who've been advocating bodysuits in other threads are, again, the most vocal here. Would they have stood up at convention and made remarks about Bowman, Schubert and Lord the same way? Probably not, because the notion that, credentials notwithstanding, those three men exercise any kind of mind control over hundreds or thousands of others would have been laughed off the floor.
People may be slow to react sometimes, but they are not stupid. The swimming community lived with ever-increasing body coverage for more than a dozen years and the concurrent ever-increasing questions about what that was doing to the sport. The sudden rush of developments in the last 2 years merely ratcheted up the speed of internal community reflection.
Recent overwhelming votes by worldwide swimming organizations are the result of coaches, swimmers, parents, school administrators and governing bodies coming together after the situation compelled them to react. No one from age group to Olympians to Masters needed these types of suits for the sport to progress prior to the early 1990s and it is ridiculous to charge that the sport will not progress without them today. Dealing with the fallout of effective dates, suit thickness, how previously-set records will be recognized, etc. is all simply logistics, not a crisis or disaster.
I'm not telling people to move on, but (as I wrote in another thread) very little of the above pro-bodysuit arguments are anything new that wasn't considered prior to these votes. I understand manufacturers are taking a hit, but any of them who jumped into making and selling expensive suits without paying attention that people in the community were already looking at bodysuits with a dubious eye, much less that FINA rule 10.7 already existed, have no one to blame but themselves that this wasn't a potential outcome.
Thanks, Coach Spellman, for taking on the topic here on behalf of those in the vast majority, both at convention and not.
- Charlie Carson, New York Submitted by: Charlie
September 25, 2009 Ok Charlie Carson...since you are so smart tell us which suits are made of "rubberized type of material such as polyurethane or neoprene". Since the list won't published for several months, give us your wisdom! The Clarification of New Swimsuit Rules last sentence states: "Coaches, officials and swimmers are urged to use common sense in this matter." According to what Kelvin Koch of Rocket Science Sport wrote, all our teams swimsuits which come in tomorrow are illegal. And, we were using common sense! Follow the timeline and these would have been minimized.
The "mind control" is real. If Obama wants a bill passed, the democrates vote in a block. They know if they want something later, they have to "play ball". And you're saying it doesn't exist in the swimming world. Get real, You're living in a "fantasy land". And if I was there at the convention, I would have put my 2 Cents in.
Another thing, our coach was at the convention and he said a one of the reason they voted for Oct 1 was because the list would be out then. This new release now says "several months"??
Submitted by: RedBone
September 25, 2009 Sure, Redbone, I can respond. And I've already seen the anger and sarcasm in the other thread about USA Swimming's attempted clarification.
First, I didn't say politics didn't exist in swimming. I did say the global swimming community was arriving at similar conclusions over many years, and what various prominent individuals said or did were not the only things driving decision-making. (I also think some of the anonymous point-scoring against certain swimming leaders in these threads appears personal and not entirely about bodysuits.)
Second, I agree that not having the list of acceptable suits for USA Swimming's just-passed October 1st date is not ideal. However, I think the words "common sense" make perfect sense.
Textile suits are pretty much what everyone wears to work out in, right? Well, in the old days of around 1992 (!) common sense also meant a swimmer needed one or two new lycra suits each season to save for wearing only at meets so they would retain their tightness during important races.
I suppose some people are going to keep hoping the latest model jammers or redesigned female torso suits can somehow still provide that iota of advantage compared with what everyone was wearing pre-Atlanta Olympics, but all the sarcasm in the world will not convince me (and many others) that, for example, men wearing more expensive jammers are going to go any faster than men wearing less expensive briefs. Swimsuit manufacturers will try to convince us otherwise, of course.
It's a mind game, both on the deck and in the pool, where people are looking for a suit to work miracles instead of what truly makes miracles -- training.
If some people are going to fall prey to that mind game over the next three months, in avoidance of common sense, well they have message boards as one way to vent. I think a lot of otherwise reasonable people have stopped posting because they know those complaining all out of proportion to the situation cannot be convinced –- and, hey, let them fall prey to the mind games while I and my swimmers beat their butts in the water. Tit for tat, I guess. Submitted by: Charlie
September 25, 2009 When one changes the rules, one needs to have something in place. Common Sense is not acceptable. It leaves a big window for more problems. And if our leaders can't see that, they need to be replaced. I'll just have my swimmers swim in thongs. I don't think there is anything in the rule book that say we can't. Submitted by: RedBone
September 25, 2009 Mind control? Of course not, at least not literally. Career control? Yes. I have spoken with several club coaches over the past year to get their perspective on the tech suits. They said that everyone was afraid of reprisals against them or their swimmers if they spoke up in favor of the suits. This whole "decision" process has been highjacked, characterized by intimidation and hypocrisy from the beginning, starting with the man you hold in such high regard, Mark Schubert. I obviously do not hold him in such high esteem as you. But I do not earn my livelihood in swimming, so I am more free to speak out against this ongoing injustice.
xalcyx, the Worlds were a farce? Tell that to the swimmers. Better yet, name the swimmers who didn't deserve the medals they won. This year's Worlds were even more exciting than Beijing. The suits raised the bar and caused a re-calibration of the record books. It is not the first time, and hopefully, it won't be the last. What sacred records are you trying to protect? Thorpe's? I guarantee that if he had been in the pool in Rome, he would have been wearing the fastest suit available. Ian set his records wearing full sleeves, you might recall. And, yes, the past two years are unsurpassed by any others. Name a greater period for the sport.
Swimming isn't run by people know for their knowledge of culture or much of anything that doesn't smell like chlorine. This is why swimming is utterly unprepared to capitalize on the opportunity to step into the mainstream culture. Change is terrifying and regression seems like safety. But these recent convulsions are ruining the sport's credibility and will kill its momentum.
For lessons in success, look at the evolution of pro surfing or skate boarding, now multi-billion dollar industries. Leveraged from their fringe beginnings, they are now undeniably part of our culture. Until swimming figures this out, it will remain a curiosity, an elitist, country club sport that appeals to a small demographic slice of our world. Submitted by: fluidg
September 26, 2009 Yes the worlds were a farce. Run that meet again (all other things equal of course) without tech suits and let's examine the RESULTS, not even the times.....the same swimmers don't always win, place etc. It's a completely different meet.
The best athletes, and the hardest workers, weren't always the fastest in these suits. They became a fallback for people who weren't prepared to do the work and wanted to just take their chances when they suited up at the end of the year (I saw numerous examples that I know of this). I think it's funny that the strong reactions in favor of the suits seem to have occurred once they were taken away - perhaps people are now faced with the fact that there's no longer a magic pill to swim fast?
Thorpe's record were at least set in a 100 permeable suit, so that's a poor example. For the record, my position on the situation is that limiting the fabric (and cost as a byproduct) was sensible. Limiting coverage was a major overreaction. And, as with everything at the governance level of our sport, the whole thing has been screwed up yet again Submitted by: xalcyx
September 26, 2009 100 percent......oops Submitted by: xalcyx
September 27, 2009 If the coaches are so concerned about the cost to age groupers and their parents, perhaps they should have considered how many legs are now worthless because of the the limit to briefs and shorts. This is is a bad decision on every level. The cost difference between legs and shorts is negligible. Submitted by: natacao
September 27, 2009 A lot of clubs have increased the cost of swimming by 20% to 30%. Submitted by: TheBigSurf
October 1, 2009 Welcome to slower times! Submitted by: mario2007
Reaction Time responses do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions
of Swimming World Magazine or SwimmingWorldMagazine.com.
Reaction Time is provided as a service to our readers.
|
Subscribe Now!
|
