Guest editorial by Tony Austin
LOS ANGELES, California, October 15. IT was the last weekend in September when the FINA Masters committee met in Gothenburg, Sweden to determine whether techsuits would be acceptable swimwear for Masters swimming competitions worldwide.
The two-day meeting held great significance for the rank and file of U.S. Masters Swimming, and for several techsuit manufacturers at large who recently took a critical hit when FINA banned high-performance suits in all international competitions.
Masters swimming was the last market opportunity for any high-end suit manufacturer to unload their inventory or break even for 2009. Most believed that FINA would grant manufacturers some sort of relief or niche market opportunity since several of these manufacturers had sponsored FINA sanctioned events.
The logic was simple: Masters swimmers in general could afford $350 tech-suits and manufacturer participation in Masters swimming was proving to be a viable market for them. Not only was the USMS picking up ad-revenue from these manufacturers, the sponsorship of Rowdy Gaines donning a Blueseventy at Masters SCY Nationals electrified Masters swimmers of his generation, thereby swelling the ranks of the USMS even further.
Then on Sept. 26, Amy Shipley of the Washington Post broke news via source Nancy Ridout declaring that the FINA Masters committee was going to recommend that the same swimsuit rules the FINA Bureau had adopted for international meets should be applied to Masters Swimming worldwide. However, there was a caveat: this decision was only a recommendation and not a ruling. A final ruling would have to be rendered by the FINA Bureau themselves some three months later.
Essentially, the FINA Masters committee "punted."
Within an hour, blogs, message boards, and Facebook pages were on fire with the news; or the lack thereof, summarily stating that nothing had been decided and nothing had been accomplished save for the notion that FINA was being reckless towards the Masters swimming population at large.
The mission statement for the USMS includes the following paragraph:
"…United States Masters Swimming (USMS) is a national organization that provides organized workouts, competitions, clinics and workshops for adults aged 18 and over. Programs are open to all adult swimmers; (fitness, triathlete, competitive, non-competitive), who are dedicated to improving their fitness through swimming…."
No matter how you deconstruct it, the message is clear; Masters swimming has two tribes, those who swim recreationally and those that compete for personal glory.
The USMS has more than 50,000 swimmers belonging to the organization, but only a small percentage of the members compete at the elite level. Statistically, roughly 10 percent will have a chance at being a top-10 swimmer in their age group. The actual number is probably closer to 5 percent-or-less since champions within the USMS such as Erik Hochstein, Rowdy Gaines, Jenny Cook and Ahelee Sue Olsen, generally dominate more than one event.
These swimmers are the elites or the giants among the organization. Consequently, one could argue that the same professional standards an international competition affords should be applicable to that caliber of swimmer. With that in mind what about the recreational swimmer?
Contrast the elite group with any large scale Masters swim workout around the country, and you see that the swimmers who are having the most fun are generally the swimmers in the first three lanes, or the slower lanes with the softest intervals. There you will find the swimmers wearing the open-water goggles because they take longer to fog up, fins that are a foot long so they can go swim faster, and if they are really ambitious, they may have hand-paddles that are the size of a pizza.
These are recreational swimmers who swim for pleasure and if they compete, they are only out there to support their club. Techsuits are a vehicle for those Masters to be modest and swim faster but by swimming faster does not mean they will suddenly be swimming with the Rowdy Gaines or Jenny Cook crowd.
Contrasting these two tribes, one has to ask why should FINA insist on such strict swimwear rules for Masters swimming when 90 percent of the participants have no chance of being a top 10 swimmer or who may never win a blue-ribbon nor wear a tin-medal around their necks?
The techsuit debate has been an extraordinarily divisive issue for swimming. To compare that debate to the "red-state/blue-state" phenomena would not be hyperbole or an exaggeration. Rather than force a majority of Masters swimmers to adopt the same strict rule sets of international meets, clearer heads should prevail
A better policy FINA could undertake would be called: Compromise!
Hold the elites to the same competition rules that the Olympic and international meets follow but allow the majority of Masters swimmers to swim in events that cater to their needs and wants. A profound majority of Masters swimmers competes very little. When they do, they are there to socialize support their club. Let local Masters swimming meet directors be more flexible with who and what events are conducted but force the elites to follow the letter of the FINA law.
USMS officials who will officiate a meet should make the rules clear, but allow any swimmer who paid his or her fees to step up to the blocks wearing a techsuit, which that demographic can easily afford, allow them to complete their swim, allow them to see their time on the board and then finally DQ them but post their time on the result page as a souvenir from the event.
Masters swimming is intended to be both a sport and a recreational activity. The majority of Masters swimmers are not there for record-book acknowledgment. Therefore, any FINA restrictions should take into account their particular goals and purposes for swimming.
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.
October 15, 2009 Tony,
If being pro body suit is blue state, are you and I the only two people in that state? Submitted by: Chris DeSantis
October 15, 2009 I'm a tech suit blue stater as well... I'm gonna get a hope sticker with a B70 logo for the "O" to put on my car :) Submitted by: Rob D
October 15, 2009 Yes, we are snobby blue-state swimmers! ;-) Submitted by: groovydoo
October 15, 2009 I'm a tech suit blue stater as well... I'm gonna get a hope sticker with a B70 logo for the "O" to put on my car :) Submitted by: Rob D
October 15, 2009 Three of us! Maybe we should start thinking about a convention. Submitted by: Chris DeSantis
October 15, 2009 Tony, maybe I missed something, but is your purpose to satirize the situation by proposing something so ludicrous? If not, how do you propose that the "elites" be identified? By a time standard? (e.g., any swim under 53.0 seconds for Men's 100 LCM free is "elite"). By self-identifying? Submitted by: grizzly
October 15, 2009 Rats, I forgot to mention! Submitted by: groovydoo
October 15, 2009 I am honestly surprised the issue of suits is still unresolved in this sport. I think there is a solution that would satisfy all parties involved. No to the suits for high school, national/trial events, worlds and Olympics. Yes for masters and world cup events. FINA (who created this whole mess in the first place) can be resposible for stewarding WR's (non-tech suit events) and a World Best list for World Cup events which would allow tech suits. I maybe nieve on this one thinking it's so simple, but c'mon. I think this is a solution that works for athletes, manufacturers and anyone else involved. Submitted by: stoobie
October 15, 2009 As far as I have seen from the meets in which I have competed this year (regional and national championships), it is the elite swimmers who are wearing the tech suits. I wore one at USMS nationals and cracked the top 10 for the first time in 30 years of Masters competition.
The rec swimmers who make up a large part of my team seem to be pretty happy in their regular suits and laugh at the idea of spending 300 to 500 for a suit.
Don't give me this modesty nonsense, some of us have been walking around in speedos for over 50 years. Submitted by: flutterby
October 16, 2009 Hey... I'm another "modest" swimmer in favor of the tech suits! Call me for the convention... I know three of us already our outfits picked out. ;) Submitted by: goswim
October 16, 2009 This argument to "compromise" is ludicrous.
The historical record is clear among all the major governing bodies including the IOC, FINA, LEN, the IFs, NOCs, media, and most importantly, among the athletes and coaches themselves.
The opening of tech suits into swimming was a gross error in judgement and harmed the athletes and the sport. It took over a year and a half for courageous men and women within the swimming family who fought FINA, members of its leadership Bureau and defeated the action and conduct.
The tech suits abridged the rules and spirit of fair play and have no place in the sport. Submitted by: Small Stone
October 16, 2009 I still want to go to the convention... wearing my BlueSeventy. Maybe we'll even swim there.
And obviously not everyone agrees on this, hence the title of the article, and at least an offering of a possible solution. Not sure I see what would be so wrong with allowing masters swimmers to use a tech suit to swim in, already knowing their time couldn't "count" for anything other than their own personal satisfaction.
If FINA and the other NGBs are going to treat masters swimmers like everyone else, let the drug tests begin! Submitted by: goswim
October 16, 2009 Don't get me wrong - I'm not against tech suits for Masters swimming. I just don't think it would be possible to "compromise" and disallow only elite Masters swimmers from wearing them. It has to be all or nothing.
I really like Stoobie's suggestion, although "Collegiate" has to be added to the "no" list (and probably a few other categories).
Last night, one of my teammates said he'll continue to race in his tech suit and happily accept his DQs. This way, he'll still get his times and be able to see if he's progressing compared to the last couple of years. He'll only forgo the tech suit for the big meets, such as Nationals. Submitted by: grizzly
October 16, 2009 Two thoughts make me hope Masters follows the rest of swimming. First, I want my times to be directly comparable to everyone elses. I like to look in the local paper and say "ha" I can beat that high school kid (or not). I like to look at college times and go "wow", knowing what I can do in the same event. I don't want to have to go through the mental gymnastics of converting or arguing about my times being in a tech suit where their's are not. (and although we would always have a choice, I'm sorry to say that I'm too competitive to wear a simple jammer if all my heat is wearing a tech suit). Secondly, I've sadly noticed that at most meets, gone are the days of friendly comparisons of aches, pains, hard training, technique etc.... and now the dominant small-talk is "what suit did you buy". I miss the former. Submitted by: actnow
October 16, 2009 The arguments I am hearing from the purists denote how competitive Masters Swimming should be. The mission statement for the USMS states that the non-competitive swimmers have to acknowledged at the party as well. Submitted by: groovydoo
October 16, 2009 Groovydoo, how are non-competitive swimmers not being "acknowledged", and what do the tech suits have to do with that? Submitted by: Grizzly
October 16, 2009 Of course NCAA swimming would fall into that "no" column for tech suits in my earlier post.
As far as for allowing them in masters, why does it matter? If someone wants to pay the money then let them, where is the harm?
I do not own or have ever used anything other than a brief and don't think I will. Furthermore, I have always been opposed to them at the Olympic level or at any competition that determines who goes to the Olympics. The IOC and FINA should have fought to protect the purity of the Olympics. I also agree with not allowing them for HS and college since performances can be attributed to the "haves and have nots". But for Masters. We choose to be there. We choose to train as easy or hard as we want. We're not racing for prize money or international team placement. We do mixed relays and 100 IM's, so again I ask; where's the harm?
Submitted by: stoobie
October 16, 2009 Stoobie - Totally agree. Just keep the record books separate (as you have already suggested) - i.e., don't allow world records to be set in tech suits. Submitted by: Grizzly
October 16, 2009 And if anyone really wants to compare their times with high schoolers and college guys/girls, do what Mike Ross and other masters do; swim a USS meet. I'd wager the heats would be more competitive than at some masters meets. Heck, when I was 16 there were a bunch of 30 somethings at my club meets out sprinting us with wife and kids cheering them on in the stands. Submitted by: stoobie
October 16, 2009 Grizzly, the answer is suit/equipment choice, perhaps diving off the deck rather than the blocks, modesty, or in other words, more freedom in the way these athletes would like to compete.
Do know how many people do not go to Nationals because they feel their times are to anemic?
I am one of them and I swim a 25.6 for 50-free SCY. Though anemic, it is respectable. Submitted by: groovydoo
October 16, 2009 Groovydo, sorry - I'm really not trying to be difficult, but I'm not clear on your point. Maybe we're saying the same thing? I think that you want tech suits to stay for Masters swimming, and I'm fine with that. I just don't understand why you would propose to divide Masters swimers into "two tribes" - those who can wear the tech suits and those who can't. Let everyone wear them. Or no one. Don't make a messy situation messier. Submitted by: Grizzly
October 16, 2009 I feel both sides are so rigid in their beliefs that perhaps USMS officials can "look the other way" or accommodate newer/slower/older swimmers so we can grow the meets and get more swimmers nterested.
To adopt the same rules as USAS will only make each meet like a mini-nationals... i.e. "For Heroes Only." Submitted by: groovydoo
October 16, 2009 Let's be a bit more thoughtful and remember our swimming history. Would/should the same logic that bans tech suits apply to swim venues? Today we have high tech pools where every aspect of the facility must meet "state of the art" for maximizing the performances of the swimmers. When Weismuller and Kahanamoku were setting world and Olympic records they often swam in barge canals or other non-standard venues. Would the logic of banning "improved" swim equipment, i.e., suits, apply to swim venues? Should Phelps have to break 50 seconds for 100 Fly LCM in a barge to be accorded the kudos he's earned?
Jimmy Conners caught some flak when he converted to a metal racket, the T2000, but I don't hear the tennis world crying for a return to the halcyon days of wooden rackets in lieu of the monster rackets of today.
The thing that saddens me is that the subject of tech suits should lend itself to a rational discussion but I hear an awful lot of emotional commentary, not grounded in reason. Lighten up Dudes, it's just a swimsuit, and the subject does not justify the level of passion, and even vitriol, as say, whether flu vaccines are a health risk or benefit. Submitted by: Q Swimming
October 16, 2009 so, what is the purpose of this ridiculous article. Submitted by: swimhouston
October 16, 2009 Purpose? It is an open editorial and thank you for sharing. You comment was quite witty. Submitted by: Groovydoo
October 16, 2009 well groovy, I am very happy you can swim a 25.6 50 free which is quite respectable. However, I am so tired of this swim suit issue. Everyone needs to chill and just swim and enjoy. Over analyzed adnauseum. No attempt at being witty, but just trying to add perspective to weekend athletes that train before they go to work or maybe after. By the way, I am over 50 now and would love to go below 26 in a 50. But I love the heck out of it and dont care that I cannot even get close to my College times. Submitted by: swimhouston
October 17, 2009 Let the Master have fun. If it a hi tech suit a birthday suit, its fine with me...FINA should butt out. Submitted by: speedboat
October 18, 2009 Quote from the article: "USMS officials who will officiate a meet should make the rules clear, but allow any swimmer who paid his or her fees to step up to the blocks wearing a techsuit, which that demographic can easily afford, allow them to complete their swim, allow them to see their time on the board and then finally DQ them but post their time on the result page as a souvenir from the event."
The above quote from the article is in my view ridiculus, but please clarify whether the DQ would also mention the word "cheating" to highlight how the time and DQ was achieved? Why not also allow them to dive in at "take your marks" get their time then DQ them, then also put their time in the results sheets! Or turn before touching the wall to get a faster time. A big pair of fins, paddles etc would also fit well with the above reasoning. But really if this is your attitude why bother to turn up at all. This suggestion is making a mockery of the sport. FINA did a great job shooting themselves in the foot over these suits and with the above suggestion it shows that within Masters swimming there are individuals that can surpass even that incompetence.
Also whether a Masters swimmer can afford a high tech suit should have nothing to do with whether these suits should be allowed or not.
As SMALL STONE rightly mentions above "The tech suits abridged the rules and spirit of fair play and have no place in the sport."
Soon we will be having an article suggesting that "let them use performance enhancing drugs so they can get their time and then DQ them!" Afterall, I'm sure their are plenty of Masters swimmers that can afford them thus on the above reasoning they should be allowed to use them!
My view: Keep the cheating out of the sport!
Scott
Submitted by: scotswim
October 19, 2009 Scotswim, get a life. The way you act its the end of the World if someone swims in a hi tech suit. Go find a girlfriend or boyfriend! Submitted by: speedboat
October 19, 2009 conversely, some feel it is the end of the world if they CAN'T swim in a hi tech suit. Submitted by: swimhouston
October 19, 2009 Hi Speedboat,
Your comments "get a life."…. " Go find a girlfriend or boyfriend!"
As usual your responses are well thought out and well mannered........well those absolutely desperate to keep their quick fix shiny suits may think so! I'm sure most will not.
"The way you act it would be the end of your world" if you can't swim in your high tech suit. Your attitude exhibits that undesirable trait of sore loser.
Scott
Submitted by: scotswim
October 19, 2009 Scott:
You may wish to reconsider the strident rhetoric. Definition: "Cheating is an act of lying, deception, fraud, trickery .....". There is no deception or trickery when the use of the speed suit is obvious upon visual examination whereas the use of steroids is hidden.
The issue is not whether it is cheating but whether the - fully disclosed - advantage is an unfair one. Tony point is that, at least as to Masters, it is not an unfair advantage but a choice that the Masters swimmer should be allowed to make. There is at least some possibility that at the high school level, where cost of equipment is an important factor to many young swimmers, that allowing those more affluent to wear speed suits against those wearing a $30 non-tech suit, creates an unfair advantage.
It is not, however, cheating. Submitted by: Q Swimming
October 19, 2009 Since the claim is that masters swimmers are so affluent that the cost of tech suits is not an obstacle (that doesn't include me), obviously that means that all the swimmers who already own the suits who want to keep using them can afford to put them away in a drawer, even if they only got to wear the suit once or twice.
I would love to swim in a meet with a tech suit, fins and hand paddles. I bet I could hit my college times from over 40 years ago. That would be fun....and ultimately meaningless. Submitted by: flutterby
October 19, 2009 Hi Q Swimming,
Thanks for your interest in the topic of performance enhancing suits and contributing to the debate.
I have had a rethink after your comments and the following is my response.
1) Your comment: "The issue is not whether it is cheating but whether the - fully disclosed - advantage is an unfair one." My response is that if wearing a performance enhancing suit, whether fully disclosed or otherwise, has to merit a disqualification because wearing one is not within the rules then yes the advantage is unfair.
2) Your comment: "Tony's point is that, at least as to Masters, it is not an unfair advantage" My response: if it is giving no advantage to the wearer then why wear them? It is well documented and widly agreed that these suits give more advantage to some body types more than others, and as such create an unfair competition. Whether Masters or others this advantage is unfair.
3) Your comment: "a choice that the Masters swimmer should be allowed to make." I disagree, the rules are rules and whether Masters or otherwise should not be allowed to make their own choice if it is in contravention of the rules.
4) Your comment: "There is at least some possibility that at the high school level, where cost of equipment is an important factor to many young swimmers, that allowing those more affluent to wear speed suits against those wearing a $30 non-tech suit, creates an unfair advantage." Why is it unfair at high school but not at Masters or other competitions? Because for some reason you belive that the "young swimmers" can't afford the suits? Well it is probably the parents that will pay for the suit anyway, not the child, thus the same age group who will presumably be swimming masters if they feel so inclined. It is incorrect to assume that all Masters swimmers can afford these suits, many can't.
5) Finally if it is agreed that these suits do improve performance and are against the rules, allowing swimmers to use them and then having them DQ'd would make a mockery of the sport. Swimmers coming last winning by default because the others were DQ'd due to the fact that they were wearing illegal suits, is this desirable? I think not! Having contravened the rules deliberately to achieve a faster time is not only cheating to achieve that time but is also cheating themselves.
Thus I still believe that using performance enhancing equipment whether fins, paddles or suits is cheating if the rules donot allow for them. If the rules state they are not allowed it is thus not the swimmer to make the choice whether to abide by the rules but the official entrusted to enforce them. Thus either you abide by the rules or you don't compete. Deliberately contravening rules knowing you may be DQ'd is cheating whether it is an extra couple of dolphin kicks on a breaststroke turn or enhancing your performance by deliberately utilising other illegal means.
Thus my earlier statement stands, it is still cheating to achieve times which you would otherwise have been incapable of under the rules.
Scott
Submitted by: scotswim
October 19, 2009 Scott:
My comments are premised on the belief that Masters does not need such a rule. What interest is protected by having such a rule? Submitted by: Q Swimming
October 19, 2009 Qswim is kicking you argument's butt, Scott! ;-] Maybe Qswim should wrote the op-ed Submitted by: groovydoo
October 19, 2009 Q just said we don't need rules. What's that all about?
Scotswim had a very clear and succinct argument and I agree with him wholeheartedly.
Plenty of masters swimmers do workouts with buoys, fins, paddles, pulling on the lane lines, etc.
Swim competitions have rules and it would be nice to have one set of rules for the entire world from kids through high school, college, international and masters. Submitted by: flutterby
October 19, 2009 We're drifting away from the original argument of the article, which was that some Masters should be allowed to wear the tech suits and others ("elites") shouldn't - i.e., the "two tribes".
As I said before, I can accept arguments that (1) no one can wear them, (2) that just Masters can wear them, (3) that Masters and FINA World Cup Competitors can wear them, and (4) that everyone can wear them. However, I cannot accept that SOME Masters can and SOME can't. Submitted by: Grizzly
October 19, 2009 Well put Grizzly!
As much as I don't see the harm in having them in Masters, I can honestly say I really don't care which way USMS and FINA rule on this.
But I completely agree; either allow them or ban them. Not this some people in Masters swimming can wear them and some not.
Thanks for getting this thread back on track. Submitted by: stoobie
October 19, 2009 Flutterby:
I am not arguing:"We don't need rules." That is a distortion of my comments. I simply do not think that in Masters a "rule" banning speed suits is necessary.
Q Swimming Submitted by: Q Swimming
October 19, 2009 All or nothing will shrink the size of the swim meets, it will disenfranchise those that insist on suits and masters swimming will reduce in numbers.
Next year, if suits are banned, we will have our answer.
Also note: It appears compromise never was an option in this debate. Submitted by: groovydoo
October 19, 2009 If there isn't a rule about suits, that is almost the same as not having rules. Submitted by: flutterby
October 19, 2009 I am advocating only one rule to be changed. There are plenty more. Submitted by: groovydoo
October 19, 2009 flutterby: Thanks for your support.
Your comment"Swim competitions have rules and it would be nice to have one set of rules for the entire world from kids through high school, college, international and masters." Correct.
Groovydoo: your comment:"Qswim is kicking you argument's butt, Scott! ;-] Maybe Qswim should wrote the op-ed"
Sorry Groovydoo but I'm not quite sure what you are talking about here.
Most of the contributors on this thread seem to forget that this is a world topic not just USA. Comments along the line of "Masters can afford these suits" is not necessarily factual when taken in the world context.
Finally, it is rather laughable that only a few weeks ago the same people who said that elite swimmers should be allowed to use the suits now say that the Masters swimmers who are NOT elite should be allowed to wear them!
Submitted by: scotswim
October 20, 2009 Has anyone consider the fact they are "Master". Physically, most are at an age where they need all the help they can get. Who does it harm if some 50 year old is swimming in a hi-tech suit. At least he is doing something other than sitting at home in the Lazy-Boy with a beer on a Saturday / Sunday afternoon watching a football, baseball ....game which at 75 of the male population does.
Scotswim, since you couldnot afford a hi-tech suit doesn't make the swimmer that did swim in them "cheaters". Q-Swim is right. Plus, you need something else to ocuppy your time. Submitted by: blue.water
October 20, 2009 Hi blue.water,
Thanks for your comment. Not sure where you got the idea I could not afford one of these suits (probably the Speedboat contributor), however my comments and observations are not necessarily based on what I need or what I could afford just making the point that the world is more than just the good old USA. There are developing countries out here where the price of one of these suits is prohibitive. After all it is FINA Masters I am discussing (ie world swimming), if you all wish to swim in suits in the USA to allow, to quote from the article above "opportunity for any high-end suit manufacturer to unload their inventory or break even for 2009." and "grant manufacturers some sort of relief or niche market opportunity" then that is your choice. I suppose it could be loosly termed charity work! (Helping those poor companies to break even.....well!)
Thanks to all who support my comments and also thanks to those who although opposed to my view still offer a good debate.
I place my comments to enliven the debate...now whether others agree with them or not is up to them. Some do, some don't. Helpful suggestions from other contributers such as " get a life" get a boy or girl friend" and whether I "need something else to occupy my time" don't really contribute much to the debate and rather weaken the case that is the opposite to the stand I have taken. Once again just my opinion.
Cheers
Scott Submitted by: scotswim
October 20, 2009 I am concerned by the recent discovery that Johnny Weissmuller, World Record Holder, Olympic Gold Medalist and, of course, Tarzan, may have been using a banned swim suit, which from this photo link indicates it covered his body above his waist. http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/olympics/images/attachement/jpg/site1/20070725/001aa018ff9c081187dc51.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/olympics/2007-07/25/content_6002343.htm&usg=__ESghPwnkrWT2IL4j-tpJb7pjRzs=&h=430&w=290&sz=30&hl=en&start=2&tbnid=wN3xWCmIyRXQGM:&tbnh=126&tbnw=85&prev=/images%3Fq%3Djohnny%2Bweissmuller%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den Submitted by: Q Swimming
October 20, 2009 Mr. W. looks so small compared to modern-day swimmers.
Nice pic, Q, but of course they didn't have that rule then and that suit doesn't look very performance enhancing to me.
Are you the same Q who was on Star Trek? Submitted by: flutterby
October 20, 2009 No, Bond's Q. M.I. 6. Submitted by: Q Swimming
October 20, 2009 No, Bond's Q. M.I. 6. Submitted by: Q Swimming
October 20, 2009 I agree with Scotswim. The tech suits give an advantage to some swimmers more than others. Wear the suits in practice if you need to, but in competition we need rules the remove any artificial advantages. Submitted by: gailswim
October 20, 2009 gailswim:
Please provide the objective evidence for your assertion that tech suits "give an advantage to some swimmers more than others". That is the same kind of unscientific anecdotal supposition that has fueled this controversy since its inception.
Submitted by: Q Swimming
October 20, 2009 You are right, I have no scientific evidence that this is true. This is an experiment that should be done to prove this. I believe that it's true. Swimmers who are non-bouyant will get a greater benefit from a suit that gives bouyancy than those who float well. Submitted by: gailswim
October 20, 2009 Let's see, how about watching the Rome Worlds. I have also observed Senior (HS and College swimmers) that are more chunky than the prototypical swimmer body. I have watched them swim very average in distance events only to see them shed significant time once the "suit" is put on. Anecdotal for sure, but a reasonable observation. I have also had a former Olympian female tell me how angry she was given the hard work she used to do on her core, only to find the tech suits somewhat eliminate that need to tighten everything up naturally.
A masters is still going to compete whether they are wearing the tech suit or not. Just because ego wants that faster time, does not necessarily mean that creates the "right" to have artificial help. Or the tech suit hides the beer belly (somewhat) :) Submitted by: swimhouston
October 20, 2009 Is it artificial help to use a Callaway "Big Bertha" that is called a "wood" but has very little or no wood in it? Submitted by: Q Swimming
October 20, 2009 If it against the rules, you can't use it. If it is allowed, go for it. Submitted by: flutterby
October 20, 2009 Enough bantering. The Masters swimming world should engage in a serious dialogue, such as that which preceded the allowance of metal tennis rackets and titanium shafts for golf clubs in those sports, before adopting a rule that maybe, just maybe, the majority of the members don't want. And maybe, just maybe, that discussion will be one devoid of name calling, pejorative characterizations, resort to anecdotal evidence in lieu of empirical data etc. Submitted by: Q Swimming
October 21, 2009 Q - with your analogy of golf clubs and tennis rackets, then you are indirectly saying hand paddles and fins are ok. Not valid debate points. Submitted by: swimhouston
October 21, 2009 If swimming was in danger of becoming irrelevant like chess, or in danger of losing its Olympic Sport status and the public demanded more speed, yes, fins and paddles would be a necessary addition.
They lowered the mound in national league baseball, Football players wear more equipment so as to make the sport more brutal and basketball is not a contact sport.
Sports evolve! Submitted by: groovydoo
October 21, 2009 Apples and oranges. Swimming is not an equipment based sport nor is running. Just man/woman against the medium. Body position in the water should not be enhanced by your "equipment, but by your technique". Submitted by: swimhouston
October 22, 2009 Groovydoo,
Since before the advent of performance enhancing suits "swimming has not been in danger of becomming irrelevant" and was not "in danger of losing its Olympic Sport status" there was therfore no need to have these suits in the same way we don't need the other artificial aids you mention. However, with the advent of performance enhancing suits the world record list has now become "irrelevant" to many of us.
As swimhouston says "swimming is not an equipment based sport."
Scott Submitted by: scotswim
October 22, 2009 Hi Q,
Your request to gailswim "Please provide the objective evidence for your assertion that tech suits "give an advantage to some swimmers more than others". Well this is what the manufacturers themselves are saying in their publicity isn't it? Wear their particular suit and you will be faster than the others and faster than those that don't wear performance enhancing suits. Thus wearing the suits create an advantage to those who wear them compared to those who don't, therefore they "give an advantage to some swimmers more than others".
Scott Submitted by: scotswim
October 23, 2009 Puffery by suit makers does not constitute even subjective evidence. As Sgt. Friday said:"Just the facts." Objective means studied in a control group, or laboratory, setting with verifiable parameters, that can be replicated by others. Saying some swimmers' bodies benefit more from the "girdle" effect of tight speed suits is not evidence but superfical, anecdotal generalizations. Submitted by: Q Swimming
October 23, 2009 FINA has made a rule about suits. USA Swimming is following that rule. NCAA Swimming is following that rule. The National Federation of State High School Associations is following that rule.
Why isn't USMS? Submitted by: flutterby
October 23, 2009 "Swimming is not an equipment based sport." Hmm. Quite a convenient blind spot you've got there. You must be doing your swimming in lakes, rivers, and the ocean without stop watches, buoys, or goggles. I'd like to see your "equipment free" swim meet. One thing is certain: there will be no WRs broken. People talk about "purity" blah blah blah. What a crock! If you want swimming in its pure form you have to take on the elements and enter the food chain. "Pool swimming" is by definition entirely artificial, 100% controlled and manipulated for optimal performance. Pool design has evolved with specially engineered geometry to minimize turbulence. Lane ropes dramatically reduce waves. Starting blocks conform to advantageous starting positions. Wearing swim caps to eliminate drag seems to be ok with everyone, but everyone freaks out when we start wearing suits that eliminate drag from body hair. Wake up and take a thoughtful and fresh look at reality and stop regurgitating the same hysterical nonsense that you heard from someone else. Submitted by: fluidg
October 23, 2009 Fluid-G: Awesome rhetorical flare. Submitted by: groovydoo
October 23, 2009 Thank you. Submitted by: fluidg
October 23, 2009 Puffery by suit makers does not constitute even subjective evidence. As Sgt. Friday said:"Just the facts." Objective means studied in a control group, or laboratory, setting with verifiable parameters, that can be replicated by others. Saying some swimmers' bodies benefit more from the "girdle" effect of tight speed suits is not evidence but superfical, anecdotal generalizations. Submitted by: Q Swimming
October 24, 2009 I'm competing in plenty of open water races, not much equipment there but yes if having a stopwatch, a flag in the sand and three buoys to swim around constitutes equipment then maybe it is an equipment based sport after all....!
But since I don't usually cart all this "equipment" around on my body I don't consider it an equipment based sport.
Same applies to the pool and we have to wear caps because it is a rule of the pool here and goggles reduce risk of eye infections. Submitted by: scotswim
October 24, 2009 I'm competing in plenty of open water races, not much equipment there but yes if having a stopwatch, a flag in the sand and three buoys to swim around constitutes equipment then maybe it is an equipment based sport after all....!
But since I don't usually cart all this "equipment" around on my body I don't consider it an equipment based sport.
Same applies to the pool and we have to wear caps because it is a rule of the pool here and goggles reduce risk of eye infections. Submitted by: scotswim
October 24, 2009 Q Swimming: Well said. In fact, the outrageous claims coming out of suit manufacturers' over-zealous marketing BS is in no small part what ignited and fueled the backlash. For the record, the B70 (a great affordable long-lasting suit) doesn't offer much girdle effect. It's too stretchy to constrict the torso. The FS Pro (the basis for the LZR) on the other hand, strangles like a sausage casing.
scotswim: You still don't get it. Pool swimming depends on some of the most elaborate and expensive equipment in the sports world. Just because you don't drag it around on your body doesn't negate its existence. If you don't have a precisely constructed certified container with tightly controlled water temperature, you don't have any basis for the sport or its sacred records. ALL of this equipment evolves constantly, which means that the sport today is not comparable to any other era: it is essentially a different sport. The hysterical reaction from many in the swimming community over slippery swim suits flies in the face of the logic of the very basis of the sport. Comparing the suits to fins and paddles only reveals ignorance of the facts. Fins and paddles are propulsive. Suits are not. And there is not one shred of evidence to support the claims that they are buoyant. People who lump wearing tech suits with doping are only distorting the truth to manipulate perception. No one has yet made a coherent and convincing argument to explain exactly how the tech suits violate the spirit of the sport. It is disturbing the a sport can be hi-jacked and forced into a radical detour without any basis other than emotion and fear. It's a common strategy (especially over the past 8 years) to repeat a lie so often that it becomes "truth". In other words, truth is simply what people "believe" regardless of the facts. Submitted by: fluidg
October 24, 2009 fluidg:
Thank you. I am running out of patience with posters who conflate arguments. For example, the "equipment" referenced that are training aids are NOT used in competition and the only point of the original editorial was to allow those who would like to use a swim suit that may help one be a bit sleeker in the water is, frankly, not a big deal. It is not some sort of mechanized device that helps one swim faster or otherwise have an "unfair" advantage. If all Masters swimmers have access to the same quality swimsuits - and the last time I checked not one suit maker was declining payment - then those who choose to buy the speed suit may have an advantage but it is not "unfair", in either a legal or moral sense.
There has also been a fair amount of displaced reverence for unstated "rules". So far, I am aware of a very limited set of equipment "rules": 1) you can wear goggles; 2) you must wear a swimsuit; and 3) no mechanical devices may be used to help you swim faster. Once you are on the blocks, you may not: 1) start before the other swimmers; 2) must touch each end of the pool to count as a completed length; and 3) you must swim in your own lane. These "rules" are the rules and are only amplified based upon specific stroke, turn and relay comportment"rules".
It's a simple sport that has about as level a playing field as any other. Of course, considering the ridiculous dispute that arose in golf a few years ago, no carts allowed, you must ambulate on your own, no mechanical devices. Submitted by: Q Swimming
October 25, 2009 Dear All,
Just to clarify, I am well aware that pool swimming depends on a controlled environment etc etc etc. All aspects evolving over time with a strict set of rules.
Surprisingly it is always the pro suit fraternity who continually bring this controlled environment (evolution) up as an argument to ensure that they can keep their uncontrolled suits in the pool. Their reasoning: if we have pools which are not rivers and lakes therefore they should be allowed to keep their suits. But hang on a minute why would you agree that pools should be under a strict set of rules but that suits should not? Is this selective reasoning? Keeping the rules you like and turning a blind eye to others?
Lane ropes, controlled temp. etc etc are there to ensure that all will swim in the same conditions on that day. All are equipment. Agreed.
I just haven't observed too many swimmers turning up with their own lane ropes to ensure they swim faster than the competition, therefore the comparison is not valid. Just my opinion.
However, the question is whether the suits should be controlled under the same set of strict rules as the environment. Either yes or no. I believe the suits should be controlled by the rules. We agreed to disagree!
The reason I disagree is that over the last few years the regulations over the suits have not been in line with the rules and regulations regarding the controlled environment that we endeavour to achieve in the pool. The rules soon to be enforced are thus being put in place to ensure that the strict regulations regarding the environment are also replicated in the rules regarding suits. This has become necessary due to the unregulated situation that the sport has been plunged into regarding suits.
This is why there has been so much turmoil in the sport over the last year and why the suits are to be strictly regulated from the beginning of next year. Regulating the suits will thus bring them into line with the rules and regulations regarding pool length, lane ropes, timing systems and a controlled environment. Just as there have been rules regarding the pool environment, all of which have evolved over the years to create a controlled environment.
A much needed evolution of the rules to ensure a controlled environment and fair play. I'm sure you will agree......or not as the case may be!!
Submitted by: scotswim
October 26, 2009 Scotswim, you know your a pain in the butt...you've taken it on yourself to educate us on all the bad things about hi tech suits...i guess putting the end the hi tech suit is your mission in life. If everyone swam nake or in a hi tech suit, the field is level. Submitted by: speedboat
October 26, 2009 Dear Friends,
The attack(s) on ScotSwim are unsportsmanlike and have no place in these discussion. I see that the Reaction Time commentators are seeking to become the story rather than focusing on the real issue of protecting the integrity of the sport.
Its time to place things in perspective and clarify the tech suit process.
1.) The tech suits were admitted without genuine Independent Testing. All major sports have independent testing to establish parameters for protecting the integrity of the sport. When it comes to sponsorship, money follows integrity in sports. Numerous manufacturers, media organizations and individuals have fought FINA for over 20 years to implement not only video in the sport but also independent testing, on all phases of equipment, such as touch pad systems, suits, timing equipment, lane ropes, etc., like in other sports, i.e., the USGA (golf), football, track and field, etc. This IS rocket science. How the Speedo LZR tech suit was approved and admitted into the sport with little or no testing, has also been investigated and documented. It should not have happened. The use of double suits that trapped air is no longer permitted. As confirmed in underwater video and among other experts, the outer skin on some manufacturers suits have small air bubbles over a large portion of the body, creating a "mirror effect" using air to reduce drag and creating lift. They also trapped air within the body cavities.
2.) CAS and Fukuoka. Without independent testing on equipment, the sport and athletes were left to suffer. I.e., Fukuoka touch pad timing systems problems. FINA left the issue to CAS to sort out. The psychological toll on the athletes, along with their character and reputations at stake, and with their medals and places in jeopardy, was damaging to their emotional well being.
3.) Rule Changes. As reported in Swimming World, 2008, allegedly FINA rules were changed, and/or tabled to change to favor the admission of certain suits or materials. That is wrong.
4.) Rule application. The suits were not available to everyone. Period. The problems with other athletes not being able to demo or wear certain suits is unarguable. Case in point, FINA WCs, Rome, IT, August, 2009. It was a disaster for some athletes. Fair? Not even close. Along with us, our colleagues (media competitors/Swimnews.com) in this sport have documented the hardships the athletes have experienced and have written some award winning articles on these points. We applaud them.
5.) Legality. The real underlying issue is the whole question of legality. There is no question that: a.) the suits have harmed the integrity of the sport b.) they were not available on an equal basis c.) nor fitted on an equal basis d.) the admission of the suits was dubious at their introduction in Manchester e.) the constructed elements allegedly contained "devices" i.e, girdles, etc. f.) double suits trapped air g.) so did others
Now in light of all of the above...as reported in Swimming World, just because it was FINA "approved," it is not necessarily the judicial equivalent of being "legal."
According to industry experts, should independent testing continue to be strengthened, and as testing parameters are developed and established, it opens the door for Review, the testing of all suits worn previously in competition, and if/as they are found to be "buoyant," or double suits that "trap air," or any suit trapping air in the body cavities, the grounds for a major class-action suit against FINA is established. Which means the tech suits would be declared illegal and the WRs, any meet results would become in jeopardy of being nullified. Also, those athletes that went without, are entitled to compensation. This scenario has happened in other sports.
All of these problems, all of this hardship placed upon the athletes globally was the direct cause of the sport leadership in Lausanne. Its time to turn our attention from fighting each other, to reaffirming our commitment to improving the sport. That begins with being more proactive in covering FINA and sport governance issues, giving the athletes and coaches genuine veto power, and tabling plans, with best methods, best practices to restructure and remodel FINA in line with the NBA or other sport leagues.
We serve the athletes. Its time to make that a reality.
Submitted by: Small Stone
October 26, 2009 Small Stone:
A helpful chronicle of the events and haphazard - to be kind - manner in which the issue was handled. It serves to re-affirm that a thoughtful and dispassionate examination of the issue should be undertaken before action 1) was taken in the first place and 2) having failed in the first instance to do so, conduct that process now. Submitted by: Q Swimming
October 26, 2009 Rebuttal to Point 1: The suits were tested by FINA... They are the governing body. They do not need an independent lab. When they did contract out to an "independent lab" the results became even more ridiculous.
Point number 2: Your opinion is completely subjective and has no "independent investigation" to validate it.
Point number 3: True, FINA did make allowances for Speedo
Point 4: USA Swimming and Mark Schubert had no problem with the suits being unavailable to the rest of the world. They only had a problem when their suits were getting beat.
Point 5: I leaked a letter on my blog from Jan Anders Mason, Professor Ecole Polytechnique Federale De Lausanne, Switzerland, written to the Executive Director C. Marculescu of FINA. ("The independent lab")
He categorically stated ALL SUITS PASSED! However, in his opinion with no scientific measures to support it, he said the following: "...While these suits comply with buoyancy values when tested in accordance with the defined procedure... may cause significant air trapping..." (So do baggy Bermuda shorts) FINA accepted the opinion rather than the facts and denied those suits and were acceptable to their testing procedures.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_CudGbXbfHUM/ShOCHEn-FXI/AAAAAAAAA8s/hdpJDGMNVNA/s1600-h/b70_denial_letter.gif
Your arguments are subjective and unworkable.
Submitted by: groovydoo
October 26, 2009 I conducted an independent test of tech suits.
I put one on and swam faster than I had in two years.
Also, all the women around went woo hoo!
(But of course they do that whatever I am wearing (or not wearing). ;) Submitted by: flutterby
October 26, 2009 That was me who got the "woo-hoos" buddy! ;-) Submitted by: groovydoo
October 26, 2009 Hi Small Stone,
Thanks for the support and information.
Don't worry, when Speedboat doesn't like my comments it means I'm invariably on the right track!! As for being a "pain in the butt" I suggest he puts on his speed suit, I hear they make the pain less! Sorry, I don't have any "objective evidence" that this is the case, just what I have heard others say!
Cheers Scott Submitted by: scotswim
October 27, 2009 To all:
Several months ago I attended the Team portion Intercollegiate Sailing Championships. At the competition the host site provides 18 small sailboats in which each team places a captain and one crew member (often coed). Each school is given three boats of the same color sails and competes in successive heats against the other school's three boats. The boats are rotated among the schools in each heat so that the "equipment" is not an advantage nor disadvantage to any single team.
Boats are a lot more expensive than swimsuits so why not have the major meet sponsors provide the same brand suit to each competitor, say at the Worlds, so that there would be a level playing field among all competitors. A swimmer could choose to wear any style of the brand available at the meet but not a different brand. Great marketing and promo for the brands and all the kvetching about unfair advantage goes away. Of course, this approach doesn't work for all the many competitions that are held but certainly can work at the major international competitions where the total number of swimmers is more manageable, 100s not thousands. Submitted by: Q Swimming
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.
|
Photo By: Mark Savage Photography
Photo By: Mark Savage Photography
Subscribe Now!
|
