Column by John Lohn
CRANBURY, New Jersey, December 7. THERE was something nice about the weekend action that took place at the University of Texas and the King County Aquatic Center. Want to guess what it was? Here's a hint: It's something we haven't seen much of for nearly two years. Yeah, you probably have an idea by now.
Unlike the freakishly fast times that have dotted the globe since February 2008, the performances produced at the United States Short Course Nationals and Texas Invitational were believable, and didn't require any special instrument to convert bogus times (read: suit-enhanced) to legitimate clockings that mean something.
I'm going to be honest. I'm tired of writing about the suit issue and can't wait for the next 25 days to pass so we can put this whole charade behind us. Well, we'll do our best. Let's face it. The suit situation will always be a black eye on the sport, a mark that cannot be ignored. Still, we're close to moving forward and swimming will be fine. The weekend proved just that.
Just because records were not obliterated by a half-second here, or a full second there, that doesn't mean the competition at this weekend's early-December showcases were slow by any means. It might take some a bit of time to get accustomed to performances that are not record-shattering, but that's more than OK. Anyone who has gotten used to hard-to-believe times will just have to train themselves back to the days when good'ol skill got the job done, not some material that threatened to strangle the body.
Take a look at what Nathan Adrian was able to do at the U.S. Short Course National Champs. The University of California standout won the 50 and 100 freestyles with times of 19.08 and 41.80, respectively. Those efforts didn't measure up to what Adrian popped at last year's NCAA Championships, where high-tech suits were allowed, but they absolutely measure up with what was viewed as lightning quick before the Swarm of the Suits started stinging the water world.
Meanwhile, rising star Dagny Knutson delivered one of the top swims of the women's weekend when she clocked 4:31.18 to take top honors in the 500 freestyle. The effort wasn't far off the American standard of Katie Hoff, who went 4:30.47 in December 2007. In this case, the times are comparable, with no need to differentiate between who wore what.
Over at the Texas Invitational, where teams were at different points of midseason rest, there were also several quality performances, including a 1:44.05 swim by Arizona's Jack Brown in the 200 individual medley and a 1:54.52 mark by Texas' Kathleen Hersey in the 200 butterfly. The beauty part, simply, is that swimming has traveled back to 2007 and there is no reason to believe the sport will be any less enjoyable because it's "slower" – so to speak.
Give the United States major applause for not waiting until the Dec. 31 deadline for the end of the high-tech suit era. This country has moved forward earlier and, consequently, has jumpstarted the process of reminding ourselves what is legitimately fast, as opposed to artificially quick. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for other parts of the world.
Later this month, the European Short Course Championships will almost assuredly be filled with ridiculous times and the world-record count of the tech suit era will continue to rise. For at least one more major meet, the sport will be a farce and more world records will be broken in finals than world records will survive. Oh well.
At least we know the sport is going to be fine. Fast doesn't have to be defined by the quickest time ever produced. It can be viewed as an impressive effort in legit conditions. That much was proven this weekend in Texas and Washington, and it was nice to see.
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.
December 7, 2009 Here we are again -- sure you are tired of hearing about the suits, but you don't seem to be tired implying that an entire generation of swimmers did not swim under "legit" conditions and came up with "bogus" times. The suits are faster - why is that such a horrible thing ?
Fly kicks in Backstoke are faster ... flipturns in backstroke are faster .. please let me see your article about the current bogus times at NCAAs in the backstroke events. None of these changes have anything to do with actually swimming backstroke. How much slower would the current NCAA champ in the 100 back be under "old rules" ? 2 or 3 seconds ? I think that is less than any suit helps the current generation.
"Moved forward earlier" ??? Since when do you move forward when you go back 10 years ? Submitted by: oldswimmer
December 7, 2009 The focus will now be on the swimmers, not the suit. Everyone will be in the same boat. This is a good thing, IMO. Submitted by: flyingant
December 7, 2009 The writer who wrote about the NCAA times not being talked about as much is correct. The people that have the current world records in long course are pretty much the same people who had those world records before the high tech suits, especially in the long course back. So Mr. Long move on to 2010 this is a dead subject. Submitted by: swimfan3
December 7, 2009 At the SC Nationals in Federal Way, the swimming was so boring many were watching the college football games up in the lobby. Swimming is going back 10 years and the interest too. So where is the focus headed? Seriously, the swimming was boring. Had to watch it for 3 days! Submitted by: speedboat
December 7, 2009 I was at the SC Nationals meet this week in Seattle. While at the meet, my daughter needed a new suit. The saleswoman upstairs in the lobby insisted on selling me on LZR Elite's "reduced drag". Does anyone else find this humorous and ironic? No matter what suit the swimmer swims in, they are putting their best effort in the water. I think calling past efforts in high tech suits "bogus" is a slippery slope. Swim suit manufacturers will always be looking for that "competitive edge" to enhance sales. Submitted by: lee1607
December 7, 2009 Couldn't disagree with this article more. Submitted by: fluidg
December 7, 2009 Sorry but the sport of swimming is not fine! Were in a world of hurt with our women; fact when a women close to fifty is our best sprinter that is a joke. Submitted by: swimfan3
December 7, 2009 Why is it that the most vocal critics of advancements in suit design have never even put one on?
What exactly does John Lohn (and his buddy Craig Lord) do? For all his loudly professed love and concern for the sport, what is keeping him from swimming? I mean, does he swim? I can't remember ever seeing the name "John Lohn" in the results, much less the rankings.
As a dedicated swimmer who has trained and competed my whole life—and actually has the guts to put everything on the line, I find it extremely annoying that an arm-chair quarterback can spew such drivel without any true accountability. Maybe if he actually participated in the sport there would be some reason to respect his opinion. The worst of this hypocrisy his aire of self-righteousness that permeates these anti-suit "articles" and nerve to claim the moral high ground. "Journalists" should stick to reporting, not manipulating, the news. Submitted by: fluidg
December 7, 2009 "the most vocal critics have been the majority of swimmers" ... that is simply not true ! I bet you anything, if you take a poll of the top 100 swimmers out there, 75 would prefer the suits. The idea that the suits are not available for all swimmers was an initial problem, but I would think that this would not be an issue in the future. Submitted by: oldswimmer
December 7, 2009 I couldn't agree more with taking a vote. Oh yeah Fina did a great job didn't they. They let these suits go in with no rules starting with speedo. When speedo coulnt't keep up they simply pulled the plug. Let the top swimmers in the world take a poll!!!!!!!!!!!! Submitted by: swimfan3
December 7, 2009 Swimfan3, please...
DARA TORRES, I assume, is the swimmer indirected mentioned by you. She should be praised and admired. And above all, show some respect. This article has nothing to do with your comment.
About the article, it is an opinion. As far as I am concerned, opinions are as cheap as a million for a penny...
Writer and readers, a little Critical Thinking (like the one proposed by the Aristotle, for example) and chicken soup doesn´t harm...try some! Submitted by: nadador
December 7, 2009 " If the federation doesn't speak for its swimmers/members" .... now that is funny. What federation actually speaks for their swimmers ? Do you really believe USA swimming speaks for their athletes. That is very naive. The 100 was just an example to make it possible. Take any number of swimmers 16 and older .... Submitted by: oldswimmer
December 8, 2009 I am an Athlete Representative to USA Swimming, and can proudly say that the voice of the athletes has been and will continue to be heard loud and clear on all issues. The subject of the suit ban has been discussed ad nauseum, so I will not touch that here.
It does worry me, however, that people are still convinced that USA Swimming does not speak for its athletes. As required by law, there is athlete representation at every decision making level of our sport, and it is not merely a token gesture. These athletes range from LSC level swimmers to some of the best swimmers in history. We pride ourselves on guiding governance in a direction that allows us to execute the mission USA Swimming: Build, Promote, Achieve. Build the base, by making the sport more accessible to everyone. Promote ourselves as the most successful Olympic program in history. Achieve competitive success at the international level.
While it is not true that every governing body in the world operates in the same way as USA Swimming, many do. There are even direct athlete representatives to FINA. If you feel that your voice isn't being heard at the appropriate level of the sport, please contact your rep (LSC, National, International).
I have written this note under my own volition, out of a sense of duty to clear up any misunderstanding there may be about governance in the USA.
Thanks,
Tim Liebhold
Submitted by: Tim Liebhold
December 8, 2009 I've been swimming in both US and Masters meets for the past two years and the swimmers overwhelmingly want to keep the suits where they belong. The decision makers at USA Swimming are coaches with their own agenda, Mark Schubert in particular. What other sport allows an active coach to run the organization? There's an obvious conflict of interest. No one is asking the swimmers what we want. Instead, we are manipulated under an out-dated paternal authority: "Just do what you're told kids, we know best." I've seen the exact same behavior in academia: people in power who are concerned with feathering their own nests and could care less about what is best for the students.
ldblomgren, you should work for Fox News. If you repeat a lie enough, people start to believe it.
Submitted by: fluidg
December 8, 2009 Tim - how and when exactly did you poll a large number of athletes in regards to the suit decision ? Submitted by: oldswimmer
December 8, 2009 The U.S. women are still strong; not Submitted by: liquidassets
December 8, 2009 swimfan3, "They let these suits go in with no rules starting with speedo."
WRONG. Speedo and all of the other manufacturers whose suits were allowed in the 2009 World Championships MET EVERY RULE and then some new ones designed to create a set of criteria they couldn't meet. Well, guess what? They passed all of the existing rules AND the newly contrived ones.
An THAT is the problem. The sport is being ruined by people who want to ignore the rules while claiming to protect the history and integrity of the sport. That is the very definition of irony. Throwing out the new suits is capricious and makes a mockery of the whole rule process. It's like gong through the motions of a trial with a verdict already decided. Kangaroo court. Rules without principles are nothing more than tools to manipulate.
ldblomgren, apparently, your idea of democracy is along the same lines as George Bush's. Mine is not. My notion of democracy requires the rule of law, even when it isn't convenient. Submitted by: fluidg
December 8, 2009 ldblomgren: "I would have maybe throught that with such dedication would be a desire to race on an even playing field, and the guts to win in spite of the suit."
First, in my opinion, the suits CREATE a more level playing field.
Second, you sound suspiciously like one of the vocal critics I identified as a non-swimmer. You really have the nerve to call me out when you don't have the guts to compete? If you compete, I doubt you would say something about my level of courage. No, more likely you're a coward sitting safely in your seat. Submitted by: fluidg
December 8, 2009 So sorry fluidg but I am agreeing with everything you are saying. What you said about Shubert was spot on. Take the poll of the U.S swimmers !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Submitted by: swimfan3
December 8, 2009 Well, then lets go the whole route. Imagine how fast the times would be with artificial blood and genetically enhanced hemoglobin. And lets make the suit out of an electrofiber that will kill the nerve impulses and deaden the pain. The Italians have found a way to enhanced the DNA of a fly and reinsert it into the same fly and multilpy their flight speed and reaction times by 500. How far do you want to go for those fast times? And how human will the swimmer be when it is done? Submitted by: kccoachmike
December 8, 2009 Oldswimmer, simply stating that 'I bet if we took 100 swimmers 75 of them would support keeping swim suits' doesn't really make it so. Additionally, it seems as though most of the big names support the new rules (Sullivan, Phelps, Leveaux, Bernard, Trickett, Schoeman, Jones, Peirsol, ...). Additionally, most coaches (as do Lord and Lohn) seem to be concerned that swimmers who do additional work are the ones who suffer.
I don't think the popularity of swimming will suffer after the suits are dead and gone. If you only find swimming interesting because someone swims a 1:39 200 free instead of a 1:42, you probably weren't a real fan anyways - go about your way, you won't be missed. Ask one of swimming's new fans any of Phelps' times (or anyone's) and they won't know - why do they love him?? Because he makes the sport interesting, just as Cielo, Trickett, Cavic and Coughlin all do.
Fluidg - Sorry, how do suits create a more level playing field??? What could be more level than two people in speedos?? Submitted by: Alex
December 8, 2009 Tim Liebhold,
As a swimmer, I was not asked what I thought, nor did I hear you asking others what they thought either.
You are solely listening to Speedo (whos logo you put on everything), and Mark Schubert. Anyone would be a fool to think otherwise. Submitted by: xxxxxxxjosh
December 8, 2009 This comment thread is disgusting. It's like a shouting match among teenagers, honestly.
fluid: Everything you say just defies logic. What does this situation have anything to do with a kangaroo court? What does Bush have to do with it? Seriously if you want to be a pundit, you're on the wrong website, this is for swimming.
josh: Don't be silly. You expect USA Swimming to poll every single swimmer on every single issue that they have to deal with? You probably don't know AND don't care about the vast majority of them, yet they are still important, and I think USA Swimming is doing a great job.
Oldswimmer: If you picked 100 swimmers, I wouldn't care what any of them said. If you did a legitimate statistical survey of swimmers, it is likely that the preference would be against the new suits. Though then again what do I know, but what pretty much any international swimmer I've heard of plus what my entire swim team has said.
Tim: Thanks for the continued good work. It's a shame you don't get the respect for it you deserve. Submitted by: Sphere
December 8, 2009 Poll the swimmers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What are you afaid of sphere? People are allowed to have different opinions. You have the right to speak your mind just like everyone you disagree with. Swimming let the great swimmers down!!!!!!!!! Shame on them. Submitted by: swimfan3
December 8, 2009 Sphere, maybe you should invest in a dictionary or at least read the whole thread before pitching in your 2 cents. If you disagree with my logic, then explain where it fails and present a better one. You've done neither. The strength of my argument is precisely that it is based on indisputable logic. If you want to attack my point of view you'll have to do better than sticking out your tongue. Submitted by: fluidg
December 8, 2009 It wouldn't surprise me if a majority of elite swimmers favored the rubber suits, because they do level the playing field somewhat, and remember that only a small fraction of the elite level swimmers ever get to be on a national team or represent the US internationally. So they may feel that it increases their chances of making it to that highest level, regardless of whether it is "fair" or not. Which is why many of the very top world swimmers are against them, as they want to "protect" their spots.
It really comes down to a judgment call about what is fair, and reasonable people can disagree. Personally, I'm glad they're gone. I liked watching nationals to see where things were in pre-2008 suits. I disagree that our women are hurting; they are still close to the top and in the mix internationally. If Hoff (well on her way), Ziegler and Coughlin can mount successful comebacks, a few other veterans can hang on, like Torres, Hoelzer, Hardy, Soni etc., and if the up-and-comers like Knutson, Beisel, Pelton, Carlson, etc., keep coming up, the women should be back on top. Torres at 42 isn't close to 50 yet, and she was 2nd at the Olympics, so she's near top in the world, not just the U.S. So she's an outlier and not a good example to illustrate the opinion that the women are in trouble. As for the relays at Worlds, that was troublesome, but that was such a strange meet suit-wise and again Coughlin, Hoff, and Hardy weren't there so I'm reserving judgment until the next international competition. Submitted by: liquidassets
December 8, 2009 Ahh liquid what happened at the olympics with Hoff and Ziegler, tanked! Get out of your bubble and take a look at whats going on in the world right now!! Plugging your ears and singing la la la Isnt't going to get those girls together. Talking and doing are two different things. Submitted by: swimfan3
December 8, 2009 Oh boy. Fluid, you attack John Lohn for daring to go so far as to have an opinion on something that it's his job to have an opinion on, because he fails to meet some arbitrary criteria you set. So he's never been an elite swimmer, that automatically disqualifies absolutely anything he has to say about the sport? I've never even so much as put on shinguards, doesn't mean I can't say that I love soccer, and am entitled to write opinions about it. He doesn't run FINA, even he would admit that he probably doesn't have any influence on any of their decisions, and then they happen to make a decision he agrees with, and you attack him for it? You're certainly entitled to disagree with the decision, but what does Mr. Lohn's view have anything to do with it?
And then you go on to say "First, in my opinion, the suits CREATE a more level playing field." You just said that Mr. Lohn's opinion doesn't matter because he was never an elite swimmer, why should any of us care about yours? But I'll even acknowledge that you can have a valid view, even if you won't give the same courtesy to anyone else, and kindly dissent. Why is leveling the playing field a desirable outcome? The only real way these suits level the playing field is to help worse swimmers catch up to better ones. But at that point, why not have Olympic craps? There the playing field is perfectly level AND there's already inherently money involved. I suppose that's your perfect sport? Submitted by: Sphere
December 8, 2009 And if you want a more deliberate reply to your post, I'll give you that to. You want me to post where I disagree with your logic, and then claim that the strength of your argument is that its indisputable.
Well. As far as I can tell you don't really have an argument to dispute. You've done precisely two things in this thread: you have stated dissent, and you have attacked others (John Lohn, Craig Lord, USA Swimming, Speedo, Mark Schubert, and a few other posters besides myself). There really isn't much there to argue against, because you don't really make any actual points. Stating that "the sport is being ruined" doesn't really do much to further any discussion. Calling other people cowards or telling them to invest in a dictionary doesn't either.
There are absolutely good and bad things about the suits, I don't see it remotely as an obvious choice either way. What IS obvious is that you are simply unnecessarily hateful. If you can articulate an argument in favor of the suits without attacking anybody in any way, and actually provide points supporting that argument outside of simply stating that it is so, I will certainly listen. But please stop resorting to poisoning the well. Since you are an expert logician, I am sure you understand what I'm saying. Submitted by: Sphere
December 8, 2009 Before I start, I need to state my perspective. I am a competitive swimmer (albeit not an especially good one!) and swimming nerd/analyst.
"First, in my opinion, the suits CREATE a more level playing field."
You have got to be kidding me! This is swimming, not who's got the best suit! I know it's been said, but it is completely true: the suits destroy some of the main tenets of our sport: focus on technique, focus on hard work, etc.
That said, I still believe full bodysuits should be legal, but polyurethane has to go. It was AWESOME to not have to think about suits at Nationals and ENJOY the swimming!
In the next two weeks at European short course and Duel in the Pool, the suits will once again be on my mind. Which sucks. You might remember my open letter to USA Swimming about how bad it was to allow suits in the Duel; it
kills most of the purpose of the meet!
Finally, just to clear up a point, the vast majority of ELITE swimmers who have spoken out have been AGAINST the suits. Remember how Roland Schoeman tried to start some World Swimmers' Association? Completely because of the suits and the mess FINA made; votes should be taken, from now on, with swimmers carrying the most weight, followed by coaches, and THEN swimming bureaucrats who have made such a mess of swimming the last two years. Submitted by: David Rieder
December 8, 2009 The Speedo suits are over priced. But someone has to paid for Speedo's loss. Submitted by: speedboat
December 8, 2009 We love you!!!! My family think you should have your own blog. Sphere is so bent it's awesome. Fluidg you ROCK!!! Submitted by: swimfan3
December 8, 2009 "The suits, like it or not, are gone folks!"
ldblomgren, as gleeful as you are to stick a fork in the suits, you may be rubbing it in my face too soon. You should probably be informed that FINA has not yet ruled on the tech suits for Masters Swimming. Submitted by: fluidg
December 8, 2009 swimfan3; No bubble here, but yeah the women's distance is a big question mark. Hoff and Ziegler had previously put up some amazing times; like I said it depends on their ability to come back. Hoff is looking pretty good for early season, we'll have to see about Ziegler. But in Beijing, even with both of them off their game, the U.S. women were still a very close second behind Australia; and had been for several years, prior to that they were first. So I'm optimistic about their chances to get back to Submitted by: liquidassets
December 8, 2009 ""First, in my opinion, the suits CREATE a more level playing field."
You have got to be kidding me! This is swimming, not who's got the best suit!"
Yes, in my opinion, the suits create a much more level playing field, just as every other advancement in swimming technology has. Better lane lines and better pool designs make each lane much more uniform. The suits level the playing field by giving the same opportunity for low drag coefficient to everyone. Why should I be penalized for having hair? My skin will never be as smooth or as slippery in the water as someone without much hair. No one has a problem with the concept of shaving. I don't hear anyone comparing shaving to taking steroids, but those irresponsible comparisons are common in the tech suit propaganda. We are allowed to hide our hair behind the urethane of a swim cap. There's no difference. Shaving, especially when you have something to shave, is tedious and largely inefficient. The hair starts growing back immediately, so your only without stubble for maybe one day. So body hair and skin smoothness is taken out of the equation the same way head hair is neutralized by the adoption of the cap. If everyone has a surface with the same drag coefficient (which the suits do provide), then it makes a more level playing field. Shouldn't competition be decided as a contest of strength, conditioning, and technique—things we can control—rather than things we can't control, like who has the lowest skin drag coefficient?
The other field-leveling effect of the tech suits is the opportunity of choice that we enjoyed the past two years. Swimmer's choices of suits were all over the place before they settled on the majority preferring the full-body version. That choice is vital to the sport for several critical reasons, but it is also a more fair landscape for everyone (including the competition among the manufacturers themselves.) Why? Because swimmer do have different preferences that acutely affect their ability to perform. The old conventional breaststroke wisdom was that wearing leggings made it harder to feel the water on the kick. Now most swim in full body. But having a choice of so many styles and materials allows swimmers to pick the combination that works for them. This is not a one-size-fits-all sport.
Next:
"I know it's been said, but it is completely true: the suits destroy some of the main tenets of our sport: focus on technique, focus on hard work, etc."
That statement simply does not agree with my own direct experience. My technique is better than ever. I'm focusing as much or more than ever—partly because I learn something new every day. And I'm in the best shape of my life in many ways. The people I train with see how hard I work, while trying not to get broken down.
Are you really in a position to tell me otherwise? Submitted by: fluidg
December 8, 2009 The goal is to make a FAIR playing field. Each swimmer should be given the least amount of artificial aid as possible. Natural advantages are natural advantages. But isn't swimming about seeing who the BEST swimmer is? Not the one who is helped the most by a suit!
I didn't say that suits don't help if you don't work hard or great technique. (On the contrary, they can help improve technique if used correctly.) Take someone like Tyler Clary. If you saw his freestyle this weekend at Nationals, IT SUCKED! This was the guy who ran down Laszlo Cseh for at the end of a 400 IM at worlds IN A JAKED! Suddenly, his technique is crap and he gets nowhere! Then someone like Peter Marshall. He barely trains all year, then puts on a suit and crushes world records. Without a suit, I doubt he would be doing this kind of stuff! I think you misunderstood my point there. Submitted by: David Rieder
December 8, 2009 Fluid: First off, thanks for the well-thought out attack-less reply. I may disagree with your points, but I appreciate the tone. Now, my disagreement:
1) I agree the lane ropes and goggles are great, but no one will argue that either gives anyone an unfair advantage, but I have to disagree that they somehow level the playing field. What they do is making it easier to both train and compete, and get a lot of problems out of the way. The fastsuits, on the other hand, do no such thing. It is empirically false that fastsuits affect everyone the same way; they disproportionately benefit swimmers with worse technique that are in worse shape. And this, I would argue, does the opposite of leveling the playing field: it gives worse swimmers an unfair boost and makes it truly impossible to determine who is the BEST swimmer.
2) The swimmer's choice of suit argument I don't buy at all. First, simply because there isn't much variety in what suits swimmers wear now (with the fastsuits, everyone wears the full legs/chest) and second, because I don't think this really matters. Would it really be awful if everyone went back to "briefs OR jammer" (for men)?
3) While it's great that you personally are training hard and learning every day, that's largely irrelevant to the question as a whole. How does the greater swimming population now react to this? And the answer that I've seen, from numerous coaches, editorials, and anecdotes, is that the suits DO have an adverse affect on focus on technique and hard work. And you can't really say that my sample is biased, because it isn't a question of "how much a problem is this" but rather "is this a problem at all" and the answer is "yes, it is a problem." And so while the suits may not affect in any way YOUR work ethic or YOUR focus on technique, and they might not affect either focus for many thousands upon swimmers, the fact remains that they DO affect enough for it to remain an important point.
These points are exactly why I am personally opposed to the suits: that they disproportionately favor worse swimmers and, as a result, there would've been a continued drop off in focus on hard work and technique. Submitted by: Sphere
December 9, 2009 T"he Speedo suits are over priced. But someone has to paid for Speedo's loss."
True that, speedboat. I don't remember jammers being $42 or speedos being $72.
Who knew doubling the price of the suits they've been trying to sell for the past 4 years would get them off the shelves?
Submitted by: xxxxxxxjosh
December 9, 2009 I couldn´t agree with Sphere more.
We have seen some horrible swims (technique-wise) that produced jaw-dropping times... that´s not swimming..
The one that comes to my mind right now is Paul Biederman´s swims on the Berlin leg of the World Cup... If you saw, you know what I am talking about (his flips, turns, etc..).
Again, some people "blamed" the suits.. I still think some doping was disguised under "the suit" card...but that´s another story.. Submitted by: nadador
December 9, 2009 Sphere, your arguments are based 100% on hearsay and speculation. What you wish to be true or what seems true are often far from the truth. The world seems flat.
And swimmers' choice should matter. For two years, swimmers had a lot of choice and they tried lots of different things. Take a look at footage from last summer's Santa Clara meet. Variety is interesting and it makes a more fair playing field. It also creates a competitive industry, which strengthens the entire sport immeasurably and offers the best of market forces for consumers. The fact that most swimmers gravitated to full-body suits only makes my point. That's what we want. Nobody is forcing anyone to wear one. (Aaron Peirsol likes leggings.)
And I just don't get what you are saying in your last bit. Are you saying that kids tell their coach that they don't have to try because they'll just wear a suit? I say, those kids won't go anywhere in the sport anyway. But again, pure hearsay. Even if it's true, I'd be embarrassed to parade that around in public. I certainly don't think our entire sport should be manipulated to just to get a few spoiled brats a little more motivated. That's like the NFL making it's rules based on what parents in Pop Warner want.
I train with a couple of different club teams (US) and I've never seen anything at all to suggest that they are slacking off or leaning on the suit to do the work.
Your point about how the suits somehow selectively favor only certain mediocre swimmers is just pure nonsense. Just because you can say something, it doesn't make it true.
And nadador, take a look at the Beijing 200 free final and the one last summer in Rome. The only difference is Biederman. The suit didn't make anyone else leapfrog Michael. Could it be that it's not the suit? What? It only works for Biederman? Don't you see how delusional that is? Submitted by: fluidg
December 10, 2009 I have to congratulate Sphere, nadador, David Rieder, ldblomgren and Tim. Not to forget John Lohn and Craig Lord.
I have just read all the above comments and I can also see a distinct evolution in the arguments of "fluidg" he/she may not agree with us but you have to admit the points made in the latest few uploads are slightly better than the earlier rants and insults! However, in the last two sentences there is a contradiction, in one it is argued that the suits do not "selectively favour only mediocre swimmers" and that it "is just pure nonsense". In the final sentence to make the point he says "the only difference is Biederman" well surely this is in fact reinforcing the argument that the effects could help some more than others rather than the opposite!
Just a point on one of the earlier threads stating that if you haven't donned a performance enhancing suit then somehow you are not entitled to comment on the suits! Well, I haven't worn a suit, only briefs, I train hard and compete in many different events throughout the year, so obviously this means I don't have a say in it? Those calling for a vote, would it stipulate that only the ones allowed to vote have worn the suits? How many suited up competitions will they have to have competed in to qualify to vote! I think what they really mean is that to vote you would have to have the same point of view as them!
Now, correct me if I'm wrong but are these not the same individuals who called Brendan Hanson, Phelps and Bowman hypocrites and bad losers when having worn or embraced suits they later decided to speak out against them. However, admitting they were wrong, or wishing to change their minds and wanting to correct it actually shows strength of character.
I'm ready to stand on the blocks and perform come January, unfortunately some of us appear to be lagging behind. The suits unfortunately have caused doubt and an inferiority complex in the minds of the swimmers who wish to keep them, I'm sure they will cope in the end!
Cheers,
Scott
Submitted by: scotswim
December 11, 2009 Other than the occasional lack of civility in some of the posts, this is a great discussion thread on the subject of the technical suits. Thanks to Mr. Lohn for getting this discussion started on this website.
As a way of introduction (so you can judge my perspective in context), let me describe myself as a former DI swimmer (many, many years ago), a former DIII coach and a former national championship level official. My daughter swam at a DI program for a couple of years and my son is currently an elite international level swimmer.
I think the one unifying theme throughout the debate is (or at least should be) this: Swimming's governing bodies need to put rules in place that create a level playing field for the athletes. It's why we have consistent technical stroke rules that are enforced in an even-handed way (most of the time) and it's why FINA developed rules governing the composition and construction of the technical suits.
So for me, the real debate isn't whether we should use technical suits or not. The real debate is: What is the most effective way to create a level playing field for the athletes? I think there are two possible answers.
Answer #1 – Have all athletes compete in exactly the same technical suit. That way no one has to look at the guy next to him and ask, "Is he wearing a faster suit?" Obviously, this isn't really a workable solution. You'd either have to (a) identify one suit, manufactured by one suit maker and create a monopoly for that suit maker or (b) develop very, very specific, detailed suit composition and manufacturing standards so that all suits manufactured by all suit makers are virtually identical. A suit monopoly is not going to happen. Trying to develop and enforce detailed technical suit rules is impractical (as we have seen), would create a political nightmare (as we have seen) and would create incentives for suit makers to cheat.
Answer #2 – Develop simpler suit rules that are simpler to enforce. I think that's exactly what FINA has tried to do. FINA has tried to create a level playing field - a playing field where suits do not create a competitive advantage for anyone - by enacting rules that are relatively simple to develop, understand and enforce. Did they get it absolutely right? I don't know, but they did try to establish a simple framework to try to create a level playing field.
Submitted by: tootall79
December 15, 2009 The suits are gone! Now let's do what Coach Dick Jochums said after the 1973 World Champs introduced the East German women to the world. So many coaches were whining about the EG women on the floor of the ASCA business meeting and Coach Jochums walked to the mic and simply said "Coaches, just shut up and go home and train our swimmers to go faster."
Our swimmers have world records to break that were set with technology. We need to coach our swimmers to leap over those bars with hard work, better technique in stroke and body rigidity and strength. That means more work. It may mean 3 hour practices for swimmers and 13 hour days for coaches instead of 12, but it will mean more work.
So, enough of the whining about Speedo and Schubert (most of you could not beat him when he was coaching, maybe he knows better than you when it comes to building a fast team) and the process (go to convention and over turn the rule) and athletes (fluidg has "never seen anything at all to suggest that they are slacking off or leaning on the suit to do the work" I have coached for 37 years we should talk). Let's get to work on being the best in the world.
And that means for our women especially. We are long past those great 1976 and 1980 womens teams. We had the older swimmers hang on and run off the young kids until the coaches got the young girls to realize that they could play with the women. Now the youngsters are poised to play at the top, we need to be ready to follow them with more talent or are we all figuring that Dagny will be the American standard bearer into the 2042 Games? Submitted by: kccoachmike
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!
|
