I got three letters; one from an Olympian, and an IM from a writer about a site that I won't mention that actually condemned jammers as essentially being "evil tech dope."
This is the same site that lobbied FINA day-after-day, hour-after-hour, to ban tech-suits but now they have found a new target: they are going after jammers.
I think their real target here is adolescent boys since once the jammers are banned, there won't be any young boys swimming in the USA.
27 comments:
They want everyone to wear speedos? why are jammers evil tech dope?
When I coached high school, I said jammers saved boys high school swimming. As a masters swimmer, I said body suits saved mens masters swimming. Man... I hope I was wrong on both accounts.
Surface area of the material. i.e. there is still too much material according to this swim site.
The claim is actually true. I remember that particular study by a US researcher. The basic conclusion is there is not a significant difference between a legskin and a jammer. Both are faster than a brief. The caveat is that in the testing, they used "high-tech" jammers and legskins and regular briefs.
I don't disagree that it is true, I just feel the solution that is being proposed would be profoundly destructive to both male age group and finally mens swimming at large.
I'm with Glenn; my daughter's team is predominately girls but that ratio would change even more dramatically if the boys had to wear speedos.
At least with jammers they can have flames or pirate skulls on the side panel; let's keep one reason for them to stay.
I think that if they allowed leggings it would bring in even more boys.
In fact, I think in they allowed tech suits next year in masters swimming, Masters would grow exponentially all for the very same reasons: Modesty.
You have to understand that the letter Forbes Carlile wrote addresses an issue which hasn't been brought before FINA. I can't believe this will go very far. For one thing the entire swimming world is profoundly sick and tired of dealing with the trauma of technosuits and wants to move beyond it. For another jammers are popular and the amount of material used is still less than 'enjoyed' by women. If we start trying to limit material then we run into a whole new issue of propriety - and that's a losing argument.
If someone like myself, one of the most fervent supporters of a ban on all technosuits, is against imposing a ban on male jammers then jammer-wearers can rest easy. Sure it's a letter by one of the most esteemed elders of Swimming and it speaks some truth, but the idea is not going anywhere. The jammer is here to stay.
Check out the news from Nancy Rideout's Pacific Masters LMSC Newsletter below:
SUIT UPDATE
There will not be a new FINA Masters swimwear rule until mid-January at the earliest, so the June 1, 2009 USMS swimwear interpretation is still in effect. Suits on the June 22 FINA-approved list and suits introduced prior to September 30, 2007 are still legal for US Masters Swimming meets.
FINA will make a decision on Master's swimwear in mid January.
"Voldemort" was first in line crying out for the "criminalization" of tech suits; now his site is first in line calling for the "criminalization" of jammers.
"He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named" is taken very seriously by FINA and I am completely astonished as to why.
Also, since when has FINA acted rationally?
Yes, FINA will decide in January but Nancy J. Ridout and the FINA Masters committee recommended that tech suits be illegal so the momentum is definitely stacked against tech suits.
As of me, I decided that i am just going to keep on wearing my tech suit.
I will call the meet directors and ask them politely if I may wear my tech suit and be DQed after the race rather than being denied the right to step on the blocks and swim.
If the is yes, I will show up to the meets. If the answer is no, then I will stay home and swim the the SCY LMU fund raiser meet only.
That's a very good point that needs to be addressed Tony. How should meet administrators handle swimmers who want to race in technosuits? That they won't qualify for records is a given, but should they be allowed to race and get a time? What are the current procedures for dealing with somebody getting up on the blocks with, say, fins on? Since participation is the soul of masters swimming I'm thinking that perhaps we should accept the use of some devices not tolerated in competitive swimming. Tony's comment about the modesty afforded by techsuits is an excellent example. We should submit this for consideration to our respective national masters federations.
Wow! We agree on something! :-D
We have meets down here where they have fun with it: MVN once let you do 25s, another heat let you use fins. LCM races need to do this more.
I am hoping a meet director says, sure, come on down, just put NT as you time.
Well I think the real swimmers swim , either with a brief, so whats the problem???? I think that everybody need trainning more and do their best.
YES! Darn Straight!
I'm with Scott on this one: Knees to navel for the men, knees to shoulders for the women. Jammers, for the men, are fine.
I, too, hated those damm techsuits and I'm desperate glad they're gone. I'm OK with the jammers, though.
I have a riddle for both of you: Is a silicon or latex cap a device or swimwear?
Tony
I think FINA should make a decision that is in the interests of the worldwide sport, and not be influenced by the fact that in one country adolescent boys are being taught by their culture to be embarrassed about their bodies.
Really though, jammers would still be fine for training, it would just be elite competition that would be affected.
Wow, just checking the cool comments, from jammers, to approaching the blocks with fins. Remember the swim helmet? It was a hard shell of a swim cap.
Anonymous - Let's see!
As a result of our neurotic fixation on our bodies, we smoke less, drink less, and wash more!
At least in Los Angeles, California.
That's a good question.
I'd say both are equipment, one's better than the other, though. (Silicone versus latex.) The benefit is minimal, they're relatively inexpensive and they're available to everyone.
Though a cap will make you swim faster, especially if you have long hair, it is labeled swimwear. The reason why speedsits lasted as long as they did is that a rule change had to lable them devices.
In other words, it is all consideration
Anonymous, posted 8.14: i am reading this blog from literally the other side of the world and can tell you that the majority of male swimmers under age 18 train in jammers here also - it's not just a fad in the US. Banning jammers would have a huge effect on participation.
Nice try on the swim cap Tony, but they fall neatly in line with the principles guiding the ban on technosuits. Permeability has only been raised as an issue (and this is just my own supposition) because it's a simple, effective way to ban the high tech, high tensile materials we were seeing used by the technosuits. It was the means by which the real culprit in this fracas achieved its foul deed. That was the ability of the technosuits to modify the body's position. As a result, because the ability to hold a more streamlined form is an individual trait, these suits offered improvement which varied from person to person (i.e. provided an unfair advantage to some). Swimsuits had become a device. The new silicon racing caps on the other hand are 'levelers' - they allow all swimmers the ability to swim as if their heads were shaved - and thus provide a level playing field for competitors regardless of individual hair style. I'm for faster swim caps as I'm for better, faster pools. So bring them on!
A cap is a device unless FINA names it "swimwear."
A swim cap makes you go faster so as to replicate a shaved head, what about a shaved body?
The phrasing is called doublespeak: "Doublespeak is saying one thing and meaning another, usually its opposite" George Orwell.
Calling a non permeable cap swimwear is no more of a stretch then calling a tech suit swim wear.
Since when has shaving down been illegal? And if shaving isn't why should swim caps? Besides which, what does George Orwell have to do with the question of whether or not technosuits are devices? They've been outlawed because banning the suits was the choice of an overwhelming majority within the swimming community. Deliberately ignoring the mountains of evidence that the new suits improved a swimmer's speed by changing his or her swimming position (i.e. a device) does not lend credence to your argument.
A cap is a device that you place your hair in so as to swim faster but FINA calls it swim wear.
The double speak is calling a swimsuit a device and a swim cap swimwear.
Shaving down is not illegal but it is a performance enhancing mod! You raise the argument about a cap affords you the luxury of not shaving down. Well, why not have the suit afford you that luxury too?
Post a Comment