Any time a politician utilizes an emotional argument to validate their political point and then salts that argument with a subjective statement posed as a fact, you are about to be bamboozled.
Chuck Wieglus is really working it with this statement that he probably had his PR people write.
From Swimming World:
"As an organization, we have been working with FINA and other swimming nations to find a solution that will ensure a fair and even playing field for all swimmers, and that will ultimately advance the best interests of our sport," said Chuck Wielgus, USA Swimming Executive Director. "With Saturday's vote, our membership has sent a clear message that it wanted this action taken sooner, rather than later. We hope that this action will put the emphasis back where it belongs – on our athletes, their training and hard work."
[Link]
What bravado and arrogance! Saying tech-suits are not fair is like saying the Titanic is unsinkable and both statements are easily disproved. For instance, what if every swimmer in a race wore a tech-suit! Why would that be unfair? Hmmm, because Michael Phelps would lose?
Mark Savage shot that photo of a swimmer at the Mission Viejo. If you look at the photo in the masthead, this is the third photo in that start progression.
9 comments:
While I don't think just going away with the suits was the best option, at this point, this is the best for USA swimmers. This way they are starting their season already without the suits, and getting used to how it's going to be from now on.
I don't think this is the end of the suits really, but at this point I must say the decision to follow the new FINA rules right at the beginning of the season was probably the best for everyone involved in the sport.
I'm going to disagree with you Tony on this one (big surprise eh?). When I compare Chuck Wieglus' statement to your rebuttal - What bravado and arrogance! Saying tech-suits are not fair is like saying the Titanic is unsinkable and both statements are easily disproved. For instance, what if every swimmer in a race wore a tech-suit! Why would that be unfair? - I have to come solidly down in favor of Chuck. Using the Titanic to support your cause is a shot right out of the ballpark of rational thought. One of those monumental momentary brain glitches we all succumb to every once in a while.
Even forcing all swimmers into a single tech-suit would still prove to be unfair, as some swimmers would benefit more than others (it's accepted by the overwhelming majority of elite coaches that speed suits provided a bigger boost to swimmers with inferior core strength and kick than those who rely on the same for competitive advantage). Like Paul Biedermann as opposed to Michael Phelps (a tip of the hat to Phelps rather than a knock on Biedermann here). Of course since in the real world people simply don't/can't/shouldn't swim in the same suit there are still more factors outside a swimmer's control to influence the results, demonstrated by the LZR Racer vs. Jaked fiasco.
I will, however, concede that the Federations' haste to rid themselves of these suits is more a fit of pique than an act based on rational reason. The first major meet in 2010 is early March, more than enough time to get acclimatized to the new reality after the New Year. On the other hand why train in something which is out its way out in a few weeks?
Signing off as one of those delightedly dancing on the shredded remains of the techsuit 'experiment',
Canuckswimmer
In 2011 when all is said and done, then FINA, USA Swimming, and the USMS can ask themselves if they did right or did they do wrong? The membership numbers will be their answer.
Let me say this, I bet the the USTA will see a surge in membership. Look at this snippet:
Triathlon participation in the United States is at an all-time high, following unprecedented growth over the past 10 years. USA Triathlon can easily track the surge through its membership numbers, which surpassed 115,000 annual members in early 2009. [The USMS has only 50k]
To put that into perspective, annual membership hovered between 15,000 and 21,000 from 1993 to 2000.
Right now the USAT is looking pretty good to me.
Scott this is red-versus-blue and there will be fallout.
In 2011 when all is said and done, then FINA, USA Swimming, and the USMS can ask themselves if they did right or did they do wrong? The membership numbers will be their answer.
Let me say this, I bet the the USTA will see a surge in membership. Look at this snippet:
Triathlon participation in the United States is at an all-time high, following unprecedented growth over the past 10 years. USA Triathlon can easily track the surge through its membership numbers, which surpassed 115,000 annual members in early 2009. [The USMS has only 50k]
To put that into perspective, annual membership hovered between 15,000 and 21,000 from 1993 to 2000.
Right now the USAT is looking pretty good to me.
Scott this is red-versus-blue and there will be fallout.
1.) The techsuit era was not fair. Different athletes got access to different technologies at different times. In a sport defined by less than 3% between 1st and 50th this, by definition, is not fair.
2.) I am sooo glad that we are at the end of this debacle. It will be a such a pleasure to see athletes - versus suit manufacturers - compete against each other.
The great beauty of the sport is that it is that it is so finite, so infinitely measurable. "Stand up here, go down there and then come back here. First one back wins."
No special equipment, just your will and knowledge. The suits made a travesty of the sublime, simple beauty of the sport. Made a joke of it. I hated 'em and I'm glad they're gone.
M, I may not be one of them. I got into the sport when Thorpe, and Inge de Bruijin were setting records in a full body suit. Suit tech is all I have known. To remove them is like telling me how I am suppose to have fun.
So some swimmers get an advantage with the hi tech suits where as some don't. Isn't that the going the same assumption with the new dull suits?
Yep, Phelps does better than most with his dolphin kick coming off the walls to win. But, look at it from this angle. He is a professional who lives in the pool and doesn't have to worry about getting a job. He can afford the best equipment and coaching tools. His whole day is planned on swimming. How many swimmers have that opportunity? Only a few have. Is it fair for Phelps and anyone like him to be competing against true amatuers?
At least in golf on the recreational level, they have "handicaps" to level the field. Maybe all the amatuers swimmers should get a handicap when swimming against people like Phelps who are true professional athletes.
"Maybe all the amatuers swimmers should get a handicap when swimming against people like Phelps who are true professional athletes."
The only amateurs left in elite sport of any kind are the administrators. If you are competing against Michael Phelps, in a final, at the World Champs or Olympics, you're a pro. That is the way you feed yourself and, if you have one, your family.
I think it's fairly ridiculous to ban tech suits. It slows down investment in the sport. Whether the timing of this ban is appropriate, that's debatable.
Post a Comment