The new Speedo Lazr is supposed to sell for $550.

No one wanted this suit. Athletes didn't ask for it. Coaches didn't
ask for it. Certainly swim parents didn't want it.

Swimming used to be a fair, accessible sport. Less than $100 in total
equipment, and you are good to go.

We've got colleges dropping the sport right and left, and you've got
kids trying to win championships, supported by cash-strapped parents.

The only people who benefit from these suits are the manufacturers and
the bureaucrats of the swimming world, who prize the license and
sponsor fees. One might say that, with more profits, Corporate
Swimming puts more money into the sport. But at what price? Are we
better off with lucrative sponsor fees paid to FINA, USA Swimming, and
a handful of elite swimmers, or with a larger base of athletes and
more teams at all levels? And more money in the pockets of swim
families, to support their local swim clubs and swim organizations,
and to travel to swim meets.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach,CA

Responce in body, and below
<runnswim@aol.com> wrote in message
news:2af1c04c-a4be-4742-8357-12120de5224b@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> The new Speedo Lazr is supposed to sell for $550.

Didn't most high tech suits sell about that high when they first came out?

>
> No one wanted this suit. Athletes didn't ask for it. Coaches didn't
> ask for it. Certainly swim parents didn't want it.

Athletes always want that edge. Otherwise they wouldnt sell. Its the same
reason they will always have to test for banned substances, people want that
extra edge.

>
> Swimming used to be a fair, accessible sport. Less than $100 in total
> equipment, and you are good to go.

It can be. A brief is about $30-50. A swim cap, about $10 and a pair of
goggles, about $20. That is less than $100

>
> We've got colleges dropping the sport right and left, and you've got
> kids trying to win championships, supported by cash-strapped parents.

Living beyond their means?

>
> The only people who benefit from these suits are the manufacturers and
> the bureaucrats of the swimming world, who prize the license and
> sponsor fees. One might say that, with more profits, Corporate
> Swimming puts more money into the sport. But at what price? Are we
> better off with lucrative sponsor fees paid to FINA, USA Swimming, and
> a handful of elite swimmers, or with a larger base of athletes and
> more teams at all levels? And more money in the pockets of swim
> families, to support their local swim clubs and swim organizations,
> and to travel to swim meets.

Every parent wants the best for their kids. The problem is that every parent
thinks their kid can be the next star. I know parents spend thousands of
dollars a year for other activities.

If it is too expencive, its because people are willing to pay that cost.

Micheal

"Robert W. McAdams" <rwm@fambright.com> wrote in message
news:486715A9.7070100@fambright.com...
> Micheal Artindale wrote:
>> Responce in body, and below
>> <runnswim@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:2af1c04c-a4be-4742-8357-12120de5224b@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>The new Speedo Lazr is supposed to sell for $550.
>>
>>
>> Didn't most high tech suits sell about that high when they first came
>> out?
>
> No. Each new generation of high tech suits has upped the ante. What HAS
> been true is that each new generation of high tech suits has carried a
> price tag that shocked us. But we used to be shocked if the price tag was
> $100, or $200. Now it takes a price tag of $550 to shock us.
>
>>>No one wanted this suit. Athletes didn't ask for it. Coaches didn't
>>>ask for it. Certainly swim parents didn't want it.
>>
>>
>> Athletes always want that edge. Otherwise they wouldnt sell. Its the same
>> reason they will always have to test for banned substances, people want
>> that extra edge.
>
> I think what Larry is suggesting is that perhaps these new suits should
> become banned substances. The whole idea is that something can only give
> athletes an edge if some use it and some don't. If everyone uses it, or
> if no one uses it, nobody has an edge. But, in the case of the new
> swimsuits, it's a lot cheaper if no one uses them!
>
> Another problem with the new suits is that it has effectively become
> impossible for a swimmer to set a new record anymore, at least in the eyes
> of the public. If a swimmer breaks an old record, the public assumes it's
> because of the new swimsuits, not because of a new accomplishment by a
> swimmer.
>
>
> Bob
>

So, if we take what you say one step further, ban wearing anything. People
are after that 1 hundreth of a second. What would happen if they made the
rule that it had to be at least a 1 second difference for a world record to
count, and the world record must be broken in the suit worn by the original
swimmer? I bet that we would not have quite so fast of times.

The day I worry about 1 hundreth of a second in any race is the day I take a
year off.

Micheal

Micheal Artindale wrote:
> Responce in body, and below
> <runnswim@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:2af1c04c-a4be-4742-8357-12120de5224b@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>>The new Speedo Lazr is supposed to sell for $550.
>
>
> Didn't most high tech suits sell about that high when they first came out?

No. Each new generation of high tech suits has upped the ante. What
HAS been true is that each new generation of high tech suits has carried
a price tag that shocked us. But we used to be shocked if the price tag
was $100, or $200. Now it takes a price tag of $550 to shock us.

>>No one wanted this suit. Athletes didn't ask for it. Coaches didn't
>>ask for it. Certainly swim parents didn't want it.
>
>
> Athletes always want that edge. Otherwise they wouldnt sell. Its the same
> reason they will always have to test for banned substances, people want that
> extra edge.

I think what Larry is suggesting is that perhaps these new suits should
become banned substances. The whole idea is that something can only
give athletes an edge if some use it and some don't. If everyone uses
it, or if no one uses it, nobody has an edge. But, in the case of the
new swimsuits, it's a lot cheaper if no one uses them!

Another problem with the new suits is that it has effectively become
impossible for a swimmer to set a new record anymore, at least in the
eyes of the public. If a swimmer breaks an old record, the public
assumes it's because of the new swimsuits, not because of a new
accomplishment by a swimmer.


Bob

<runnswim@aol.com> wrote in message
news:2af1c04c-a4be-4742-8357-12120de5224b@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> The new Speedo Lazr is supposed to sell for $550.
>
> No one wanted this suit. Athletes didn't ask for it. Coaches didn't
> ask for it. Certainly swim parents didn't want it.
>
> Swimming used to be a fair, accessible sport. Less than $100 in total
> equipment, and you are good to go.
>
> We've got colleges dropping the sport right and left, and you've got
> kids trying to win championships, supported by cash-strapped parents.
>
> The only people who benefit from these suits are the manufacturers and
> the bureaucrats of the swimming world, who prize the license and
> sponsor fees. One might say that, with more profits, Corporate
> Swimming puts more money into the sport. But at what price? Are we
> better off with lucrative sponsor fees paid to FINA, USA Swimming, and
> a handful of elite swimmers, or with a larger base of athletes and
> more teams at all levels? And more money in the pockets of swim
> families, to support their local swim clubs and swim organizations,
> and to travel to swim meets.
>
> - Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach,CA

Good points, Larry. It can be instructive to look at how other sports
deal with the issue of "gear." In bicycling, innovation continues but
with restrictions - certain types of riding positions have been
outlawed, and bikes now must weigh at least a certain minimum. I think,
although I don't know anything about this particular sport, that
automobile racing in its various forms has a similar history, namely
that someone introduces an innovation, and it is either allowed or it
becomes the reason for a new rule.

Powerlifting, a sport in which I have competed, has an interesting take
on this - there are two divisions, geared and raw, with separate records
maintained for each, e.g., I have set several age/weight group world
records in the AAU in the raw division, in which one is allowed to wear
a weighlifting belt but that's it (and I don't even use that). In the
geared division, all kinds of supportive clothing is allowed, so
supportive, in fact that, e.g., some of the squat suits provide so much
help at the bottom of a squat that lifters actually cannot get _down_ to
the required depth _unless_ they have a heavy weight on their back - the
suit is that tight, or springy, or whatever you want to call it. The
concept of a separate division for "unassisted by the latest technology"
probably will never happen in swimming, but it's an interesting thing,
IMHO, to contemplate.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

Quoting me:

> No one wanted this suit. Athletes didn't ask for it. Coaches didn't
> ask for it. Certainly swim parents didn't want it.

Artindale objects:

>>Athletes always want that edge. Otherwise they wouldnt sell.<<

Here's a quote from this morning's Orange County Register (Sun, June
29, 2008):

"When you get up on the blocks, it should be about ability and who's
done the work and not about what suit you are wearing," said Irvine's
Aaron Peirsol, the 2004 Olympic 100- and 200- meter backstroke
champion. "And I think it's sad that maybe it's come to that."

- Larry Weisenthal

<runnswim@aol.com> wrote in message
news:21a8a4aa-0554-4a88-a0c5-40480015bb10@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> Quoting me:
>
>> No one wanted this suit. Athletes didn't ask for it. Coaches didn't
>> ask for it. Certainly swim parents didn't want it.
>
> Artindale objects:
>
>>>Athletes always want that edge. Otherwise they wouldnt sell.<<
>
> Here's a quote from this morning's Orange County Register (Sun, June
> 29, 2008):
>
> "When you get up on the blocks, it should be about ability and who's
> done the work and not about what suit you are wearing," said Irvine's
> Aaron Peirsol, the 2004 Olympic 100- and 200- meter backstroke
> champion. "And I think it's sad that maybe it's come to that."
>
> - Larry Weisenthal

But the issue is that everyone wants to break records. Breaking records
is good for one's bank account, among other things, and these suits,
just like assistive weight lifting gear, help new records be set. The
public at large doesn't care that the reason for the new record might be
the suit and nothing else. The advertising execs want to have a new
record to publicize, and so it goes. In short, the new suits are good
for the business of swimming.

-S-

Here's another quote from article on the suits in this morning's
Orange Country Register:

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/speedo-suit-swimming-2080026-schubert-world

>>Some in the sport maintain the controversy has placed swimming on a slippery slope made even murkier by Schubert's and USA Swimming's relationships with Speedo. Speedo is a corporate sponsor for USA Swimming. Schubert, as wellas Bob Bowman, Phelps' coach, are consultants for Speedo.

>>In April, Schubert, a longtime Seal Beach resident and former Mission Viejo Nadadore and USC coach, told The Associated Press he was recommending athletes wear the Speedo suit at the Trials even if they are sponsored by another company.

>>"My advice to athletes is 'You have a black and white decision — he (sponsorship) money or the gold medal?'" Schubert later told the Times of London.. "And it's going to be a real test of character as to what choice they make.. There is one manufacturer that's put millions into research while others are more into fashion."

>>"Obviously he's going to want that," said Lake Forest's Kaitlin Sandeno, an Olympic gold medalist who swam for Schubert at USC and has a contract withNike. "Speedo sponsors USA Swimming, and Mark is a Speedo coach not just the national team director. Touchy subject definitely."<<

Here you've got a top USA Swimming coach/bureaucrat who's clearly on
the take and he's selling out both the sport and its swimmers. Read
between the lines of what Sandeno is saying. Read what Peirsol is
saying. The athletes know what's going on.

The swim parents who are going to have to pay retail for these suits
should know what's going on.

It's time for a simple reform. Fabric must end proximal to the kneecap
and suits must be sleeveless.

The biggest advantage these suits have is that they trap air and
increase buoyancy. It's why the elite athletes put them on dry, before
the race. It's what the longitudinal ridges in the Speedo suits do.
They trap air.

It's bogus. It's harmful to the sport,

- Larry Weisenthal

"Larry Weisenthal" wrote:

>The biggest advantage these suits have
>is that they trap air and increase
>buoyancy. It's why the elite athletes put
>them on dry, before the race. It's what
>the longitudinal ridges in the Speedo
>suits do. They trap air.

>It's bogus. It's harmful to the sport,

That may be, but FINA's acceptance of the suits means they will be
around from now on.

<runnswim@aol.com> wrote in message
news:2af1c04c-a4be-4742-8357-12120de5224b@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> The new Speedo Lazr is supposed to sell for $550.
>
> No one wanted this suit. Athletes didn't ask for it. Coaches didn't
> ask for it. Certainly swim parents didn't want it.
>
> Swimming used to be a fair, accessible sport. Less than $100 in total
> equipment, and you are good to go.
>
> We've got colleges dropping the sport right and left, and you've got
> kids trying to win championships, supported by cash-strapped parents.
>
> The only people who benefit from these suits are the manufacturers and
> the bureaucrats of the swimming world, who prize the license and
> sponsor fees. One might say that, with more profits, Corporate
> Swimming puts more money into the sport. But at what price? Are we
> better off with lucrative sponsor fees paid to FINA, USA Swimming, and
> a handful of elite swimmers, or with a larger base of athletes and
> more teams at all levels? And more money in the pockets of swim
> families, to support their local swim clubs and swim organizations,
> and to travel to swim meets.
>
> - Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach,CA

I agree with every word. But who cares about sporting fairness anymore in a
society dominated by money and greed?
--
Duncan Heenan
(Speaking personally)

FINA is also on the take.

There are a small number of administrators who actually make a living
by working as full time administrators in the sport of swimming. Like
the IOC, their number one interest is in preserving their own jobs and
increasing their own resources. They do a pretty good job at making
rules decisions which are not conflicts of interest regarding
themselves.

Speedo has steadily escalated the cost of the top competition suit. I
think that the "Aquablade" was the first great leap forward, which
doubled the price to be competitive from the sub 50 dollar range to
the sub hundred dollar range. Then the Fastskin took it to about
$275. And now the Lazr is $550. The Fastskin was such a breathtaking
escalation in expense and such a breathtaking change in
"look" (maximal skin look changed to maximal fabric look), that
absolutely everyone could see the deleterious consequences regarding
cost/expense. FINA could have/should have shut it down right then.
Simple to do. Fabric stays above the knees and off the arms.

Note that the men don't even bother with the top part of the Lazr, in
many cases. The big advantage is the way they float those heavy legs.
It's not as helpful in the buoyant chest area.

This ongoing catastrophe was entirely foreseeable.

Aaron Peirsol put it perfectly; it deserves a replay.

"When you get up on the blocks, it should be about ability and who's
done the work and not about what suit you are wearing," said Irvine's
Aaron Peirsol, the 2004 Olympic 100- and 200- meter backstroke
champion. "And I think it's sad that maybe it's come to that."

- Larry Weisenthal

"Larry Weisenthal" wrote:

>Aaron Peirsol put it perfectly; it deserves
>a replay.

>"When you get up on the blocks, it
>should be about ability and who's done
>the work and not about what suit you are
>wearing," said Irvine's Aaron Peirsol, the
>2004 Olympic 100- and 200- meter
>backstroke champion. "And I think it's
>sad that maybe it's come to that."

Perhaps future WRs set by swimmers wearing the suits should include
asterisks, much in the same way as proposed for Barry Bonds HR record in
baseball, albeit for a different reason in his case.

> as Gary Hall, Jr. has said, it's the swimmer in the swimsuit - not the
> swimsuit on the swimmer - that wins the race, the general public doesn't
> realize that.

So, if some average swimmer put on the suit, the would not go faster?

I think it is a combination of each.

If you take 2 swimmers, put them in the same suit, than it still is skill.

If you take 2 swimmer, and 2 different suits, or styles of the same suit,
then it is what suit offers the better advantage.

I dont plan to ever compete at the the elite level. I also dont plan to wear
anything more than a brief swimsuit for racing.

Micheal

Steve Freides wrote:
>
> But the issue is that everyone wants to break records. Breaking records
> is good for one's bank account, among other things, and these suits,
> just like assistive weight lifting gear, help new records be set. The
> public at large doesn't care that the reason for the new record might be
> the suit and nothing else. The advertising execs want to have a new
> record to publicize, and so it goes. In short, the new suits are good
> for the business of swimming.

Your third and fourth sentences are at odds with one another.

First, if you think that the public doesn't care why records are being
broken, you must be talking to different members of the public than I
am. The public is very aware of the fact that elite swimmers are
wearing different swimsuits nowadays. (How could they not notice?) And
the public is aware that these new suits are being used to enhance
performance. How, then, could they NOT conclude that the reason
swimmers are performing better because of the suits? And how could they
not, for that reason, be unimpressed by any new records that are set?

Second, if any members of the public are dense enough not to realize
that the new suits enhance performance, the advertising execs for the
swimsuit companies will make sure they know. They want to convince
people that the new suits enhance performance (whether it's true or not)
because that will motivate more competitive swimmers to buy them. But
there's no way they can convince swimmers of this without, at the same
time, convincing everyone else. And while swimmers know that swimming
technique has improved at least as much as swimsuits, and realize that,
as Gary Hall, Jr. has said, it's the swimmer in the swimsuit - not the
swimsuit on the swimmer - that wins the race, the general public doesn't
realize that.


Bob

"Micheal Artindale" <michealartindale@eastlink.ca> wrote in message
news:EHU9k.860$1o6.857@edtnps83...
>
>
>> as Gary Hall, Jr. has said, it's the swimmer in the swimsuit - not
>> the swimsuit on the swimmer - that wins the race, the general public
>> doesn't realize that.
>
> So, if some average swimmer put on the suit, the would not go faster?
>
> I think it is a combination of each.
>
> If you take 2 swimmers, put them in the same suit, than it still is
> skill.
>
> If you take 2 swimmer, and 2 different suits, or styles of the same
> suit, then it is what suit offers the better advantage.
>
> I dont plan to ever compete at the the elite level. I also dont plan
> to wear anything more than a brief swimsuit for racing.
>
> Micheal

It wouldn't make as much difference for you or me as it does for the
elites, and it doesn't even make much difference for them, just enough
to set a new record by a few hundredths of a second. Drag or the lack
thereof magnifies with speed, so yes, it's quite reasonable that if
you're timing yourself in whole seconds, and you put on one of these
new-fangled suits, your time would be the same.

-S-

"Robert W. McAdams" <rwm@fambright.com> wrote in message
news:486821F1.6040201@fambright.com...
> Steve Freides wrote:
>>
>> But the issue is that everyone wants to break records. Breaking
>> records is good for one's bank account, among other things, and these
>> suits, just like assistive weight lifting gear, help new records be
>> set. The public at large doesn't care that the reason for the new
>> record might be the suit and nothing else. The advertising execs
>> want to have a new record to publicize, and so it goes. In short,
>> the new suits are good for the business of swimming.
>
> Your third and fourth sentences are at odds with one another.
>
> First, if you think that the public doesn't care why records are being
> broken, you must be talking to different members of the public than I
> am. The public is very aware of the fact that elite swimmers are
> wearing different swimsuits nowadays. (How could they not notice?)
> And the public is aware that these new suits are being used to enhance
> performance. How, then, could they NOT conclude that the reason
> swimmers are performing better because of the suits? And how could
> they not, for that reason, be unimpressed by any new records that are
> set?
>
> Second, if any members of the public are dense enough not to realize
> that the new suits enhance performance, the advertising execs for the
> swimsuit companies will make sure they know. They want to convince
> people that the new suits enhance performance (whether it's true or
> not) because that will motivate more competitive swimmers to buy them.
> But there's no way they can convince swimmers of this without, at the
> same time, convincing everyone else. And while swimmers know that
> swimming technique has improved at least as much as swimsuits, and
> realize that, as Gary Hall, Jr. has said, it's the swimmer in the
> swimsuit - not the swimsuit on the swimmer - that wins the race, the
> general public doesn't realize that.

No, I do not agree with you. Most people don't care to understand the
finer points of, well, anything that's not directly related to their own
livelihood or other interest. Little Sally Sue club swimmer will ask
for whatever brand of swimwear the latest world record holder wore, and
that's the way the marketplace works.

-S-

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:59:45 -0500, "Robert W. McAdams"
<rwm@fambright.com> wrote:


>First, if you think that the public doesn't care why records are being
>broken, you must be talking to different members of the public than I
>am. The public is very aware of the fact that elite swimmers are
>wearing different swimsuits nowadays.

The public, as a whole, is generally clueless about swimming and
doesn't care about it (at least in the U.S.) They may pay attention
during the Olympics, but that's about it. Larry is correct--the
impact of this will be felt by parents of club swimmers trying to keep
up with the competition. When their little swimmers saw Phelps tell
Bob Costas his Speedo made him faster, you bet they're gonna want one.

Dave Clary
Corpus Christi, TX
http://davegetsfit.blogspot.com
Diet, Exercise, and Golf!

Hey, Duncan. Haven't heard from you, if memory serves, since circa
1995.

g'day

- Larry W

Hi Larry...it's been a long time since I last posted to RSS.

I certainly respect your opinion on this matter, but don't necessarily
agree with you on all points.

You state 'no one wanted this suit'. True; but innovation often shows
up before demand. Who thought we needed Auto's? Airplanes? Google?
Ipod's? Cell phones? My point is, smart innovators recognize demand
before the market asks for it.

With respect to the comment that only manufacturers and bureaucrats of
the swimming world benefit from this suit....keep in mind, there are
always direct and indirect benefits. To be sure manufacturers benefit
directly; but so do coaches and athletes under contract. I'm watching
the trials, just like you, and see Speedo, Nike, and TYR all over the
screen....and on many of the athletes and coaches. They aren't doing
this for nothing.

To this point.....in a subsequent post, you quoted a comment made by
Aaron Piersol; the implication of which is victory in the pool may now
be a matter of who's wearing the better suit vs. who is the better
athlete. Maybe I'm a a bit jaded....but Aaron is being paid by Nike.
And, right now, Nike is getting their butt kicked by Speedo. If I'm
Nike, I'm giving all my guys a script like this to read
from......regardless, the suit has created more PR for the sport than
ever before.

While I can't say I'm a fan of the new suit...I see little reason to
fight it....the sport is adapting to a new world that is now driven by
money, greed (Duncan got it right down below), TV ratings, Internet
ratings, etc......it's Darwinism at work.

Best,

Bill Geiser



On Jun 28, 8:25 pm, "runns...@aol.com (Larry Weisenthal)"
<runns...@aol.com> wrote:
> The new Speedo Lazr is supposed to sell for $550.
>
> No one wanted this suit.  Athletes didn't ask for it.  Coaches didn't
> ask for it.  Certainly swim parents didn't want it.
>
> Swimming used to be a fair, accessible sport. Less than $100 in total
> equipment, and you are good to go.
>
> We've got colleges dropping the sport right and left, and you've got
> kids trying to win championships, supported by cash-strapped parents.
>
> The only people who benefit from these suits are the manufacturers and
> the bureaucrats of the swimming world, who prize the license and
> sponsor fees. One might say that, with more profits, Corporate
> Swimming puts more money into the sport. But at what price?  Are we
> better off with lucrative sponsor fees paid to FINA, USA Swimming, and
> a handful of elite swimmers, or with a larger base of athletes and
> more teams at all levels?  And more money in the pockets of swim
> families, to support their local swim clubs and swim organizations,
> and to travel to swim meets.
>
> - Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach,CA

<runnswim@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a3d34b35-bab2-49c1-afb1-d5348f58e542@x19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> Hey, Duncan. Haven't heard from you, if memory serves, since circa
> 1995.
>
> g'day
>
> - Larry W

I've been on this group all that time - I think it is you who's been
missing.
--
Duncan Heenan
(Speaking personally)

Thanks, Bill.

This is more than "Darwinism."

I'm certain, if you took a poll of the people who actually support the
sport of swimming, which is athletes and parents of athletes, and
asked them if they'd favor a rule which prohibited below the knee and
on the arm suits, the vote would be overwhelmingly in favor. I'll bet
90% or more. That overwhelming.

Let's forget, for a moment, about the horrendous expense. Let's look
at how difficult it is to get into the leg suits. Now, let's come back
to the expense.

The only reason we have these suits is because of the administrators
at FINA and USA Swimming, who want the financial support of the
sponsors.

Unlike, for example, skiing, where the general public buys skis and,
for another example, golf, where the general public buys clubs and
balls, the only people who buy leg suits are competitive swimmers.
Virtually always, the parents of competitive swimmers.

If USA Swimming needs more money, they should increase membership
fees. Same for FINA. Approval of the leg suits imposed a massive tax
on the entire competitive swimming community, borne almost entirely by
the parents who pay for the leg suits, and, in cases of colleges
without lucrative sponsorships, on college athletic departments.

I repeat. No one wanted these suits. No one even likes these suits,
save for relatively few people who get more money from the swimwear
companies than they pay into the swimwear companies. And the people
who make the decisions in these matters are the people who get the
most money from the swimwear manufactures.

The governance of international and national swimming have sold out
the sport for their own selfish purposes. It is time for a grass roots
revolt. I'm trying to think of a way in which this might be done.

The only precedent I have in mind was when the swim coaches got
together and started their own version of "Junior Nationals," after
this series of meets was dropped by USA Swimming.

But it's just possible that we are nearing a tipping point. I think
that $550 per suit may finally be the sort of sticker shock that the
sport needs.

- Larry Weisenthal

On Jul 5, 7:32 am, "runns...@aol.com (Larry Weisenthal)"
<runns...@aol.com> wrote:
> Thanks, Bill.
>
> This is more than "Darwinism."
>
> I'm certain, if you took a poll of the people who actually support the
> sport of swimming, which is athletes and parents of athletes, and
> asked them if they'd favor a rule which prohibited below the knee and
> on the arm suits, the vote would be overwhelmingly in favor.  I'll bet
> 90% or more.  That overwhelming.
>
> Let's forget, for a moment, about the horrendous expense.  Let's look
> at how difficult it is to get into the leg suits. Now, let's come back
> to the expense.
>
> The only reason we have these suits is because of the administrators
> at FINA and USA Swimming, who want the financial support of the
> sponsors.
>
> Unlike, for example, skiing, where the general public buys skis and,
> for another example, golf, where the general public buys clubs and
> balls, the only people who buy leg suits are competitive swimmers.
> Virtually always, the parents of competitive swimmers.
>
> If USA Swimming needs more money, they should increase membership
> fees.  Same for FINA.  Approval of the leg suits imposed a massive tax
> on the entire competitive swimming community, borne almost entirely by
> the parents who pay for the leg suits, and, in cases of colleges
> without lucrative sponsorships, on college athletic departments.
>
> I repeat.  No one wanted these suits. No one even likes these suits,
> save for relatively few people who get more money from the swimwear
> companies than they pay into the swimwear companies.  And the people
> who make the decisions in these matters are the people who get the
> most money from the swimwear manufactures.
>
> The governance of international and national swimming have sold out
> the sport for their own selfish purposes. It is time for a grass roots
> revolt. I'm trying to think of a way in which this might be done.
>
> The only precedent I have in mind was when the swim coaches got
> together and started their own version of "Junior Nationals," after
> this series of meets was dropped by USA Swimming.
>
> But it's just possible that we are nearing a tipping point.  I think
> that $550 per suit may finally be the sort of sticker shock that the
> sport needs.
>
> - Larry Weisenthal

I remember a long time ago, probably the late 80s I was watching
Olympic track bike races. The slower coutnires would go first. They
had the athletes from a lot of central america and africa and they had
bikes that looked like a normal bike, biking shorts and helmets, and
jerseys. As the event progressed and it was the time for the faster
countries, the equipment got more and more sophisticated. The top
teams of russians, germans and americans didn't seem to be riding
bicycles or wearing cycling clothes. They looked like strange beings
in this futuristic garb and equipment.

I didn't think those races were fair. I have no doubt that the top
swimmers would probably win races and set records with regular lycra
shorts and swim caps. It would be nice to see them all wearing the
same sh_t.

Andres

Article on the body suits in today's Orange County Register:

Suit wars heat up

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/olympic-spitz-apparel-2085245-suits-companies?

NOTES:Olympic veteran Matt Biondi says high-tech suit makers have too
much influence.

By DAN ALBANO
THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

OMAHA, Neb. - The controversy over high-tech swim suits picked up
steam at the U.S. Olympic Swimming Trials on Friday as one of the
sport's legends said apparel companies have too much influence in the
sport.
"It's almost as if the apparel companies are leading the legislation
and not the governing bodies," said Matt Biondi, an 11-time Olympic
medalist.

During a media session, Biondi also said he is worried that high-tech
swim suits will start to surface at age-group or local meets.

"Swimming has had a stereotype of being a country-club sport, socially-
economically elite," he said. "I'm afraid that these suits could
further that divide."

Speedo had made its new LZR Racer suits available to swimmers at these
trials. SOCAL's Melissa Bates, a junior-to-be at Mater Dei, was fitted
for a LZR and rented the suit for $200, her mother, Michelle said.
Speedo uses the $200 as a deposit, which it returns when the suit is
returned.

The LZR Racer has been tied to dozens of world records this year.
Irvine –based TYR's new Tracer Rise also has performed well.

U.S. national coach Mark Schubert responded to Biondi's criticism by
saying that the apparel companies' sponsorship of swimmers has been a
key ingredient to the current wave of success the U.S. teams have
experienced. "We owe a lot to the apparel companies," Schubert said.

>>>>

My comment:

Read Schubert's comments, both directly above and in the article I
quoted earlier in my June 29 post. The guy has sold out the sport for
his own selfish interests. Pure greed and pure selfishness. And it
is the swimmers and families who aren't only the grass roots roots of
the sport, they are the heart and soul of the sport. Schubert's words
(above and in the earlier article of the 29th) speak for themselves.
He doesn't care about the sport. He cares about his own personal,
selfish interests. Read the article of the 29th. Read his comments.
Read Kaitlyn Sandeno's comments (Schubert was Sandeno's coach,
otherwise I think she'd have spoken even more directly. He's a shill
for Speedo. He's sold out.

- Larry Weisenthal

>>U.S. national coach Mark Schubert responded to Biondi's criticism by
saying that the apparel companies' sponsorship of swimmers has been a
key ingredient to the current wave of success the U.S. teams have
experienced. "We owe a lot to the apparel companies," Schubert said.
<<

P.S. This is total crap. US teams have the same level of success that
they've always had. To the extent that we are winning more
championships today, it's because of better enforcement of anti-doping
standards, the demise of East Germany and the Soviet Union, etc.
Current annual dues to USA Swimming are pretty modest. If they need
more money, they should raise fees and dues (with the consent of the
"governed"). They shouldn't, in effect, impose a massive "tax," in
the form of forcing swim families to pay horrific amounts of money for
suits to keep their kids competitive. Did you read where Speedo is
charging most of the swimmers at Olympic Trials $200, just to RENT the
suits! The only ones to get "free" suits are the Michael Phelps/Katie
Hoff, etc. level swimmers. And, after the Olympics, swim families are
going to be paying big time for the money that goes to provide
Schubert with the perks he so covets. It is absolutely disgusting. As
I said, it's past time for a grass roots rebellion.

- Larry Weisenthal

runnswim@aol.com (Larry Weisenthal) wrote:
> Article on the body suits in today's Orange County Register:
..
..
..
> The LZR Racer has been tied to dozens of world records this year.
> Irvine –based TYR's new Tracer Rise also has performed well.

The Orange County Register is not some sort of swimming newspaper, so
what we are seeing in this statement is the public perception: New
swimming records are being set this year because swimmers are wearing
new, expensive, high-tech suits. In the minds of the public, the new
records are artificial numbers produced by the new swimsuits - not
achievements by the swimmers. And that perception, in my opinion, is as
sad as the fact that the new suits are threatening to make competitive
swimming into an enormously expensive sport!


Bob

<runnswim@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4f9f7c46-087c-4343-a9d1-99dbcba0a539@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> Thanks, Bill.
>
> This is more than "Darwinism."
>
> I'm certain, if you took a poll of the people who actually support the
> sport of swimming, which is athletes and parents of athletes, and
> asked them if they'd favor a rule which prohibited below the knee and
> on the arm suits, the vote would be overwhelmingly in favor. I'll bet
> 90% or more. That overwhelming.
>
> Let's forget, for a moment, about the horrendous expense. Let's look
> at how difficult it is to get into the leg suits. Now, let's come back
> to the expense.
>
> The only reason we have these suits is because of the administrators
> at FINA and USA Swimming, who want the financial support of the
> sponsors.
>
> Unlike, for example, skiing, where the general public buys skis and,
> for another example, golf, where the general public buys clubs and
> balls, the only people who buy leg suits are competitive swimmers.
> Virtually always, the parents of competitive swimmers.
>
> If USA Swimming needs more money, they should increase membership
> fees. Same for FINA. Approval of the leg suits imposed a massive tax
> on the entire competitive swimming community, borne almost entirely by
> the parents who pay for the leg suits, and, in cases of colleges
> without lucrative sponsorships, on college athletic departments.
>
> I repeat. No one wanted these suits. No one even likes these suits,
> save for relatively few people who get more money from the swimwear
> companies than they pay into the swimwear companies. And the people
> who make the decisions in these matters are the people who get the
> most money from the swimwear manufactures.
>
> The governance of international and national swimming have sold out
> the sport for their own selfish purposes. It is time for a grass roots
> revolt. I'm trying to think of a way in which this might be done.
>
> The only precedent I have in mind was when the swim coaches got
> together and started their own version of "Junior Nationals," after
> this series of meets was dropped by USA Swimming.
>
> But it's just possible that we are nearing a tipping point. I think
> that $550 per suit may finally be the sort of sticker shock that the
> sport needs.
>
> - Larry Weisenthal

The irony is that, once everyone is equipped with the same suits it is a
level playing field again, except a lot more expensive. So why not just ban
them for all, and save everyone a lot of money, returning competition to
swimmer against swimmer instead of equipment against equipment? If you argue
that they help you beat records, where's the point in equipment-assisted
records? I could beat you all with an outboard motor strapped to my
backside, but what would that prove about me?
Bodysuits should be banned.
--
Duncan Heenan
(Speaking personally)

US Swimming publishes an interesting statistic on its web site about
membership increases following Olympic years. Over the past 3
Olympics, the number of year-round USS swimmers has increased 4-10% in
the year following the Olympics.

Given the publicity & debate following the new suit, it will be
interesting to see how the publicity of the suit impacts USS
membership in 2009. In spite of the negative impact this suit has on
the cost of participation (Larry's argument) I'm guessing we'll see a
>10% jump in overall USS membership in 2009 because of the massive
publicity our sport has received.

Another interesting statistic from the same source (US
Swimming)......the number of year-round males registered with USS
increased 4% in 2007 vs. 2006, reversing a long-term trend.......I
wonder if the full suit has something to do with this?

-- bg --


On Jul 5, 1:11 pm, "runns...@aol.com (Larry Weisenthal)"
<runns...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>U.S. national coach Mark Schubert responded to Biondi's criticism by
>
> saying that the apparel companies' sponsorship of swimmers has been a
> key ingredient to the current wave of success the U.S. teams have
> experienced. "We owe a lot to the apparel companies," Schubert said.
> <<
>
> P.S. This is total crap. US teams have the same level of success that
> they've always had.  To the extent that we are winning more
> championships today, it's because of better enforcement of anti-doping
> standards, the demise of East Germany and the Soviet Union, etc.
> Current annual dues to USA Swimming are pretty modest.  If they need
> more money, they should raise fees and dues (with the consent of the
> "governed").  They shouldn't, in effect, impose a massive "tax," in
> the form of forcing swim families to pay horrific amounts of money for
> suits to keep their kids competitive.  Did you read where Speedo is
> charging most of the swimmers at Olympic Trials $200, just to RENT the
> suits!  The only ones to get "free" suits are the Michael Phelps/Katie
> Hoff, etc. level swimmers.  And, after the Olympics, swim families are
> going to be paying big time for the money that goes to provide
> Schubert with the perks he so covets. It is absolutely disgusting. As
> I said, it's past time for a grass roots rebellion.
>
> - Larry Weisenthal

On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 12:57:42 -0700 (PDT), bill_g <bgeiser@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Another interesting statistic from the same source (US
>Swimming)......the number of year-round males registered with USS
>increased 4% in 2007 vs. 2006, reversing a long-term trend.......I
>wonder if the full suit has something to do with this?
>
>-- bg --

My input here is anecdotal and I can't back it up with numbers, but I
officate a lot of swim meets and one thing I've noticed is that there
has been a resurgence of briefs over jammers!

Dave Clary
Corpus Christi, TX
http://davegetsfit.blogspot.com
Diet, Exercise, and Golf!

<dave@geewhiz.com> wrote in message
news:bpa5741l90kt8o0bvo91svm5eq54u6t6r4@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 12:57:42 -0700 (PDT), bill_g <bgeiser@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Another interesting statistic from the same source (US
>>Swimming)......the number of year-round males registered with USS
>>increased 4% in 2007 vs. 2006, reversing a long-term trend.......I
>>wonder if the full suit has something to do with this?
>>
>>-- bg --
>
> My input here is anecdotal and I can't back it up with numbers, but I
> officate a lot of swim meets and one thing I've noticed is that there
> has been a resurgence of briefs over jammers!
>
> Dave Clary
> Corpus Christi, TX
> http://davegetsfit.blogspot.com
> Diet, Exercise, and Golf!

Serious? I wonder why, they are both about the same price.

Does this mean that people wont be buying those new bodysuits?

Micheal

runnswim@aol.com wrote:
>
> Unlike, for example, skiing, where the general public buys skis and,
> for another example, golf, where the general public buys clubs and
> balls, the only people who buy leg suits are competitive swimmers.
> Virtually always, the parents of competitive swimmers.

For what competitions do the parents buy these suits? For, say, the US Olympic
trials, wouldn't USA Swimming provide them? At more local competitions, maybe
expensive suits should be banned. Local competitions provide the swimmers who
compete for national selection, and for national selection you want the best
swimmers, which means you need to compare apples with apples. Either every
swimmer gets one or no one does. (I'm an Aussie BTW, so I'm not raising this out
of concern for US swimming).

David

"Robert W. McAdams" <rwm@fambright.com> wrote in message
news:4872EBF0.5000303@fambright.com...
> Micheal Artindale wrote:
>> <dave@geewhiz.com> wrote in message
>> news:bpa5741l90kt8o0bvo91svm5eq54u6t6r4@4ax.com...
>>
>>>On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 12:57:42 -0700 (PDT), bill_g <bgeiser@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Another interesting statistic from the same source (US
>>>>Swimming)......the number of year-round males registered with USS
>>>>increased 4% in 2007 vs. 2006, reversing a long-term trend.......I
>>>>wonder if the full suit has something to do with this?
>>>>
>>>>-- bg --
>>>
>>>My input here is anecdotal and I can't back it up with numbers, but I
>>>officate a lot of swim meets and one thing I've noticed is that there
>>>has been a resurgence of briefs over jammers!
>>>
>>>Dave Clary
>>>Corpus Christi, TX
>>>http://davegetsfit.blogspot.com
>>>Diet, Exercise, and Golf!
>>
>>
>> Serious? I wonder why, they are both about the same price.
>
> For high-tech fabrics, jammers are substantially more expensive than
> briefs.
>
> For standard fabrics, jammers are maybe $6-$8 more expensive than briefs.
> But they're also a little slower because of added drag and water
> absorption. The bottom line is: Why pay more money for a swimsuit that's
> a little slower? Even if the speed difference isn't important in the
> races where you compete, you're still paying more money for jammers.
>
>
> Bob
>

I have boughten a jammer, and it was about $50, about a year ago. any brief
I have gotten, has been around $50. No special fabrics for either.

I am guessing that there may be cheaper out there.

Micheal

Micheal Artindale wrote:
> <dave@geewhiz.com> wrote in message
> news:bpa5741l90kt8o0bvo91svm5eq54u6t6r4@4ax.com...
>
>>On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 12:57:42 -0700 (PDT), bill_g <bgeiser@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Another interesting statistic from the same source (US
>>>Swimming)......the number of year-round males registered with USS
>>>increased 4% in 2007 vs. 2006, reversing a long-term trend.......I
>>>wonder if the full suit has something to do with this?
>>>
>>>-- bg --
>>
>>My input here is anecdotal and I can't back it up with numbers, but I
>>officate a lot of swim meets and one thing I've noticed is that there
>>has been a resurgence of briefs over jammers!
>>
>>Dave Clary
>>Corpus Christi, TX
>>http://davegetsfit.blogspot.com
>>Diet, Exercise, and Golf!
>
>
> Serious? I wonder why, they are both about the same price.

For high-tech fabrics, jammers are substantially more expensive than briefs.

For standard fabrics, jammers are maybe $6-$8 more expensive than
briefs. But they're also a little slower because of added drag and
water absorption. The bottom line is: Why pay more money for a
swimsuit that's a little slower? Even if the speed difference isn't
important in the races where you compete, you're still paying more money
for jammers.


Bob

Micheal Artindale wrote:
> "Robert W. McAdams" <rwm@fambright.com> wrote in message
> news:4872EBF0.5000303@fambright.com...
>
>>Micheal Artindale wrote:
>>
>>><dave@geewhiz.com> wrote in message
>>>news:bpa5741l90kt8o0bvo91svm5eq54u6t6r4@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 12:57:42 -0700 (PDT), bill_g <bgeiser@gmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Another interesting statistic from the same source (US
>>>>>Swimming)......the number of year-round males registered with USS
>>>>>increased 4% in 2007 vs. 2006, reversing a long-term trend.......I
>>>>>wonder if the full suit has something to do with this?
>>>>>
>>>>>-- bg --
>>>>
>>>>My input here is anecdotal and I can't back it up with numbers, but I
>>>>officate a lot of swim meets and one thing I've noticed is that there
>>>>has been a resurgence of briefs over jammers!
>>>>
>>>>Dave Clary
>>>>Corpus Christi, TX
>>>>http://davegetsfit.blogspot.com
>>>>Diet, Exercise, and Golf!
>>>
>>>
>>>Serious? I wonder why, they are both about the same price.
>>
>>For high-tech fabrics, jammers are substantially more expensive than
>>briefs.
>>
>>For standard fabrics, jammers are maybe $6-$8 more expensive than briefs.
>>But they're also a little slower because of added drag and water
>>absorption. The bottom line is: Why pay more money for a swimsuit that's
>>a little slower? Even if the speed difference isn't important in the
>>races where you compete, you're still paying more money for jammers.
>>
>>
>>Bob
>>
>
>
> I have boughten a jammer, and it was about $50, about a year ago. any brief
> I have gotten, has been around $50. No special fabrics for either.
>
> I am guessing that there may be cheaper out there.
>
> Micheal

Well, let's take some examples:

First, there is the Speedo Sparkler, which is available from Kiefer:

http://www.kiefer.com/Kiefer/product_family.asp?family%5Fid=482&gift=False&0=dept%2Easp%2Cdept%5Fid%3D88%26Tree%3D%2CCompetitive%20Swim&1=dept%2Easp%2Cdept%5Fid%3D2%26menu%5Fid%3D%26Tree%3D0%2CSwimwear&2=dept%2Easp%2Cdept%5Fid%3D16%26menu%5Fid%3D%26Tree%3D1%2CSpeedo%20Suits&mscssid=EBB5CB1F4D8D4E24B767E01BE04368C6

Adult briefs are about $36. Adult jammers are about $44. The prices
for boys' sizes are $34 and $42, respectively. Price difference between
briefs and jammers: $8.

Or there is the Speedo Camo, which is also available from Kiefer:

http://www.kiefer.com/Kiefer/product_family.asp?family%5Fid=486&gift=False&0=dept%2Easp%2Cdept%5Fid%3D88%26Tree%3D%2CCompetitive%20Swim&1=dept%2Easp%2Cdept%5Fid%3D2%26menu%5Fid%3D%26Tree%3D0%2CSwimwear&2=dept%2Easp%2Cdept%5Fid%3D16%26menu%5Fid%3D%26Tree%3D1%2CSpeedo%20Suits&mscssid=EBB5CB1F4D8D4E24B767E01BE04368C6

Adult briefs are about $39. Adult jammers are about $47. The prices
for boys' sizes are $37 and $45, repectively. Price difference between
briefs and jammers: $8.

If you'd prefer a higher-tech fabric, you could try the Speedo Fastskin,
which is also available from Kiefer. Briefs:

http://www.kiefer.com/Kiefer/productr.asp?pf%5Fid=7055001&gift=False&0=dept%2Easp%2Cdept%5Fid%3D88%26Tree%3D%2CCompetitive%20Swim&1=dept%2Easp%2Cdept%5Fid%3D107%26menu%5Fid%3D%26Tree%3D0%2CTechnical%20Suits&2=dept%2Easp%2Cdept%5Fid%3D220%26menu%5Fid%3D%26Tree%3D1%2CSpeedo%20FS%20Pro%2C%20FS%20%26%20Fastskin&HSLB=False&mscssid=EBB5CB1F4D8D4E24B767E01BE04368C6

are about $52. Jammers:

http://www.kiefer.com/Kiefer/productr.asp?pf%5Fid=705850&gift=False&0=dept%2Easp%2Cdept%5Fid%3D88%26Tree%3D%2CCompetitive%20Swim&1=dept%2Easp%2Cdept%5Fid%3D107%26menu%5Fid%3D%26Tree%3D0%2CTechnical%20Suits&2=dept%2Easp%2Cdept%5Fid%3D220%26menu%5Fid%3D%26Tree%3D1%2CSpeedo%20FS%20Pro%2C%20FS%20%26%20Fastskin&HSLB=False&mscssid=EBB5CB1F4D8D4E24B767E01BE04368C6

are about $110. Price difference between briefs and jammers: $68.


But perhaps you'd like to try a different brand. You could try the Tyr
American Ace, which is available from Kiefer:

http://www.kiefer.com/Kiefer/product_family.asp?family%5Fid=507&gift=False&0=dept%2Easp%2Cdept%5Fid%3D88%26Tree%3D%2CCompetitive%20Swim&1=dept%2Easp%2Cdept%5Fid%3D2%26menu%5Fid%3D%26Tree%3D0%2CSwimwear&2=dept%2Easp%2Cdept%5Fid%3D15%26menu%5Fid%3D%26Tree%3D1%2CTYR%20Suits&mscssid=EBB5CB1F4D8D4E24B767E01BE04368C6

Briefs (all sizes) are about $32, while jammers are about $40. Price
difference between briefs and jammers: $8.

Or you could try the Tyr Starsearch, which Kiefer has on sale at the moment:

http://www.kiefer.com/Kiefer/product_family.asp?family%5Fid=428&gift=False&0=dept%2Easp%2Cdept%5Fid%3D88%26Tree%3D%2CCompetitive%20Swim&1=dept%2Easp%2Cdept%5Fid%3D2%26menu%5Fid%3D%26Tree%3D0%2CSwimwear&2=dept%2Easp%2Cdept%5Fid%3D15%26menu%5Fid%3D%26Tree%3D1%2CTYR%20Suits&mscssid=EBB5CB1F4D8D4E24B767E01BE04368C6

Briefs are $21.75, while jammers are $27.75. Price difference between
briefs and jammers: $6.

If you'd prefer a higher-tech fabric, you could try the Tyr Aquapel,
which is also available from Kiefer. Briefs:

http://www.kiefer.com/Kiefer/productr.asp?pf%5Fid=ARAC&gift=False&0=dept%2Easp%2Cdept%5Fid%3D88%26Tree%3D%2CCompetitive%20Swim&1=dept%2Easp%2Cdept%5Fid%3D107%26menu%5Fid%3D%26Tree%3D0%2CTechnical%20Suits&2=dept%2Easp%2Cdept%5Fid%3D109%26menu%5Fid%3D%26Tree%3D1%2CTYR%20Aquapel&HSLB=False&mscssid=EBB5CB1F4D8D4E24B767E01BE04368C6

are $30. Jammers:

http://www.kiefer.com/Kiefer/productr.asp?pf%5Fid=ACOM&gift=False&0=dept%2Easp%2Cdept%5Fid%3D88%26Tree%3D%2CCompetitive%20Swim&1=dept%2Easp%2Cdept%5Fid%3D107%26menu%5Fid%3D%26Tree%3D0%2CTechnical%20Suits&2=dept%2Easp%2Cdept%5Fid%3D109%26menu%5Fid%3D%26Tree%3D1%2CTYR%20Aquapel&HSLB=False&mscssid=EBB5CB1F4D8D4E24B767E01BE04368C6

are $100. Price difference between briefs and jammers: $70.


Bob

runnswim@aol.com (Larry Weisenthal) wrote:
> Here's another quote from article on the suits in this morning's
> Orange Country Register:
>
> http://www.ocregister.com/articles/speedo-suit-swimming-2080026-schubert-world
>
>>> Some in the sport maintain the controversy has placed swimming on a slippery slope made even murkier by Schubert's and USA Swimming's relationships with Speedo. Speedo is a corporate sponsor for USA Swimming. Schubert, as well as Bob Bowman, Phelps' coach, are consultants for Speedo.
>
>>> In April, Schubert, a longtime Seal Beach resident and former Mission Viejo Nadadore and USC coach, told The Associated Press he was recommending athletes wear the Speedo suit at the Trials even if they are sponsored by another company.
>
>>> "My advice to athletes is 'You have a black and white decision — he (sponsorship) money or the gold medal?'" Schubert later told the Times of London. "And it's going to be a real test of character as to what choice they make. There is one manufacturer that's put millions into research while others are more into fashion."
>
>>> "Obviously he's going to want that," said Lake Forest's Kaitlin Sandeno, an Olympic gold medalist who swam for Schubert at USC and has a contract with Nike. "Speedo sponsors USA Swimming, and Mark is a Speedo coach not just the national team director. Touchy subject definitely."<<
>
> Here you've got a top USA Swimming coach/bureaucrat who's clearly on
> the take and he's selling out both the sport and its swimmers. Read
> between the lines of what Sandeno is saying. Read what Peirsol is
> saying. The athletes know what's going on.
>
> The swim parents who are going to have to pay retail for these suits
> should know what's going on.
>
> It's time for a simple reform. Fabric must end proximal to the kneecap
> and suits must be sleeveless.
>
> The biggest advantage these suits have is that they trap air and
> increase buoyancy. It's why the elite athletes put them on dry, before
> the race. It's what the longitudinal ridges in the Speedo suits do.
> They trap air.
>
> It's bogus. It's harmful to the sport,
>
> - Larry Weisenthal

Larry, I like your rule change, but I have some questions. My
understanding is that the suits don't trap air or provide buoyancy, but
rather work by making the swimmer slippery. Video I've seen of people
diving into the water in them is fascinating--they don't make the same
splash at all, but slip into the water like a fish.

I think they may actually attract some people to the sport of swimming
because men look wonderful in them, and much less nude (women's
competition suits will always be the ugliest garments on earth in order
to create streamlining).

How long do these suits last? Is there any advantage to using them for
training? Do you need 5-10 of them per year or just one or two?

Swimming is ALREADY a pretty elitist sport. Not everyone has access to
a pool, especially for the hours to develop endurance. Most kids start
as club swimmers, and that takes money--but no where near the kind of
money that people spend on figure skating or bike racing or
dressage--all of which are olympic sports.
Madelaine

The advantage in the suits is the fact that they trap air and increase
buoyancy. That's why the swimmers warm up in regular suits and put on
the leg suits dry, after drying their skin, so they start the race
with maximum trapped air. It's also why the men often wear them only
on the legs. If there were anything to the "slippery" theory, then
they'd be wearing full body and arm suits, like Ian Thorpe used to
do. Instead, the upper body fabric, when present, has gotten
minimalistic. I'm sure that they provide compression of female
curves, also, but, for men especially, the big advantage is leg
buoyancy. It's a dirty secret -- really a conspiracy between the suit
manufacturers and swimming governance.

- Larry Weisenthal

Regarding jammers, I never thought I'd do it, but now my suit of
choice are $15 jammers which I buy at the annual TYR warehouse sale.
I buy 4 or so of them every year.

I was never really self conscious in my Speedos, but I just think that
the jammers are more comfortable and they also give me a little extra
sun protection.

Plus, I do these combined water/gym workouts, e.g. a swim followed by
a treadmill run or dryland rowing. Couldn't really get away with
wearing briefs in my gym, but the jammers are just fine for the gym
workouts and I don't have to change.

- Larry W

"runnswim@aol.com (Larry Weisenthal)"
<runnswim@aol.com> wrote:

>Regarding jammers, I never thought I'd do it, but now my suit of
>choice are $15 jammers which I buy at the annual TYR warehouse sale.
>I buy 4 or so of them every year.
>
>I was never really self conscious in my Speedos, but I just think that
>the jammers are more comfortable and they also give me a little extra
>sun protection.
>
>Plus, I do these combined water/gym workouts, e.g. a swim followed by
>a treadmill run or dryland rowing. Couldn't really get away with
>wearing briefs in my gym, but the jammers are just fine for the gym
>workouts and I don't have to change.
>
>- Larry W


what are jammers and why are they called that?

runnswim@aol.com (Larry Weisenthal) wrote:
> The advantage in the suits is the fact that they trap air and increase
> buoyancy. That's why the swimmers warm up in regular suits and put on
> the leg suits dry, after drying their skin, so they start the race
> with maximum trapped air.

There's also another factor, which is that all that suit material
absorbs water, which they'd have to carry along with them as they swim.
But in a sprint, the heat may be over before the suit has had a chance
to get completely saturated with water. And in longer events, by the
time the suit gets saturated, the swimmer has already gained an advantage.

I suspect that if swimmers were required to jump in the water for 10
minutes before climbing out and getting up on the blocks, body suits
would lose their popularity really quickly! Such a requirement would
also insure that all competitive swimmers are on an equal footing,
regardless of whether they're competing in Olympic trials or a summer
swim league meet (since very few kids in summer swim leagues have the
luxury of starting each heat with a dry suit).

> It's also why the men often wear them only on the legs. If there
> were anything to the "slippery" theory, then they'd be wearing full
> body and arm suits, like Ian Thorpe used to do. Instead, the upper
> body fabric, when present, has gotten minimalistic.

Well, I don't know about arm suits. The problem is that arms are used
for propulsion, so for the arms, you sometimes want to maximize
resistance rather than minimizing it. But your point is well taken on
the leg suits. After all, a swimmer's legs comprise about half the
length of their body, but don't provide much natural buoyancy.


Bob

Robert W. McAdams wrote:
> runnswim@aol.com (Larry Weisenthal) wrote:
>> The advantage in the suits is the fact that they trap air and
>> increase buoyancy. That's why the swimmers warm up in regular suits
>> and put on the leg suits dry, after drying their skin, so they start
>> the race with maximum trapped air.
>
> There's also another factor, which is that all that suit material
> absorbs water, which they'd have to carry along with them as they
> swim. But in a sprint, the heat may be over before the suit has had
> a chance to get completely saturated with water. And in longer events, by the
> time the suit gets saturated, the swimmer has already gained an
> advantage.

That seems to contradict reports that the suits are slippery. The news report I
heard said that the surface of the suit repels water, like a duck's back, and
that this was one reason it works so well.

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:05:52 -0500, me@privacy.net wrote:

>
>what are jammers and why are they called that?

The "what" part of your question is easy. They are swimming suits
that have legs that go down to a point above the knee. The "why" part
of your question is another story. I don't have a clue!

Dave Clary
Corpus Christi, TX
http://davegetsfit.blogspot.com
Diet, Exercise, and Golf!

With respect to "slippery" versus "buoyant:"

Of course the suit manufacturers want to stress the former point.
It's actually against FINA rules to use floatation devices. The
floatation tests which I read were used were very crude.

But here's the evidence. The LAZR, for example, had longitudinal,
inverted V-shaped ridges, running the length of the fabric. When
fabric tents upward, away from the skin, it traps air molecules. Air
increases buoyancy.

Swimmers make a great point of putting on these suits dry and keeping
them dry before they dive into the water. The only reason to do this
is to avoid filling those inverted V ridges with water, rather than
air. Eventually, all the suits will get saturated with water, and
probably lose they buoyancy. But even if it takes a minute or a minute
and a half to saturate the suit, this still provides a buoyancy
advantage for a substantial period of time. And the time improvements
with these suits are tenths of seconds, rather than whole seconds per
100.

If "slippery" were important, then the material would be maximized
over the chest and shoulders (the leading part of the body and the
part of the body which causes the greatest drag). Yet fabric is
maximized over the legs but very much not maximized over the shoulders
and chest. Men often eschew all suit fabric above the pelvis. This
makes no sense if the most important effect of the suit is to minimize
drag by making the swimmer more "slippery."

Swimmers say that the suits make them feel more buoyant. I was
physically present the first time Jason Lezak ever swam in a Fastskin
legsuit. He dove in, swam 100 meters, then stopped with a great big
grin and said "it floats!" I reported this at the time on this
newsgroup.

- Larry Weisenthal

dave@geewhiz.com wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:05:52 -0500, me@privacy.net wrote:
>
>> what are jammers and why are they called that?
>
> The "what" part of your question is easy. They are swimming suits
> that have legs that go down to a point above the knee. The "why" part
> of your question is another story. I don't have a clue!
>
> Dave Clary
> Corpus Christi, TX
> http://davegetsfit.blogspot.com
> Diet, Exercise, and Golf!
I think orginally they were cut-off pajama bottoms worn by surfers after
surfing to dry off.
Madelaine

runnswim@aol.com wrote:
> With respect to "slippery" versus "buoyant:"
>
> Of course the suit manufacturers want to stress the former point.
> It's actually against FINA rules to use floatation devices. The
> floatation tests which I read were used were very crude.
>
> But here's the evidence. The LAZR, for example, had longitudinal,
> inverted V-shaped ridges, running the length of the fabric. When
> fabric tents upward, away from the skin, it traps air molecules. Air
> increases buoyancy.
>
> Swimmers make a great point of putting on these suits dry and keeping
> them dry before they dive into the water. The only reason to do this
> is to avoid filling those inverted V ridges with water, rather than
> air. Eventually, all the suits will get saturated with water, and
> probably lose they buoyancy. But even if it takes a minute or a minute
> and a half to saturate the suit, this still provides a buoyancy
> advantage for a substantial period of time. And the time improvements
> with these suits are tenths of seconds, rather than whole seconds per
> 100.
>
> If "slippery" were important, then the material would be maximized
> over the chest and shoulders (the leading part of the body and the
> part of the body which causes the greatest drag). Yet fabric is
> maximized over the legs but very much not maximized over the shoulders
> and chest. Men often eschew all suit fabric above the pelvis. This
> makes no sense if the most important effect of the suit is to minimize
> drag by making the swimmer more "slippery."
>
> Swimmers say that the suits make them feel more buoyant. I was
> physically present the first time Jason Lezak ever swam in a Fastskin
> legsuit. He dove in, swam 100 meters, then stopped with a great big
> grin and said "it floats!" I reported this at the time on this
> newsgroup.

If that's true then the suits should be illegal. I don't know how FINA defines
"buoyant". I would have thought that if it's more buoyant than a human body then
it would make the swimmer more buoyant, even if the material doesn't actually
float on water. And what is the buoyancy of a body anyway? Do you measure it
with or without a lungful of air? Also, if the material traps air then that
should be taken into account in measuring its buoyancy.

BTW, why does more buoyancy increase speed? Backstrokers like to stay under
water for as long as possible, and submarines move faster under water than on
the surface.

On Jun 29, 3:25 am, "runns...@aol.com (Larry Weisenthal)"
<runns...@aol.com> wrote:
> The new Speedo Lazr is supposed to sell for $550.
>
> No one wanted this suit. Athletes didn't ask for it. Coaches didn't
> ask for it. Certainly swim parents didn't want it.
>
> Swimming used to be a fair, accessible sport. Less than $100 in total
> equipment, and you are good to go.

That's not true, if you go back to when I was a small kid in the early
50s, and the effects remain. In my home town, and a lot of others, the
only swimming pools where swimming lessons were taught were at tennis
clubs and golf clubs and other places like that, where minorities
weren't on the membership roles. Certainly, all swim teams were at
exclusive clubs. The sport was neither fair nor accessible, and
extremely so if you were the wrong color.

But then we did get two 50 meter outdoor pools, and suddenly swimming
lessons were accessible to the public, but the cost was too high for
poor people, and so minority kids still didn't have access to the
sport. It wasn't until or school district required swimming as part of
our gym class for all high school students that you could say it sort
of became fair and accessible. But for competitive swimming, starting
in high school is way too late to reach the level where putting on a
Speedo Lazr would make a difference.

The sport never was fair and accessible, and it still isn't. There are
very few black kids in competitive swimming. The facilities in poor
areas are not nearly as good as those in wealthy areas, and the fees
for regular swimming and club membership are out of reach for poor
people.

> We've got colleges dropping the sport right and left, and you've got
> kids trying to win championships, supported by cash-strapped parents.
>
> The only people who benefit from these suits are the manufacturers and
> the bureaucrats of the swimming world, who prize the license and
> sponsor fees. One might say that, with more profits, Corporate
> Swimming puts more money into the sport. But at what price? Are we
> better off with lucrative sponsor fees paid to FINA, USA Swimming, and
> a handful of elite swimmers, or with a larger base of athletes and
> more teams at all levels? And more money in the pockets of swim
> families, to support their local swim clubs and swim organizations,
> and to travel to swim meets.
>
> - Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach,CA

On Jul 18, 7:33 am, MW Smith <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The sport never was fair and accessible, and it still isn't. There are
> very few black kids in competitive swimming. The facilities in poor
> areas are not nearly as good as those in wealthy areas, and the fees
> for regular swimming and club membership are out of reach for poor
> people.


Is that different from other sports? Can inner city kids afford the
fees charged at year-round figure skating rinks? How many inner-city
kids have ever seen - not to speak of learned - downhill skiing?
Certainly the YMCA/YWCA and Boys Clubs reach out to the inner city,
but how many different sports can they support?

At least many YMCAs/YWCAs do support swim teams.

We are fortunate to have a top-notch gymnastics club in our area.
They even sent a few kids to the Trials this year. (My daughter was a
member there before she broke her arm.) Their fees are quite low
compared to what some suburban clubs charge, but even so almost all
the kids are from upper-middle-class white-collar families. I almost
never saw an inner-city kid there.


Ross

On Jul 18, 4:32 pm, rbo...@phy.ilstu.edu wrote:

> Is that different from other sports? Can inner city kids afford the
> fees charged at year-round figure skating rinks? How many inner-city
> kids have ever seen - not to speak of learned - downhill skiing?
> Certainly the YMCA/YWCA and Boys Clubs reach out to the inner city,
> but how many different sports can they support?

My point is that the new, high cost swim suits don't affect the
fairness and accessibility of the sport. There is no point in buying a
high cost suit until after you become an elite swimmer. 99% of all
swimmers will never need one. A high cost suit won't help you become
an elite swimmer. I think the suits are good for the sport because
anything that makes swimming competitions less boring to watch must be
good for the sport. Swimming, golf, and test cricket are boring to
watch. At least when you watch test cricket, you're always watching
them play cricket. When you watch a swimming competition, most of the
time no one is swimming.

MW Smith wrote:
> On Jul 18, 4:32 pm, rbo...@phy.ilstu.edu wrote:
>
>
>>Is that different from other sports? Can inner city kids afford the
>>fees charged at year-round figure skating rinks? How many inner-city
>>kids have ever seen - not to speak of learned - downhill skiing?
>>Certainly the YMCA/YWCA and Boys Clubs reach out to the inner city,
>>but how many different sports can they support?
>
>
> My point is that the new, high cost swim suits don't affect the
> fairness and accessibility of the sport. There is no point in buying a
> high cost suit until after you become an elite swimmer. 99% of all
> swimmers will never need one. A high cost suit won't help you become
> an elite swimmer. I think the suits are good for the sport because
> anything that makes swimming competitions less boring to watch must be
> good for the sport. Swimming, golf, and test cricket are boring to
> watch. At least when you watch test cricket, you're always watching
> them play cricket. When you watch a swimming competition, most of the
> time no one is swimming.

And how, exactly, do the body suits make swimming competitions less
boring to watch?


Bob

On Jul 21, 1:14 am, "Robert W. McAdams" <r...@fambright.com> wrote:
> MW Smith wrote:
> > On Jul 18, 4:32 pm, rbo...@phy.ilstu.edu wrote:
>
> >>Is that different from other sports? Can inner city kids afford the
> >>fees charged at year-round figure skating rinks? How many inner-city
> >>kids have ever seen - not to speak of learned - downhill skiing?
> >>Certainly the YMCA/YWCA and Boys Clubs reach out to the inner city,
> >>but how many different sports can they support?
>
> > My point is that the new, high cost swim suits don't affect the
> > fairness and accessibility of the sport. There is no point in buying a
> > high cost suit until after you become an elite swimmer. 99% of all
> > swimmers will never need one. A high cost suit won't help you become
> > an elite swimmer. I think the suits are good for the sport because
> > anything that makes swimming competitions less boring to watch must be
> > good for the sport. Swimming, golf, and test cricket are boring to
> > watch. At least when you watch test cricket, you're always watching
> > them play cricket. When you watch a swimming competition, most of the
> > time no one is swimming.
>
> And how, exactly, do the body suits make swimming competitions less
> boring to watch?
>
> Bob

By making the competitions more controversial. I'm not talking about
ordinary, everyday swimming meets. They will always be boring to watch
unless you have a child swimming in one, but even then the
interminable waiting kills the interest. But for the Olympics, the
World Championships, and the US and European championships,
controversy increases interest.

MW Smith wrote:
> On Jul 21, 1:14 am, "Robert W. McAdams" <r...@fambright.com> wrote:
>
>>MW Smith wrote:
>>
>>>On Jul 18, 4:32 pm, rbo...@phy.ilstu.edu wrote:
>>
>>>>Is that different from other sports? Can inner city kids afford the
>>>>fees charged at year-round figure skating rinks? How many inner-city
>>>>kids have ever seen - not to speak of learned - downhill skiing?
>>>>Certainly the YMCA/YWCA and Boys Clubs reach out to the inner city,
>>>>but how many different sports can they support?
>>>
>>>My point is that the new, high cost swim suits don't affect the
>>>fairness and accessibility of the sport. There is no point in buying a
>>>high cost suit until after you become an elite swimmer. 99% of all
>>>swimmers will never need one. A high cost suit won't help you become
>>>an elite swimmer. I think the suits are good for the sport because
>>>anything that makes swimming competitions less boring to watch must be
>>>good for the sport. Swimming, golf, and test cricket are boring to
>>>watch. At least when you watch test cricket, you're always watching
>>>them play cricket. When you watch a swimming competition, most of the
>>>time no one is swimming.
>>
>>And how, exactly, do the body suits make swimming competitions less
>>boring to watch?
>>
>>Bob
>
>
> By making the competitions more controversial. I'm not talking about
> ordinary, everyday swimming meets. They will always be boring to watch
> unless you have a child swimming in one, but even then the
> interminable waiting kills the interest. But for the Olympics, the
> World Championships, and the US and European championships,
> controversy increases interest.

It's possible that the controversy might make competitive swimming more
interesting to the general public, but I can't see how it would make it
more interesting for them to WATCH.

Actually, boredom isn't much of an issue at the Olympics, anyway,
because they cut away to another event when nothing is happening in
swimming.

I also think that ordinary, everyday swim meets are MORE likely to be
boring someone who has a kid swimming in one, because in their mind the
events their kid is in are the only important ones. When someone is
there to root for the entire team (as in, say, a high school swim meet),
they aren't likely to be bored.


Bob

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 19:17:46 -0500, "Robert W. McAdams"
<rwm@fambright.com> wrote:

>
>I also think that ordinary, everyday swim meets are MORE likely to be
>boring someone who has a kid swimming in one, because in their mind the
>events their kid is in are the only important ones. When someone is
>there to root for the entire team (as in, say, a high school swim meet),
>they aren't likely to be bored.

My observations back this. I officiate both high school and USA
swimming, and there tends to be a lot more observer involvement during
high school meets. The only time USA meets match it comes during
relays.

YMMV!

dave@geewhiz.com wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 19:17:46 -0500, "Robert W. McAdams"
> <rwm@fambright.com> wrote:
>
>> I also think that ordinary, everyday swim meets are MORE likely to be
>> boring someone who has a kid swimming in one, because in their mind the
>> events their kid is in are the only important ones. When someone is
>> there to root for the entire team (as in, say, a high school swim meet),
>> they aren't likely to be bored.
>
> My observations back this. I officiate both high school and USA
> swimming, and there tends to be a lot more observer involvement during
> high school meets. The only time USA meets match it comes during
> relays.
>
> YMMV!
>
I've gone to meets at the university where I work and they were not at
all boring. We have some quite elite swimmers and watching their
technique was fascinating. However, I don't by any means go to every
meet.
It was also fun to talk to the parents from all over and their other
kids. It is at least as social as watching kids soccer.
Madelaine

On Jul 23, 2:17 am, "Robert W. McAdams" <r...@fambright.com> wrote:
> It's possible that the controversy might make competitive swimming more
> interesting to the general public, but I can't see how it would make it
> more interesting for them to WATCH.

I would have said that making competitive swimming more interesting to
the public does make it more interesting to watch. For one thing, the
level of noise about these suits is blown way out of proportion.
Everything else being equal, the competitive advantage to wearing one
when your opponents don't is a very small amount of time. Swimmers
know that, but the public doesn't. The public likely expects to see
much increased speeds, which would make the sport more interesting to
watch. If the 1500 only took 5 minutes instead of 15, it would be more
interesting. Nowadays, the 1500 is over before the race starts. You
can usually pick the order of finish. It isn't like an elite 10k,
where different runners make moves and take the lead at different
stages of the race. There are no collisions in the pool, no blocking
or drafting, no jockeying for position at all.

So with these suits, there is controversy, and with controversy, there
is interest.

> Actually, boredom isn't much of an issue at the Olympics, anyway,
> because they cut away to another event when nothing is happening in
> swimming.

But we still have to watch the next group march in, take off their
clothes, carefully roll up the ipod earphones. And then we have to
listen to each swimmer be announced and watch him wave to the crowd.
And then we have to watch the award ceremony for each race, and they
march out for that, and they play the national anthem. It's still one
part swimming, nine parts bullshit.

> I also think that ordinary, everyday swim meets are MORE likely to be
> boring someone who has a kid swimming in one, because in their mind the
> events their kid is in are the only important ones. When someone is
> there to root for the entire team (as in, say, a high school swim meet),
> they aren't likely to be bored.

Mine were, because everybody knew we would always crush the other
team.

On Jul 23, 3:03 pm, Madelaine <m...@sei.cmu.edu> wrote:
> I've gone to meets at the university where I work and they were not at
> all boring. We have some quite elite swimmers and watching their
> technique was fascinating. However, I don't by any means go to every
> meet.

Yes, but you are a special case because you are a serious swimmer. The
average guy watching the Olympics doesn't have the slightest idea
about what goes into producing a perfect stroke.

> It was also fun to talk to the parents from all over and their other
> kids. It is at least as social as watching kids soccer.

Ok, but that's not watching the sport. You're talking to people
because it's more interesting.

From the Swimming World website:

>>Next Generation Suits

>>The NCAA also discussed the role of the latest generation of technical suits unveiled by manufacturers. Last year the NCAA created a moratorium prohibiting the use of suits that were not commercially available prior to January 1, 2008. The committee voted to extend the moratorium on the new suits for another year.

>>The broader swimming world has been in a tumult over the new suits which,many have argued, are responsible for the onslaught of world records. While the broader swimming world has largely grown to accept the suits as a way of life, many institutions have voiced concern that the new suits will place an undue financial burden on teams. The committee held that aside, however, and looked closely at the rule governing against artificial aids. Itreads, in part that swimmers are not permitted to use anything that would help their, “speed, pace or buoyancy in competition.” This stood in contrast to several early marketing efforts which touted the suits’ abilityto “add lift” or let swimmers’ hips “ride higher in the water.”<<

Note that Speedo touted letting the hips ride high in the water. This
is not the result of reduced surface drag. It is the result of
trapping air in those longitudinal "V" ridges. They are floatation
devices and should be banned.

- Larry Weisenthal/HB

On Jul 7, 9:57 pm, bill_g <bgei...@gmail.com> wrote:
> US Swimming publishes an interesting statistic on its web site about
> membership increases following Olympic years. Over the past 3
> Olympics, the number of year-round USS swimmers has increased 4-10% in
> the year following the Olympics.
>
> Given the publicity & debate following the new suit, it will be
> interesting to see how the publicity of the suit impacts USS
> membership in 2009. In spite of the negative impact this suit has on
> the cost of participation (Larry's argument) I'm guessing we'll see a>10%jump in overall USS membership in 2009 because of the massive
>
> publicity our sport has received.
>
> Another interesting statistic from the same source (US
> Swimming)......the number of year-round males registered with USS
> increased 4% in 2007 vs. 2006, reversing a long-term trend.......I
> wonder if the full suit has something to do with this?
>

I'm very late replying to this. I don't swim much these days, hence my
increasing absence here. But I digress.
This year I went visiting a couple of beached in Ireland (Europe) This
year the weather was lousy, yet still, amongst all the rain and mist I
could see a person or two in the water here and there. Each suited up.

Last year, the weather was glorious. We went to a beach I remembered
from my childhood. Though still the same place, it was entirely
different on account of how everyone was suited up. It sort of
reminded me of pictures of Victorian swimmers.
And I wondered if it was the influence of swim-sports or prudishness.

And when I say everyone, I mean right down to kids who couldn't have
been more than 4 or 5 years old.

Now, weather they were wet suits for say water skiing or swim suits I
don't know
BTW there was no water skiing in progress, nor 'available', nor did I
notice any surf boards.

> -- bg --
>
> On Jul 5, 1:11 pm, "runns...@aol.com (Larry Weisenthal)"
>
> <runns...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >>U.S. national coach Mark Schubert responded to Biondi's criticism by
>
> > saying that the apparel companies' sponsorship of swimmers has been a
> > key ingredient to the current wave of success the U.S. teams have
> > experienced. "We owe a lot to the apparel companies," Schubert said.
> > <<
>
> > P.S. This is total crap. US teams have the same level of success that
> > they've always had.  To the extent that we are winning more
> > championships today, it's because of better enforcement of anti-doping
> > standards, the demise of East Germany and the Soviet Union, etc.
> > Current annual dues to USA Swimming are pretty modest.  If they need
> > more money, they should raise fees and dues (with the consent of the
> > "governed").  They shouldn't, in effect, impose a massive "tax," in
> > the form of forcing swim families to pay horrific amounts of money for
> > suits to keep their kids competitive.  Did you read where Speedo is
> > charging most of the swimmers at Olympic Trials $200, just to RENT the
> > suits!  The only ones to get "free" suits are the Michael Phelps/Katie
> > Hoff, etc. level swimmers.  And, after the Olympics, swim families are
> > going to be paying big time for the money that goes to provide
> > Schubert with the perks he so covets. It is absolutely disgusting. As
> > I said, it's past time for a grass roots rebellion.
>
> > - Larry Weisenthal

On Aug 11, 12:54 pm, aquachimp <aquach...@aquachimp.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:
> On Jul 7, 9:57 pm, bill_g <bgei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > US Swimming publishes an interesting statistic on its web site about
> > membership increases following Olympic years. Over the past 3
> > Olympics, the number of year-round USS swimmers has increased 4-10% in
> > the year following the Olympics.
>
> > Given the publicity & debate following the new suit, it will be
> > interesting to see how the publicity of the suit impacts USS
> > membership in 2009. In spite of the negative impact this suit has on
> > the cost of participation (Larry's argument) I'm guessing we'll see a>10% jump in overall USS membership in 2009 because of the massive
>
> > publicity our sport has received.
>
> > Another interesting statistic from the same source (US
> > Swimming)......the number of year-round males registered with USS
> > increased 4% in 2007 vs. 2006, reversing a long-term trend.......I
> > wonder if the full suit has something to do with this?
>
> I'm very late replying to this. I don't swim much these days, hence my
> increasing absence here. But I digress.
> This year I went visiting a couple of beached in Ireland (Europe) This
> year the weather was lousy, yet still, amongst all the rain and mist I
> could see a person or two in the water here and there. Each suited up.
>
> Last year, the weather was glorious. We went to a beach I remembered
> from my childhood. Though still the same place, it was entirely
> different on account of how everyone was suited up. It sort of
> reminded me of pictures of Victorian swimmers.
> And I wondered if it was the influence of swim-sports or prudishness.
>
> And when I say everyone, I mean right down to kids who couldn't have
> been more than 4 or 5 years old.
>
> Now, weather they were wet suits for say water skiing or swim suits I
> don't know
> BTW there was no water skiing in progress, nor 'available', nor did I
> notice any surf boards.

People suit up now to block the sun.

On Aug 11, 1:14 pm, MW Smith <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 11, 12:54 pm, aquachimp <aquach...@aquachimp.freeserve.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 7, 9:57 pm, bill_g <bgei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > US Swimming publishes an interesting statistic on its web site about
> > > membership increases following Olympic years. Over the past 3
> > > Olympics, the number of year-round USS swimmers has increased 4-10% in
> > > the year following the Olympics.
>
> > > Given the publicity & debate following the new suit, it will be
> > > interesting to see how the publicity of the suit impacts USS
> > > membership in 2009. In spite of the negative impact this suit has on
> > > the cost of participation (Larry's argument) I'm guessing we'll see a>10% jump in overall USS membership in 2009 because of the massive
>
> > > publicity our sport has received.
>
> > > Another interesting statistic from the same source (US
> > > Swimming)......the number of year-round males registered with USS
> > > increased 4% in 2007 vs. 2006, reversing a long-term trend.......I
> > > wonder if the full suit has something to do with this?
>
> > I'm very late replying to this. I don't swim much these days, hence my
> > increasing absence here. But I digress.
> > This year I went visiting a couple of beached in Ireland (Europe) This
> > year the weather was lousy, yet still, amongst all the rain and mist I
> > could see a person or two in the water here and there. Each suited up.
>
> > Last year, the weather was glorious. We went to a beach I remembered
> > from my childhood. Though still the same place, it was entirely
> > different on account of how everyone was suited up. It sort of
> > reminded me of pictures of Victorian swimmers.
> > And I wondered if it was the influence of swim-sports or prudishness.
>
> > And when I say everyone, I mean right down to kids who couldn't have
> > been more than 4 or 5 years old.
>
> > Now, weather they were wet suits for say water skiing or swim suits I
> > don't know
> > BTW there was no water skiing in progress, nor 'available', nor did I
> > notice any surf boards.
>
> People suit up now to block the sun.

Sun... haven't much to Ireland have you? (-:

On Aug 11, 2:17 pm, aquachimp <aquach...@aquachimp.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:
> On Aug 11, 1:14 pm, MW Smith <clipper.sm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 11, 12:54 pm, aquachimp <aquach...@aquachimp.freeserve.co.uk>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 7, 9:57 pm, bill_g <bgei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > US Swimming publishes an interesting statistic on its web site about
> > > > membership increases following Olympic years. Over the past 3
> > > > Olympics, the number of year-round USS swimmers has increased 4-10% in
> > > > the year following the Olympics.
>
> > > > Given the publicity & debate following the new suit, it will be
> > > > interesting to see how the publicity of the suit impacts USS
> > > > membership in 2009. In spite of the negative impact this suit has on
> > > > the cost of participation (Larry's argument) I'm guessing we'll see a>10% jump in overall USS membership in 2009 because of the massive
>
> > > > publicity our sport has received.
>
> > > > Another interesting statistic from the same source (US
> > > > Swimming)......the number of year-round males registered with USS
> > > > increased 4% in 2007 vs. 2006, reversing a long-term trend.......I
> > > > wonder if the full suit has something to do with this?
>
> > > I'm very late replying to this. I don't swim much these days, hence my
> > > increasing absence here. But I digress.
> > > This year I went visiting a couple of beached in Ireland (Europe) This
> > > year the weather was lousy, yet still, amongst all the rain and mist I
> > > could see a person or two in the water here and there. Each suited up.
>
> > > Last year, the weather was glorious. We went to a beach I remembered
> > > from my childhood. Though still the same place, it was entirely
> > > different on account of how everyone was suited up. It sort of
> > > reminded me of pictures of Victorian swimmers.
> > > And I wondered if it was the influence of swim-sports or prudishness.
>
> > > And when I say everyone, I mean right down to kids who couldn't have
> > > been more than 4 or 5 years old.
>
> > > Now, weather they were wet suits for say water skiing or swim suits I
> > > don't know
> > > BTW there was no water skiing in progress, nor 'available', nor did I
> > > notice any surf boards.
>
> > People suit up now to block the sun.
>
> Sun... haven't much to Ireland have you? (-:

You said the weather was glorious. Besides, cloud cover can be
deceptive, where UV radiation is important.