Page 1 of 2
Swimming for dummies - I don't get it
Posted:
Mon Aug 03, 2009 9:19 amby Sabre
I guess I could google and find out the reasons, but I preffer to know what's your take in a topic I don't know much about.
I read that there's quite a lot of controversy with the swimming suits, and I just wonder why. Why professional swimmers are not allowed to wear certain swimming suits? what's the fúss?
It's not doping, and in other sports they have also used trabs or devices to have less resistance to the air like in cyclism.
I don't understand why those swimming suits have to be banned just because they have less resistance to the water. I rather want the trying to win a few seconds against the clock by improving the technique and improving the hidrodynamics rather than doping.
Any thoughts?
Posted:
Mon Aug 03, 2009 10:01 amby Judge
simply by wearing such a suit is imo cheating and it should be banned.
swimming against each other should be with the human body against the water, apart from the obligatory trunks etc. swimming caps a re acceptable as they keep hair out of the eyes. other than that its human against human, not a dolphin skinned suit
Posted:
Mon Aug 03, 2009 11:10 amby Bammo
I'm by no means an expert on it but I did catch a discussion about it on 5 live (no I'm not Lakes in disguise 
)
Apparently the new suits (the ones potentially banned) not only reduce drag but aid buoyancy, thereby giving an advantage to the wearer. Any swimsuit that takes 45 minutes to put on is not just a pair of speedos!
I agree with Judge. Swimmers should be allowed caps and enough material to cover their modesty. Other than that it should be human versus human.
Ot human versus human versus shark for some added excitement 
Posted:
Mon Aug 03, 2009 1:06 pmby Judge
will shark be wearing one of those suits also?
Posted:
Mon Aug 03, 2009 1:47 pmby Bammo
The shark will be appropriately dressed:
Posted:
Mon Aug 03, 2009 4:01 pmby dawson99
so should the new bikes be banned? new football boots, running shoes?
Should every cyclist still be on a chopper?
Move with technology people, thats what I say.
Posted:
Mon Aug 03, 2009 5:07 pmby Reg
Hello Sabre mate, heres a good link for you on teh subject and below I copy/paste (like our St Mick) a section of it, its pretty clear really:
"It’s about those bloody body suits. The things that compress muscle, destroy fatigue, help the glide and even, with the latest versions, aid buoyancy. Competitors have been coming out dressed as frogs, glistening with polyurethane, and they have been methodically destroying their sport.
There have been 135 world records since the introduction of the high-tech suits in February 2008; there were a further 39 before the final day of the World Championships in Rome. And that’s not good, that’s bad. If a world record is no longer special, what has sport come to?
Swimming had become an equipment sport: a level playing field and may the best suit win. It was like Formula One. Swimming had embraced artificial aids, a rum departure for what was once the purest and most nearly-naked sport in the calendar. A new suit costs £350 and loses its effectiveness after a few swims: who can afford a grand per meet? Answer, the elite and sponsored ones from wealthy nations. Is that the kind of sport we want? Everyone was doing it, so everyone had to do it. Where have you heard that one before? The whole swimsuit issue has been about artificial advantage. The sport was full of concepts such as patent, prototype, Nasa, surfboard and dope-on-a-hanger."
etc.. etc..
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol....660.ece
Posted:
Mon Aug 03, 2009 5:08 pmby dawson99
Reg wrote:Hello Sabre mate, heres a good link for you on teh subject and below I copy/paste (like our St Mick) a section of it, its pretty clear really:
"It’s about those bloody body suits. The things that compress muscle, destroy fatigue, help the glide and even, with the latest versions, aid buoyancy. Competitors have been coming out dressed as frogs, glistening with polyurethane, and they have been methodically destroying their sport.
There have been 135 world records since the introduction of the high-tech suits in February 2008; there were a further 39 before the final day of the World Championships in Rome. And that’s not good, that’s bad. If a world record is no longer special, what has sport come to?
Swimming had become an equipment sport: a level playing field and may the best suit win. It was like Formula One. Swimming had embraced artificial aids, a rum departure for what was once the purest and most nearly-naked sport in the calendar. A new suit costs £350 and loses its effectiveness after a few swims: who can afford a grand per meet? Answer, the elite and sponsored ones from wealthy nations. Is that the kind of sport we want? Everyone was doing it, so everyone had to do it. Where have you heard that one before? The whole swimsuit issue has been about artificial advantage. The sport was full of concepts such as patent, prototype, Nasa, surfboard and dope-on-a-hanger."
etc.. etc..
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol....660.ece
yet no one complained when we had the best suits/bikes in the cycling
Posted:
Mon Aug 03, 2009 5:14 pmby Reg
No one complains when Fernando Torres gets a new pair of boots made but if he attached the ball to his foot with a piece of string, or made the goals wider just for him, or made all defenders stay at least 3 yards away from him - they would.
Additional buoyance is a clear and artificial advantage over another swimmer who is wearing just a cozzy.
No one complained when Barry Sheenes motorbike went faster than Kenny Roberts, but if he´d turned up perched on a jet engined bike? Then they need to change the rules to clarify what is acceptable and what isnt - which I hope is what they´ll do with the cozzies.
Posted:
Mon Aug 03, 2009 7:07 pmby J*o*n*D*o*e
you only have to look at whats happening now in the swimming to see something isnt right, they are breaking world records in nearly every race.
are they not banned from the start of next year.
Posted:
Mon Aug 03, 2009 7:25 pmby JBG
Roll em in grease and make em swim naked.
Posted:
Mon Aug 03, 2009 7:28 pmby LFC2007
If it's going to improve standards across the board and by considerable margins (as evidenced with the many WRs), is there really any point to it?
To me it seems to detract from the sport, placing too much emphasis on the suit you have - if you're able to afford it, that is - over technique.
Cui bono?
Posted:
Mon Aug 03, 2009 7:31 pmby dawson99
its the same with any sport in the world, whoever has more money has the better technology
Remember the India football team asking to play barefoot?
Posted:
Mon Aug 03, 2009 7:36 pmby Bammo
But some sports even out the technological advantage. Don't field athletics (javelin, hammer etc) have communal equipment?
Obviously it'd be a bit different for swimming but surely manufacturers could provide suits for all competitors.
Posted:
Mon Aug 03, 2009 7:39 pmby LFC2007
This is a sport practiced widely by people even in the most unfortunate circumstances. This isn't having the ability to buy the latest pair of football boots - something that will have little real effect on a kid's ability to develop a career in the sport of football, this is an entire suit that costs a grand per meet. Is it really in the best interests of the sport of swimming to effectively limit elite level participation to only the wealthiest and most advanced nations?
Is there any actual benefit to anyone, whatsoever?
As far as I can see there isn't.