Swimming Blogs - Chris DeSantis

durham,

i think you really need to drop the deal with UT and suiting up for the duel meet. because they swam at the UT invite and killed the times they went on the duel meet. you are beating on an already dead horse.
the way the resources will work i think that teams will get a certain number of LZRs but also have the blue seventys to go along with them. they will not suit up swimmers in pro's knowing that the blue seventy's are better suits

the '400 bucks x 25 swimmers' argument holds no water.

no team is scoring that many people at NCAAs. like Chris said, teams will find a way to suit up their 'most likely scorers' ahead of all others.
witness: UNC suiting up Tyler Harris ONLY at the Game Invitational to make A cuts, likewise Tennessee suiting up only its top 5-6 swimmers in a November dual meet.....

lzr's were not banned from high school comp. i competed at the missouri high school champs and there were a lot of them

I've heard that the LZR suits were banned from the highschool level meets. Unless I heard wrong, is this true? Take a look at the Arizona Highschool Boys DI A state championship video (50/100 free) I think I know a LZR when I see one, and I notice that most of the field has those suits on...so what's the deal here? Garrett...Chris?

Anyone see the new poster for "Swim Moms" on the SCAQ site?

http://scaq.blogspot.com/
Tony Martin is hilarious - and smart!

Despite rumors, Indiana University is not conducting independent testing on the new suits. We merely proposed a method for doing so... concluding it would take a committee of experts (not just physiologists at IU). The fact of the matter is, testing for possible performance enhancing affects that the suit might provide is no trivial task. However, we do have circumstantial evidence to suggest there was a bias introduced into swim performance. The rate and frequency of world record performances seems to be unusual. Performances at the 2008 Olympic trials and Olympic Games were well beyond what was predicted based on the natural progression of our sport. Whether or not this is the result of new suits, novel pharmacology, or training techniques (although what has dramatically changed with regard to training? or technique? or coaching?) is speculative at best. I may refer readers to a couple of links discussing the issue further.
http://swimmeetinbeijing.blogspot.com/
http://newsinfo.iu.edu/tips/page/normal/8331.html

I'm still a bit hazy on that. We'll have to see what the final legislation has for the wording. In the wording of the proposed legislation on the USA website it would allow a 12 year old competing in an 'open' event at a meet to wear a full body suit. I haven't heard if that is the final wording/interpretation or not. Either way I like the ruling. I just can't see a slew of 12&Unders wanting to get destroyed in 'open' events just so they can wear these suits. And I can't see many coaches letting them do so anyway.

Todd,

As I understand it, the suit is now illegal for 12 and unders in any race that is named something like "11-12 Boys 100 Freestyle" but if a 12 year old is competing in an open age group then it is allowed. Is that correct?

Looks like USA swimming has saved us from having to continue this argument as they have just banned these suits for 12&Unders. Great move.

A couple of thoughts about NCAAs and the suits:

It is a FINA rule that every participant must have equal access to a suit. Speedo was required to make the same suit Phelps races in available to everyone at Olympic Trials. Every Grand Prix meet this year has had a Speedo table renting suits to anyone who wanted to try out the LZR. NCAA could legally require Speedo to do the same at major college championship meets to allow the suits in competition. Qualifying brings about another question entirely, but it's a start.
If you look at equipment costs for other sports at the same level, the swimming equipment cost is very comparable. Seriously, how much do you think lacrosse, baseball, track and all the other sports spend on home and away jerseys, cleats, helmets, equipment etc? I guarantee you more than one $550 suit per person. Our suits are our jerseys. Yes they are expensive, but it is becoming part of the sport. The swimming budget would definitely grow, but it would still be very comparable to other sports at your college. Large programs will always have better equipment than small ones, that's why underdogs exist. But NOTHING is better in sports than watching an underdog beat the favorite.
Check out this think to the Speedo sponsorship agreement:
http://www.pureblueswim.com/v/vspfiles/assets/images/college%20swim%20sponsorship.pdf
Every team sponsored by Speedo gets at least this discount. Other companies have similar deals. Paying 35% of the team price (not retail price) on a LZR would amount to something like $150 or less. Much more doable.
I really wish someone would do an independent investigation of the suit. (I think Indiana University is doing something with it). These advertisements are starting to make people believe that they are incapable of winning without the LZR. Give me independent, scientific proof that the LZR is statistically better than blue seventy or Arena or TYR, and then you can say it is an unfair advantage. Until then, stop believing every Speedo ad you see. Embrace the new technology: more people are excited about swimming than ever before, and records were made to be broken.

Devour - I really don't care if USA swimming or yourself say that these suits don't affect technique. At a minimum they minimize the impact of poor technique. Once again look at Alain Bernard. The suit minimizes the impact that his poor body position and pull path have on his races. All it takes is for a younger swimmer to see this and think that it applies to them. They could think that if they put the suit on that they can 'get away with' poor technique. I'm not saying that all 12&Unders would think this way, but I can guarantee you that some would. I haven't been coaching for as long as some of the contributors on this board, but I have been coaching long enough to know that it isn't as simple as telling a kid how to fix their technique and they just do it. SO many kids will look around and see that they are beating other swimmers by alot even with their bad technique and think that means there isn't a need for them to fix their technique. The suits only exacerbate that.

And since when are we assuming that all swim parents are sane? On one of my old teams I didn't allow 12&Unders to wear full body suits and some parents were upset because kids on other teams had full body suits and theirs didn't. They said that they knew that the suits wouldn't really make their kids faster, they just didn't want their kids to not have something another kid had.
On the level playing field, for the few 12 year olds that are in contention for a spot on a national team, I think it is perfectly ok for them to wear those suits at the national competitions. There are so few 12 year olds that fall into this category, however, that them needing to wear the suits at the selection meets shouldn't impact whether a 'BB' swimmer should wear one on the local level.
I'm not saying ban the suits for 18&Unders, just for 12&unders and only on a local level. If they reach sectionals or higher I think it's perfectly ok to wear the suits. A 10 year old in Australia wearing the suit gives them no long term advantage over one of our 12 year olds not wearing the suit. I really don't see how that argument should have any impact on the debate about allowing the suits for 12&Unders in the US.
The cost will only come down once Speedo comes out with their next next-generation suit. At that point everyone will want one of those. Besides, what is the cost going to drop to, $250 like the FS-Pro? That's still a ridiculous amount of money to spend on a piece of equipment for a 12&Under. I think the guys at Blue Seventy have it right. A coach told me a story of how a mom called Blue Seventy wanting to order a full body for her 9 year old daugher and they told her to call back when her daugher got to sectionals. They wouldn't sell her the suit.
As far as being like Mike, that's the only reasonable argument I've heard so far. But there are so many other ways to 'Be like Mike' than wasting $500 on a suit. Shoot, if they really want to be like Mike they shouldn't wear one since he didn't have a full body when he was 12. Idol worship is cool and good for the sport, but you should only take it so far.
It's no surprise to me that USA swimming would come out against banning the suit for 12&Unders considering how much $$$ they get from Speedo, and that Schubert is a paid spokesperson for Speedo. Think they would keep giving that much $$$ to USA Swimming if the officials came out in favor of not allowing 12&Unders to wear the suit?

Todd-

Please stop saying that the suit creates a "false sense of security when it comes to technique." You are stating this as if it were a fact. The suit might create a nice compression or feel fast, but to say that it is going to do something to technique is bogus. Swimmers change their technique, not suits.
No one is forcing parents to buy a $500 suit. Most 12 and unders don't have these-heck, most 30 and unders don't have these. No sane parent is going to feel forced into buying these simply b/c a few kids have them here and there. Most parents are smart enough to realize that B level swimmers don't need the suit, and they are not going to run away from the sport simply b/c a few kids have overpriced suits.
Let us, for the record, take a look at how the USA Swimming Rules and Regulation Committee recently responded to a proposal to ban the suits for age groupers (take a good look at point 4):
Recommendation: The Rules & Regulations Committee recommends rejection (because (1) all athletes should be able to wear caps, suits, goggles of their choice for best performance; (2) it should be a level playing field under the Amateur Sports Act where athletes of all ages compete for National Team spots;(3) the genie is out of the bottle – other 18 & unders in the world will swim in whatever suit, cap,goggle swimwear a coach deems best; (4) wearing or not wearing a suit will not improve technique instruction by coaches; (5) the cost will come down, meanwhile no one is forced to buy/wear the suit; (6) USA Swimming should be encouraging hero worship – “Be like Mike” – and if they want to buy a suit to look like Mike, they should be allowed.
Peace

There have been several reasons stated in this discussion board as to why 12&Unders shouldn't wear the suits.

1. The suits create a false sense of security when it comes to technique. They can fix, or at least minimize, certain technique flaws for people that are big enough for the suit's compression to have an effect. If a 12&Under puts one on and thinks it will fix their technique for them then they are less likely to want to fix it on their own. I think a good analogy that could be applied is with driving. When you first learn to drive you don't jump into a race car and punch the gas. You need to learn how to drive first, and then get into the more powerful cars. Same here. Kids need to learn how to swim properly first, then they can put on these faster suits. At that point the suits will benefit them even more as they already have the foundation for fast swimming.
2. Allowing the suits to be a part of 12&Under swimming creates an environment in our sport that is not good for the long term of keeping kids involved in the sport. If mommy and daddy percieve that they must buy a $550 suit for their 10 year old for them to be competitive in swimming it becomes more likely that they might try to find another sport for their kid where you don't have to spend that kind of money on a piece of equipment that only lasts for three or four races. Our sport is fairly expensive, not just for the elite swimmers but for the beginning ones as well. There is no need to add another expense to the checkbook. For 12&Unders the sport should be about acquiring the neccessary skills for long term success in the sport while having fun and developing a love for the sport. It shouldn't be about whose parents can afford the nicest suit. Once they get to Senior level swimming(qualifying for Sectionals or higher) then they can start to wear the suits. For the occasional 12 year old that reaches that level I'm ok with them wearing the suit. For your 12 year old that goes a 35 for the 50 free, there are other things to focus on rather than just wearing a suit to drop time instead of fixing your technique and working harder.
3. To this point no one has been able to demonstrate that there would be any harm caused to a 12&Under by not allowing them to wear one of these full body suits. I think it should be fairly obvious that there is, at a minimum, a potential for long term damage to a swimmer's career if they are allowed to wear these suits at a young age.

why not? You don't give a reason why 12 and unders shouldn't wear it. B/c it is expensive and excludes those that can't afford it? Even if the suit was banned, should we ban the FS pro's b/c they are more of an advantage than those wearing the FSII's? To what end does this arguement stop?

Such is life, and it happens in all sports and all facets of life that there will be those that can afford the luxury items and those that cannot. Talent, hard work, blah blah will prevail anyway.

the whole tennis racket and b-ball shoes thing isn't the best example... how about this one

in baseball for younger players, most end up buying bats at a decent price, not too expensive, and they get a normal quality medium weight bat... but theres always one kid on the team (usually the really talented and/or dedicated and/or rich kid) who has one of those astronomically expensive bats, thats super lightweight and has a huge bat head. everyone wants to use that kids bat, because it improves his performance because of its lack of weight, etc. but nobody else on the team can afford it or their parents dont feel like forking over a ton of money for a bat that will be worthless down the road
same with this, everyone wants the suit, it OBVIOUSLY makes you faster...
has anyone here noticed how much faster you feel in the water with ANY fastskin on? in my fs-pro legskin, when i swam fly, my body position felt perfect, unlike it ever had... thats just the fs pro too, so the LZR is most likely exponentially better in that respect
i agree with not letting anyone who's 12 and under wear it (unless they're huge and making national cuts) but i think we should still keep them around. why put our sport into a negative light after its popularity skyrocketed over the summer, in at least a small part due to the suits...
they should NOT be banned for ncaa swimming either... imagine how fast the 50 and 100 free records would be SCY if cielo was wearing a LZR? how fast crocker would have gone from his old texas days in an LZR?
everyone wants to swim as fast as they can, i just dont see why we should have 11-12's wearing these...

Mike Gus-

Hahaha, I thoroughly enjoyed that.

I dont know about you guys but I know that when i come to swim in a race the idea is to say "haha I'm faster than you...I have done the training, worked on my technique, and getting myself through the water, I am better at swimming than all of my competiors." you guys seem to have lost sight of the athletic endevour of sport, i enjoy the challenge of stepping up to the blocks in my breifs with all around me in full body fs2's and pros smirking at me because i look like im swimming out of the 1990's and then smoking their pretentious ass's in the water. Then it was me that did that, no need for a suit, generally dont bother with a hat where as you all felt you needed them to help you and then I beat you anyway. Perhaps we need to find out what the limits of our physicalites are in terms of making us faster at swimming are before we look to make athletes faster by adding things to their bodies, goggles have no massive advantage to them in terms of athletic enhancement they just help you see, thanks for proving that for me Michael Phelps. however it becomes more and more evident that the new generation of suits do. Any thoughts on just kickin it back a bit and just seeing what the limits are for AN ATHLETE to swim before mr Boffin helps out.

Acslater,
I know personally I teach my kids to swim fast no matter what they wear. They can put on clown costumes for all I care. My point was why would we even dare to teach these youngs kids that it's ok not to work for something. Thats was my only point so I regress.

"Suits don't swim for you."

Au contraire, mon fraire:
http://www.theonion.com/content/infograph/speedos_new_high_tech

So if all you are trying to do is teach them to work hard, what is the difference between slapping on an fs2 or fs pro and a LZR? I see tons of ten and unders wearing fs2s at summer league meets and they all have one thing in common: the best ones are the ones with the best technique, a suit will not fix your technique no matter what it claims to do. Swimming will not turn into bodybuilding, and suits dont swim for you.

exactly

I know that personally I've dealt with some parents that will do anything to get there kids to drop time (i.e. hiring personal trainers, doing extra private lessons) at a very early age (some 10 and under). Wearing the suit one time WILL NOT affect technique. Technique is a result of what you do in practice. If you're not paying attention to your kids and all they're doing is swimming sloppy then of course their technique will suffer. My concern again is these parents/swimmers that buy the suits so their 10 and under can win J.O.'s. Thats the ridiculous part that concerns me. Again I think some kids think it'll be ok to skip a couple practices and just slap on the suit. How do we teach kids to work hard? How do we teach them to stay dedicated to something? Remember we're not just teaching them to swim, we're teaching them how to become hard working, goal driven individuals IN AND OUT OF THE POOL.

Wow...anybody who seriously thinks a suit will cause a kid to plateu is horribly mistaken. 1. PEOPLE DONT WEAR LZRs TO EVERY MEET THEY GO TO 2. Bernard was actually a 48.5 100 swimmer pre-LZR 3. There is no substitute for good technique, if the LZR was what some of you people were making it out to be then you could throw it on a body builder and he would float and be able to set a WR in the 100 and 50...BUT THAT CANT HAPPEN.

The bottom line is that every progression in suit technology is performance enhancing. Thats a good thing, why would we want to see times stay the way they are when we can combine technology with training in order to go times that were previously unimaginable?

There is no harm in letting them wear the suits, and they are currently legal-so the harm is banning something without a proper reason why (what might happen at some point in the future is anyone's guess). You cannot prove that their will be any negative affects/consequences as a result of wearing these suits at any age, but you can speculate and provide mindless conjecture for our amusement however.

You mentioned:
"They'll eventually get to a point where they won't get any bigger and their strength/power increases will be very incremental so their poor technique will cause them to stop dropping time." Um, this happens to everyone in the sport regardless of what suit they are wearing at 12!
A swimsuit does not have anything to do with a person's likelihood to develop technique flaws. End of story.

Sam - I hate the 'suit doesn't swim' argument. Everyone knows that the suit doesn't propel the swimmers through the water. But for a bigger swimmer it DOES fix body position and minimize the impact of other technical flaws. Look at Alain Bernard. He puts the suit on and goes a 47 100 meter free. He takes it off and goes a 49. When you have a 12&Under put the suit on many of them will think that means it will fix technique issues for them so they won't have to fix it themselves. They'll eventually get to a point where they won't get any bigger and their strength/power increases will be very incremental so their poor technique will cause them to stop dropping time. The false sense of security they had due to the suit, which can cause them to not focus on technique like they should, created the variables that cause a plateau.

So far no one that has been against banning the suits has shown an actual reason why 12&Unders should be allowed to wear the suits. All you guys keep saying is that they have the right to buy what they want, but at the same time as coaches we have the right to regulate what can and cannot be used in competition. You even admitted that the actual phsyical advantage from these suits for these swimers is minimal. So why are you so set on allowing these kids to wear the suits? Unless someone can demonstrate that some form of harm will be caused by not letting them wear the suits then the potential harm that could be caused by allowing them far outweighs and the suits should be banned for 12&Unders.

A suit cannot cause a plateau b/c a suit can't swim. Coaches and swimmers should use discretion as to what suits to wear, but a ban on suits for 12 and unders makes no sense on the premise that it may prevent/delay proper stroke mechanics . Kids should have the right to wear whatever suit they want. Parents and kids are not being forced to buy them, and the so called advantage the suit provides is marginal at the 12 and under level.

As someone else mentioned, if the suits create false sense of reality, then it is up to the swimmer/coach to give them a reality check as the suit won't swim for them. The tennis racket arguement makes sense here. A bigger racket head (more expensive racket) dosen't mean automatic success or a false reliance on work/technique. Someone still has to manuever the expensive racket just as someone still has to perform in the fast suit.

Exactly SSC, what swimmer 12 and under does need to shave? But parents and coaches alike see the "big guns" doing it and think its a necessity for their young swimmer.

Its the same with the suits. Just because they are there and you can buy them doesn't mean they should.
My age groupers wear tight lycra suits at all their in season meets. Any of them who have "focus" meets during the year wear the modern version of a "paper suit," like nike's Hydra or a speedo Aquablade, and that's primarily for them to recognize that those meets are "different" than a regular invitational. We don't even allow the boys to wear a jammer.

Please coaches don't allow your swims/parents to "buy" their best times. Sheppard nailed it on the head, 12 and unders SHOULD have drops in times if the coach has given them a solid foundation of technique and not exhausted them with yardage. It's a natural process if you handle your kids correctly. I cringe when I see that people think these suits are ok for the younger kids. I feel hard work, dedication and commitment are thrown right out the door if you can just get one of these suits and think it's ok not to put the work in.
To answer your question Sheppard, on our team it's not even discussed. what does a 12 and under really have to shave?

Sam, you are right, plateaus happen for a million different reasons. The biggest being developmental swimmers swimming on bad technique.

Young swimmers will get faster just because they are growing and exercising, without any regard to their technique. Technical Suits further this ability. However, at some point when swimming with bum strokes, unless he is Bernard, your swimmer will hit a plateau.
Remember, THESE SUITS FLOAT and make the core more stable...isn't that why I did all those abs when I was 12...To stabilize my core and get my body in proper line?
They give young swimmers a false sense of their actual ability in the long run. Imagine how fast all our swimmers will be when we teach/train them to swim fast WITHOUT the suits when they're young. Put them in a tech suit when they hit open level competition and watch them soar!
Question, only slightly off subject...Do you encourage your 12 & Unders to shave for meets? If not, why?

I completely agree with you C. Sheppard. Not too much more to say on the subject. Sam - Do you have anything specific to say as to why a suit can't cause a plateau, or are you just going to generalize and say it can't without any sort of analysis as to why? C. Sheppard made some very good points as to why a suit CAN cause a plateau and your response was equivalent to "NUH UH!!"

A suit cannot hinder development! That is absurd!! Plateau's occur b/c of a million different reasons, not one of them being a suit.

I'm with Devour here.

Well said C. Sheppard.

It sounds to me like Devour's never coached an age group team! :)
Swimmers at the 12 & Under level, competing at Age Group meets, against swimmers their own age, should not be allowed to wear a fancy pants technical suit. At that level it should be all about technique and race strategy.

If you put a 11 or 12 year old in a tech suit without proper strokes, or without effective race strategies, it is likely to have the same result as heavy yardage for young swimmers (IF THE SUIT EVEN FITS). A quick drop in time, and then BOOM! A giant wall. An almost insurmountable wall. A wall that could take multiple seasons to figure out. And what happens in the meantime? The swimmer gets frustrated, loses faith in his coach and bounces teams, or worse, leaves the sport. The parent gets upset, and you've got angry phone calls after every meet trying to explain that little Bobby isn't swimming faster because of X Y & Z.
Not to mention the fact that once a parent realizes they have to spend beyond $200.00 every fourth meet, little Bobby probably won't be getting any new suits in the near future. The result of that is little Bobby potentially goes SLOWER.
At Open/Senior Level meets, tech suits should be allowed for ALL competitors, regardless of age. But the legality of each new generation of suit should be HIGHLY SCRUTINIZED by outside researchers and testers that aren't being funded by the big suit companies. *cough*speedo*cough*

i think it all comes down to the issue of money and that most parent cant justify spending 400-500 dollars on a freaking swim suit. i know thats the case with me. im in high school and my family makes upwards of 700,000 a year, so money is not an issue, yet my parents will not buy me one of these suits because they simply cant justify spending that much money on a suit thats going to wear out in a few meets.

Ok, here we go:

1. Why not? If it's harmful for their long term development then they shouldn't be allowed to use the suits. I firmly believe that it is harmful for their long term development to have a reliance on a swim suit to make them faster.
2. How would not allowing them to use the suits prevent them from reaching their highest potential? Michael Phelps didn't have access to these suits when he was 12, and he has turned out just fine. The vast majority of 12 year olds simply don't have the body mass to get anything out of wearing these suits.
3. Why does it matter if 12&Unders have already worn the suit in competion? It won't hurt their development one bit if they aren't allowed to wear full body suits going forward.
4. Again, why does it matter if other sports allow expensive equipment to be used by 12&Unders? It has no impact on swimming. Swimming is very different than tennis, golf, or basketball.
5. If you don't think that the suits help to fix bad technique for elite swimmers, look no further than one of the examples that has already been stated in this conversation. Alain Bernard has horrible body position, among other problems, yet the suit allows him to overcome those deficiencies to swim fast. The suit has a tremendous ability to 'fix' several key technique flaws.
6. Again, why does this matter? If we're looking out for the overall good of the sport then we shouldn't concern ourselves with a few parents who will be pissed off that they spent money on a suit that their swimmer can't use anymore. Besides, if they bought the suit for a 12&Under it probably won't fit their swimmer at their next major championship meet anyway and they would have to spend money on a new suit in either case.
7. How are we penalizing 12&Unders whose parents can afford these suits? THEY
DO NOT HELP 12&Unders to swim faster!! I would guess that maybe only 5% or so of 12&Unders are big enough to get anything out of these suits, and even fewer for 10&Unders. All we would be doing is not allowing a 'status symbol' to be used by 12&Unders. They won't be able to show off how rich mommy or daddy are.
8. I'm not saying give up the suits alltogether. I think that technology advances are a great part of the sport and shouldn't be shunned. I'm not arguing that the advantage the suits give to OLDER swimmers is illegitimate. I'm saying that they have no place in age group swimming for 12&Unders, except for the rare few that are at the Jr nat, Sr nat, or OT level. There aren't many that fall into that category, the Missy Franklins and Lia Neals of this world are few and far between.
You can go on and on, but you'll just be repeating yourself over and over. There is no good reason why 12&Under HAVE to wear these suits. There is little to no benefit for them from the suits. It can create an environment where a swimmer relies on a suit to fix poor technique instead of fixing the problems themselves. It could also create an environment where parents mistakenly believe that they HAVE to buy these suits for their kids in order for them to be competive, thus driving people out of the sport if they can't afford the suits. Like I have said several times, age group swimming should be about developing the necessary skills to be successful in the long term while also developing a love for the sport. Not only are these suits not neccessary for that goal, but they could actually hinder that kind of development.

For the last time, reasons why banning the suit for 12 and unders makes no sense:

1) 12 and under's should not be excluded simply b/c of their age
2) They should not be excluded b/c of their ability, and the ban would arbitrarily prevent 12 and unders from reaching their highest potential, and is contrary to suit standards set by USA Swimming.
3) Precedent has already been established in swimming (ie 12 and unders are wearing them and have been wearing them across the world and records of both state and national level have been established in them).
4) Precedent has already been establsihed in other sports (ie not excluding a piece of equipment in specific age groups and allowing it for the "older" kids)
5)Many folks are worried that technique will go out the window, and the suit
will make you an instant world class swimmer. Suits require a motor inside them
called a swimmer. Bad technique exists independent of what suits are available.
6) It penalizes those (8-12 year olds) that have already purchased and used the suits in meets, requiring families to now have to purchase yet another suit adhering to the new guidlelines.
7) The proposed change penalizes the kids/families that can afford the suit. Other examples of the technology gap in sports are seen in tennis and basketball. Rackets range from $20-$300, and kids are certainly not required to use the same rackets (in terms of a cap in price) in tennis tournaments. Basketball shoes range from $50-$200 dollars, yet you will see kids of varying abilities wearing shoes in all price range within leagues. It would be absurd to impose a rule in a youth basketball/tennis league that stated a child could only wear the $200 shoes/$300 racket in an 'adult' league b/c some others can't afford them.
8)Many who want to do away with the suits would not give up the technological
advantages and rule changes they had when they competed. So where does it end?
How far back do you go and say this is how the sport should be. Circular
argument. Also, FINA has approved new blocks. More new technology (caps, goggles, etc). Scary.
Parents and coaches together can decide when it is time to consider investing
in new suits. The coach can tell when a swimmer is close to sectional/national
cuts; parent can say yes or no. They know what fits in their budget and should
have enough sense to know what level of ability their kid currently has. A great swimmer is going to beat most people regardless of what they are wearing.
I can go on and on, but my point remains the same, and Todd my friend, your points just don't carry much merit.

Devour - If a 12&Under doesn't think the suit will help them, then why in the world would their parent spend that kind of money for the suit? The vast majority of 12&Unders who want this suit want it because they think it would make them faster(or their parents want them to have it because they believe the same thing). It is not an assumption, it's what I've heard from parents of 12&Unders who have bought full body suits and from the swimmers who wear the suits.

You still haven't shown me a good reason why the suits should be allowed for 12&Unders. Saying it's unfair for them to not be able to wear the suits doesn't work because the suits provide no advantage for the average 12 year old. I don't care about their 'rights' as consumers to buy and use the suit because it's our job to regulate what is and isn't allowed in swimming.

Todd-
Just because a 12 and under wears a LZR does not automatically imply that those who wear it will automatically have a false reliance that it will change their technique and "fix their problems." This is a completely bogus assumption. Since you freely admit that the suit does not provide an advantage, there is no harm in a 12 and under wearing it provided one can afford it.

i think the suits should not be allowed to be worn at least until the sectional or junior national level when most teams get them at a reduced price or for free. i know at juniors this year our team got fspros for free and we'll probably be able to get the lzr for a reduced price this year also, these are the people that the suits were originally designed for, not 10 year old little billy who goes 3.26 in the 200 yard free.

I'm not sure I buy the argument that everything is supposed to be even when you dive into the water. Yeah, in a dream world that would be the case, but in reality it isn't. If it isn't the suit, it's resources. I used to be the head coach for a team that only got 10 hours in the water each week with our top athletes. We were at a disadvantage at every elite meet as most teams we were going up against had 15 to 20 hours of practice time. We still placed kids very highly and had multiple junior national qualifiers and a couple swimmers go on to become NCAA All-Americans. There will always be inequity in this sport, and in all sports. What matters is what you do with the resources you have.

the fact that they are expensive AND seem to make everyone swim faster is what makes the argument. If you can't afford the suits then you are disadvantaged. that's the argument. It's supposed to be a fair playing field. Whether you drive an audi or not once you dive into that water it's supposed to be even. The work, the training, and the effort is what's supposed to make a difference...not whether I want to skip a few month's worth of grocery shopping to buy a suit that could make the difference between standing on that podium or missing out.

Wzexy - I'm not saying ban the suits for 12&Unders simply because of the money. That's only a small part, wanting to make our sport less about the money at an early age and more about having fun while progressing in the sport.

The bigger issue is not wanting our 12&Unders to feel like they can just put this suit on and it will 'fix' their technique problems for them. Most of these swimmers won't gain anything from wearing the suits other than the mental factor, they simply aren't big enough to get anything from the compression the suit provides. When you're working with a 12&Under you want them to actually fix their technique problems so they aren't a big issue later in their career. If you allow them to think the suit will fix their problems for them you are not taking their long term future into mind. To this point no one has answered this argument to the contrary.
These suits really are that 'magical' for older swimmers. I was talking to the coach of a girl who hadn't dropped time in two years. This girl was a very good swimmer and seriously plateaued for quite awhile. She threw the Blue Seventy suit on this summer and dropped a TON of time across the board, picking up several new Junior and Senior cuts. I think she even hit a Trials cut, though it was after the fact. Her coach(who is very well respected across the country) told me that the suit was the biggest part of the drop. The girl did work harder than in the past, but she's a big kid(not fat, just big) and gained alot from the suits compression. These suits really are good, just not for the younger smaller swimmers.

What is the actual debate over this blog? I don't see how these suits can be considered in anyway a form of cheating. Obviously, less drag= faster time=everyone's happy. But everyone seems to be either annoyed or unhappy. If these suits were around $200 like the fs-pros and fsII's were (Those suits caused no debate about banning them in any way), this wouldn't even be a discussion.

You college swimmers are giving the rest of us college swimmers a bad name...every single person on my team wants one of em, so my team just put in a bulk pre-order. Our school is not picking up the tab either, we are individually. We have all put countless hours into our training and would like the opportunity to swim as fast as possible with the best technology possible. I hope you all realize that ing and complaining about how the suits are unfair wont change a thing. Its like ing and complaining about how your competitor swims at a school with better training facilities...the bottom line is you either step up and realize what it takes to win or you shut up, excuses wont help.

I do agree that young swimmers shouldnt have these suits unless they are on the national or state level. Summer and rec leagues need to individually take the initiative and individually ban them, but i see nothing wrong with a 12 year old wearing one at sectionals, zones, Y nats, nationals, etc...

Todd-

Your argrument fails. Banning the suits b/c they are expensive is not a valid reason for banning a suit. Kids can continue to work hard and make stroke modifications and wear the new suits if they so choose. These suits do not swim by themselves. we are depriving those 12 and unders opportunitites to make cuts in these suits (whether those cuts are Jr/Sr/State/B times etc) simply b/c of their age.
IF people cannot afford them, then tough!! Work harder, get another job, change technique, be creative and make modifications. Stop whining about those that can and cannot afford a piece of equipment- it happens in all facets of life on a daily basis. If you believe you are at a disadvantage b/c of a suit, you will be...totally defeatist attitude. Didn't seem to bother Phelps much as he was wearing only a leg suit against others wearing full bodies as I recall.

We have a guy on our team who sounded just like Flip.
NO WAY was he forking over hundreds of $$ for a new speed suit.
But he went to the Regionals and stood on the blocks between 2 guys who kicked his ... One of them said he was not in the best shape, but still went on to break a masters world record.

Stubborn Flip showed up at a taper practice right before LC Nationals with a new Blue70. He was shocked at the results he felt in the water. Kept kept yelling to me on deck that he felt like he was cheating.
He swam in the Blue70 at Nationals and demolished all his recent times - and a few of our toughest team records.
NEVER SAY NEVER... who needs to eat when you're trying to fit into one of "those suits"!

I do believe that people should have the right to buy these new suits as consumers but i believe it should not be allowed to be worn in meets until the swimmer qualifys for jrs and so on. It is unfair to swimmers who do not have the money to purchase those suits. Yet, the suits will not make that much of an impact on swimming until the national level so why do kids need those kinds of suits? they should have the right to buy those suits but they should not be allowed to wear them until the national level

Flip, I totally agree! Im a college swimmer who doesnt have the money for those suit, yet Im at a pretty competitive level. I know when I get to conference everyone will have those suits (just like everyone had the blue seventys this summer) and Ill feel totally disadvantaged. Not only are the people wearing them getting a mental boost, they are also causing a decrease in confidence in the swimmers who dont have the suit. I also have to eat before I can buy an expensive suit like that and it sucks big time. I wonder what will happen if the studies come out claiming that the suits do create an advantage.

to devour: for the record im only 16 years old i was at the meet watching my younger brother swim.

You know I would love to have to chance to wear one of these suits at my taper meet, but I can't afford it. I can't afford to drop $500 on one suit that won't even last that long. I like to eat too. I was at a meet this past summer (before the lzr and tyr came out) and everyone had the blue seventy on. Here I was in my trusty fsII and I felt extremely disadvantaged. Behind the block I looked to my left and looked to my right and found myself surrounded by tight streamlined competitors in their new high tech suits. If anything, it made me jealous. I wished I could have that suit, but I can't. I wish I could have the same opportunity that everyone else did. The suits are different than a tennis racket or shoe. They help with your body posititon...a fundamental of swimming.

Devour - There was a point in time when Steroids weren't illegal. When fins were first invented they weren't automatically illegal. We decided to make them illegal. That's what we're presented with here: A situation where we must make a decision on if we should allow something to be done or not.

How are we penalizing 12&Unders by banning the suits? There is little benefit from wearing the suits for the majority of the swimmers, and most will actually be slowed down by the suit. We aren't depriving them of anything other than the opportunity to waste $500.
The fact of the matter is, what is appropriate for the older swimmer is not appropriate for younger swimmers. A 12&Under doing doubles and swimming 12,000 yards a day isn't appropriate, while it is appropriate for the older, elite level swimmer. It isn't discriminatory to make those deliniations, it's neccessary to create a positive environment that is in the best interests of the LONG TERM goals of the swimmers. For 12&Unders the sport should be about developing proper technique and habits that will allow them to be highly successful in the long run, and also having fun. If we allow 12&Unders to waste $500 on a suit that does them no good we aren't meeting those goals.
Just because there isn't an example of another sport where a piece of equipment is allowed for older athletes but not for younger athletes doesn't mean that it would be wrong to do so here. The whole, it's never been done before so it shouldn't be done now argument is completely without merit.

Todd-
Steroids are illegal, and so are fins during a race. The current suits are LEGAL and available for anyone who wants to buy one. The arguement I'm making DOES apply in all circumstances in all sports. See my previous points about tennis rackets and basketball shoes (which by the way, are not illegal either).

Banning the suits for the 12 and under is not in the best interest in the sport b/c it penalizes these kids and deprives them the opportunity to swim in a more expensive suit simply b/c of their age (not based on ability). It's downright discriminatory. Someone please give me an example in any sport wear a piece of equipment is banned for a select age group, but allowed for the "older" athletes...

The suits are giving the swimmer more of a mental edge rather than a physical one. Just think of this, the feeling of swimming in a drag suit, or swimming in a leg skin. Even the hype of the suit makes the swimmer feel fast, it may be they give a little extra help, but does this constitute less drag, or is it giving real speed that the swimmer would not ordinarily have? I hope NCAA doesn't ban these suits. After seasons of hard work, and you finally get to the big meet, you shave, taper, and what, wear a wool rag? There would be such an uproar if the LZRs and other suits were banned, that swimming officials would be hard pressed to find 100% cooperation.

Devour-

I'm going to have to agree with Todd here. Allowing the suits for such a young age can only hurt our sport. By allowing those who are able to purchase those suits to do so, it will also be driving those who cannot buy them out of the sport. People will feel its necessary to have one to remain competitive, and some will quit simply because they are not able to afford the equipment that seems "necessary" to compete.
Age group swimmers should learn the basics and most importantly have fun. Thats why people get into this sport, they enjoy being in the water, and enjoy the simplicity and competition of it. Lets not add price tags and performance aids into it until they are older and more prepared for that level of commitment.

Questions for all.

Why is the age group of 12 & unders being targeted so heavily in a topic that is focused on a much larger scale? I thought the NCAA hasn't made a decision as to whether or not it's an accepted suit to be worn at the college level.
From What I've heard, there is research being made as to understand the real science behind the suit. Is it a suit that helps our athletes 'cheat' ? If the answers come back that there is an advantage that these $500 suits give to swimmers, what do you guys think will happen to the suit? Obviously, the product is out there but not available fully to the public until mid october. It's funny to think about what these technologically advanced suits have done to a world of swimming that is getting better.

Why would it hurt the integrity of the sport to not allow 12&Unders to wear the suit? You really haven't explained that yet. The only opportunity that it would take away is the opportunity for parents to waste $500. This rule would be for their own good. Like I said before, this wouldn't prevent the really advanced 12 year old who makes Jnrs, Snrs, or OTs(the few that do at that age) from wearing the suit at those meets. This is a local level only rule.

It is our job to create rules in our sport for the best interest of all athletes involved. Many parents will percieve these new suits as neccessary. No one is telling them they are needed to swim fast, but they(along with their children) will see the elite athletes wearing them and going fast and then want to buy one for their own kids thinking they need them to swim fast.
Also, I'm not saying we should ban the suits at every level of the sport. I just think that these suits have no place in 12&Under swimming. I think allowing them for 12&Unders would hurt the sport, for all of the reasons I have previously said.
I just don't buy the argument that it is the parent's right as consumers to purchase a product for their kids to use. In order for that to be a legitimate argument it would have to apply in all circumstances, and it doesn't by a long shot. If it did then they would have the right as consumers to buy steroids, or buy fins for their kids to wear in meets, etc.

Coward-

you are yet again missing the point. No one is saying that parents HAVE to buy these suits for their kids to be competitive. It is a choice of the consumer to buy or not. BUT, the suits are available, so the consumer should have the right (like it or not). It may indeed look ridiculous for 10 year olds to to wear the suit, but it also should be a choice they (or their parents) have to buy it if they are misguided enough to believe it makes a difference at that level.
Banning the suits would hurt the integrity of the sport, and take away opportunities for those who would like to wear it at any/all levels (including Masters, Special Olympics, Novice, etc). My examples of the $$$ tennis racket and shoes are completely analogous to my argument about the $$$ suits . The sport is (relatively) expensive and so is the equipment, and there will always be those who can and cannot afford equipment in all sports at all levels as technology advances (and it always will).

I think the 10-year-olds that ABC describes, wearing ill-fitting body suits that would undoubtedly slow them down, is poetic justice.

Oops, I guess I didn't type in my name when making my last post. I'm the Anonymous Coward two posts down.

I have to agree with Salzberg that after putting in all the work over the years, you want to go as fast as you can. I also have to agree that the sport is quite expensive, even for the basics like goggles and drag suits. But I have to agree with Hawes that most programs, especially in the lower divisions, probably cannot afford to pay for the suits, even partly. These programs can barely pay for the basics the team needs like transportation to meets. It would be absurd to try and get additional funds to help pay for suits. I know that on my team, that we have to pay for championship suits in full. This meant shelling out $150-190 for a leg skin (although the price is more like $110 now). That was somewhat steep but with the price now 2 to 3 times that, it is quite far out of the range of many.

Devour - I don't believe that it is good for the sport for people to believe that they have to purchase a $500 suit for their 10 year old to be competitive. Frankly, it's not true. The suits have little to no benefit for a 10 year old beyond the mental aspect unless the kid is really big for their age. A 12&Under shouldn't rely on a suit to 'fix' body position, they should do that on their own. If LSC's don't legislate who can wear the suits at a LOCAL level, coaches should.

It may be the swimmer's right as consumers to purchase the suit, but it is our duty as part of the swimming community to regulate the integrity of the sport. Shoot, if we were to follow your argument that the right of the consumer is paramount then we should allow swimmers to wear fins in their races. After all, it is their right as consumers to purchase a product and use it, right?
Frankly, I don't think the fact that $200 shoes are allowed for basketball or a $300 tennis racket is allowed for young kids in tennis has anything to do with this situation. If coaches in those sports want to let that be a part of their game, that's their decision. I do think it's ridiculous to spend that kind of money on a piece of athletic equipment for someone that age, but it's my opinion.
As for the 12 year olds qualifying for OTs, Senior or Junior Nats, no one is saying that they shouldn't be allowed to wear them at those meets. There are so few 12 year olds qualifying for those meets that it has little impact on this debate. I have no problem with someone like that wearing the suit at those meets.
One of the things that holds our sport back in terms of participation is the cost. When you're talking about spending anywhere from $50 to $150 plus per month in dues, around $30 a season on goggles, $150 on swim suits, $300 per meet in travel expenses and hotels, adding on an additional $500 so Johhny or Susie can 'keep up' with the other swimmers wearing the LZR is a bit much. We need to do what we can to keep the cost of swimming at a minimum for our younger swimmers.

are you people serious!?!? The suits should be allowed for any age group and any ability level-period. So what if it's ridiculous that a 11 year old with no state Q times wears one in a last chance meet. It is their right as a consumer to purchase the suit.
Should we prohibit Jr High kids who can't shoot a jump shot from wearing $200 basketball shoes b/c they are expensive (and may provide a slight advantage over the $50 Converse)? Or, how about banning a $300 tennis racket from age group tennis leagues simply b/c everyone can't afford it? Are you telling me you're going to penalize those that can afford it? There are many solutions to overcome this supposed "disadvantage": 1) work harder 2) change technique 3) change diet 4) get more rest (I could go on for pages).
There are 12-14 year olds qualifying for Olympic Trials, Sr/Jr Nat's. Are you telling me they should not be able to wear one simply b/c they are younger than the majority of their competition? Smart ABC, let's penalize fast age groupers simply b/c of their age despite the fact that they are some of the fastest swimmers in the world.
Narrow minded, short sighted arguments. The suits are out, and they are not going anywhere.

The suits should not be allowed. They are too expensive, people who are already talented enough get them for free or discounted, and (if they do give a scientific advantage, which apparently is yet to be seen) its cheating. We swim because we love it. We love to push ourselves and see how far we can go, what suit we have/can afford should not come into that equation. Swimming, along with the suits has come a long way but the suits were only getting faster because the materials used (obviously polyester is fast than wool) but they never helped you float or correct your technique more than the next person and they didnt come in one style and cost 400+
If not for the cheating reason, they should be outlawed until nearly everyone can afford one. That way, the playing field, or the current, is even. NCAA should have better judgment.

i was at a junior olympic meet this summer and it was ridiculous to see the number of 10 and under kids wearing ill fitting body suits (there were probably around 30 to 40 10 and unders at this meet wearing the blue 70) because they are too small to yet properly fit into one even. these suits are taking the crazed swim parents that we already have in ths sport to a completely different level. these suits must be banned from competitive swimming at least up to the 13-14 age group for the benefit of our sport in the future. if we dont do this i believe we will start to see an alarming number of 12 and under swimmers leaving the sport because maybe mommy and daddy cant afford or dont want to pay for a 550 dollar lzr or a 400 dollar blue 70 and that is just absurd that we would let children leave this great sport due to financial situations.

That makes sense Garrett. I haven't coached anyone at the level of Bernard(with or without the suit) to this point in my career, so it really hasn't crept into my coaching too much yet. Right now I'm a head age group coach so I guess the impact the suits have isn't really a huge part of my coaching burden, only one group that I coach should even consider wearing 'championship' suits.

It definitely looks like the suit is allowing larger, more powerful swimmers to be highly successful, but I still don't think you should throw technique out the window(not that I think anyone is advocating that here). Anyone else think that Bernard could be at least a 46 for his 100 meter free in that suit if his technique was as good as Sullivan's? It may or may not be too late in his career to 'fix' those problems, but I don't think that Bernard's style of swimming should be the benchmark that coaches strive to teach their swimmers even when you take the suits into consideration. I know the suit fixes some of those problems, but his technique was still much worse than most of the others even with the suit.
I think we're starting to hear more discussion among club coaches about not allowing these type of suits for 12 and unders, I know that in the MoVal there is going to be some serious talks at our upcoming meeting about banning body suits for 12&Unders. It's so ridiculous to see a heat of 10&Unders wearing full body suits. If that type of mindset carries through the swimming community I think that maybe the impact these suits have on how we 'build' our swimmers may not be quite so big. It will still be there in the long term planning though, and definitely can't be pushed aside.

I agree with Chris.

When I first started to hear about Sullivan becoming a great sprinter, I was expecting the typical stocky built physique of a swimmer. However, I was wrong and I was shocked to see that he just has a great efficient technique. I'm not sure if I can agree that Bernard is not as good as Sullivan. With all differences aside, what do you think is the better type of sprinter: the typical stocky built swimmer like bernard? or the efficient lean swimmer like sullivan?
And a question for all...You can disagree if you want. Do you think it's the suit that's really causing all of the world records to be rebroken? OR is it the better knowledge coaches have to make stronger better swimmers. (Coaches know all the latest techniques, drills, dryland/weight sets out there to allow swimmers to excel)
Being only a highschool swimmer and only allowed to use the FS-pro as of last year, I've always wanted to swim as fast as I possibly can at the states and sectionals, However I don't think part of the dropping time aspect is due fully to the suit itself. I believe it's a combination of mental strength, shaving down (of course), and recieving a great taper after countless hours in the pool and in the weightroom. What are your thoughts?

Acslater,

I think that Eamon is more legit than Bernard. He has very good position and technique.
When you watch Bernard swim underwater, its hard to believe he's an elite sprinter with his poor body lines and the way he pulls way across his body. IMO Bernard is helped to a great degree by the suits and Sullivan no more than anyone else.
To build on Garrett's coaching point, it seems like its much more important to build a big powerful swimmer and then let the suit correct their body position.

i think everyone here is forgetting about what these suits have done for eamon sullivan...no offense to eamon, he is the world record holder in the sprints (which have been the most affected), but alain bernard could eat him...how do we explain the advandage the suits gave a very talented but 48 mid 100 swimmer and a 22.0 50 swimmer, at best, with the physique of a high school kid?

its really sad that all the talk now is about the lzr i say we should all just go back to the fsII and the pro and just get rid of the lzr

Todd, when I say the suits change coaching I think Bernard is a good example. It is obvious that his race approach is based on his strength, the man is yoked. That kind of mass was once considered counterproductive in our sport, but it seemed to work out pretty well for him.

Butterfly is different now. The battle of butterfly body position now has a cheat code. In the new suits, no one is swimming vertically so everyone gets that downhill swimming feel. Coaches have to prepare their swimmers for that if they're going to fully take advantage of it.

So, I having read this, as well as the now 11-page long discussion about this on d3swimming.com (in which Chris was a poster I believe..), and being a D3 swimmer myself, I can say that I am very happy that they are letting us swim with the LZRs and Blue70's, etc.

Now, I understand that these suits do cost more money, a lot more money, but for the past two years I have paid discounted prices to get the FS2 then FS-Pro, with I assume the school helping to pick up some of the tag. And that was great, because I could swim with the best technology and give myself the best chance to go as fast as I possibly could. Now when conference season and nationals rolls around, I and my teammates, will now have the opportunity to swim as fast as possible with the best technology on the planet.
This has been said a lot, and here the problem is money. I understand that, I'm practically broke. But right now I'm teaching swim lessons to be able to purchase one of these suits. Why? Because this will be my 16th season competitively swimming, and with all of those millions of laps I want to give myself the best chance I have to achieve my goals.
We can all agree that it will be financially difficult, but if most other college swimmers are like me (having swam for a very long time, at least through high school), then they are serious enough about it to want to give themselves the best chance possible too.
This discussion shouldn't be about how much its going to cost, because swimming has always been an absurdly expensive sport. $25 goggles, $30 drag suit that wear out in 3 months, all of it adds up. But, personally, and I'm sure to a TON of other swimmers who are sitting and watching this debate rage on, our minds were made up long before we started this season, and it was made up the first time we decided that we wanted to commit a large portion of our life to this sport. We love swimming, and we will do everything we can to go as fast as we can. If that means getting kicked in the legs, hair pulled, and what not by a bunch of 7 year olds in the pool, then so be it. But it's worth it.
Because at the end of it all, when you graduate college, you will hopefully be able to look back and confidently say that you gave it your all 100% of the time. And you did your best with the best that you could have. And that's all that matters.

Bernard would definitely not be able to break :49 without the suit. He had horrible body lines in the last 15 meters of the relay.

Yes I do John. I once wore a size 26.

Good points all!! The NCAA is a tricky thing. I know if I had the chance to wear a LZR at my champs I would have. Only Paper suits then...anyone remember those?

I, too, believe Alain Bernard is secretly a :49 freestyler without the new suit (yards).

What would constitute an 'unfair' advantage? Because if the suit were to be found to be 'faster' than the FS-Pro and is therefore declared to be an 'unfair' advantage, then you would have to look at each improvement in suit technology to be an unfair advantage. Bring back the wool suits!

I'd also like to know what Garrett means on how he thinks the new suits are changing how we coach. I'm not disagreeing, but maybe he has some insight on it as he has talked to a ton of top coaches around the country. There have certainly been alot of changes in how we approach coaching swimmers over the past few years(and even more changes if you go back aways), but I haven't really thought if the new suits have had any impact, conscious or otherwise, on my coaching.

If you look at the NCAA and participation numbers, the majority of your swimmers are from NCAA Div III, especially on the men's side. The new LZR suit is not an option for many of these programs due to funding. The exception will be those at the top of Div III, who should be NCAA Div I teams. This ruling by the NCAA, possibly gives these top teams an even bigger advantage. Fortunately, in my understanding from the CSCAA, an independent study at Indiana University is being conducted to see if there is an actual advantage to the suit. if the study concludes the suit gives an unfair advantage it must be disallowed under NCAA rules. i hope they find it does.

would the suits really impact the sport so much that methods of coaching will be changed?

wow