Ban on Polyurethane Swimsuits Makes No Sense

a/./;DRFFMLBSXZRFDTGHL.,KMCXDSGFV NKIJUAZsdfg..ledf,merftgynm jhrfe56rky6rfte657yrf5fg678yhrf56gt7yhu65rttyok
SOLVE THIS RIDDLE!!!

a/./;DRFFMLBSXZRFDTGHL.,KMCXDSGFV NKIJUAZsdfg..ledf,merftgynm jhrfe56rky6rfte657yrf5fg678yhrf56gt7yhu65rttyok
SOLVE THIS RIDDLE!!!
are you a 13()Y??????

hallo
thing

hallo in the box thing
talk to me please
B.T.W guess what that means

polyurethane suits are poo they should just get there swim suits from Target or K-mart

the problem is that swimming is no longer about how long you spend in the pool but how long you spend in the lab. And i'm pretty sure that NASCAR and FINA are totally different and a ban over all sports would make NASCAR like the flintstones and swimming would be done naked

I think that this swimsuit ban should have been put in place as soon as they came out, because now most of the world records are from swimmers wearing LZR's etc, so they are basically meaningless. :D

This proves how artificial "sports" is. Recumbent bikes are also banned from almost all sports competitions. Why? No good reason other than commercial reasons, I suppose. But supposedly a skilled rider on a recumbent could handily beat all competitions where they are currently disallowed. For example, Lance Armstrong has some deformity that lets him breathe more fully than other riders when bent over double, that's a large part of his success. But a whole class of riders on recumbents should be able to beat all his records, without having that deformity.
Not complaining. But I don't waste my time watching sports, either.

Nobody complained about carbon fiber bikes because they don't give much of an advantage. They did ban bicycle streamlining which gives a HUGE advantage. Not many people can go 80 mph on a regular bicycle on the flat.

Everyone here seems to have missed what the suits realy do: It's not just streamlining, but it compresses the muscles and actualy makes them work more eficiantly, thereby its cheating, as it is adding a mechanical advantage over a unaided swimmer. Basicly it's the same as if the swimmer had a small motor attached that propeled him faster than an unaided swimmer or if he were waring fins, its cheating plain and simple.

As someone who swam competitively years ago and who now races cars, I can say that it is just a matter of how you want to define the "sport". I think it makes sense to try to limit the amount the technology can be important in one sport but not in another. Even in sports that are totally technology driven (like car racing) it makes $ sense to limit technology if only to keep the sport alive. Did you know that it takes like an hour for the women to get on one of these swim suits? Did you know that they get bruises just from the process of putting them on and taking them off? Worse, just as in tennis as cited above, once everyone has it, it's no longer an advantage, only a cost and extra burden and can possibly change the sport forever maybe in a bad way. I applaud the efforts to limit the influence and cost of the suits in swimming.

The issue is one of fairness and not technology. If everyone has access then they should keep the suit; if it is not available to every swimmer (which it is not), then it should be banned.

The fact in sports performance is the time and effort the athlete puts in it. If the suit gives them an advantage and is not accessible to all, then do not allow it.

Perhaps we can divide the sport into two separate groups, those who use whatever suit technology, and those who use none. Each group should be able to find sponsors. This would allow continued improvement in the technically vital area of swimsuit technology, while encouraging a different sort of personal fitness and conditioning in the other group.

So I guess the only fair thing is to have them wear what the ancient Greek olympians wore - nothing.

Unlike cycling or many other sports swimming does not depend on any technology. Phelps would swim almost as fast naked. So with summing you have the opportunity to have a sport that truly depends on ones athletic ability not how much tech you can afford. The banning process for this tech would be simple enough (a lot simpler than drug banning). The sport should answer the question: How fast can you swim?

I wasn't aware the life span of the suit is only 5 days. If we're talking $500-$1000 for a shot thing, then it does tip the scales to the more financially endowed.
But, this is already an issue in golf, tennis, ballet, figure skating, and a lot of other sports where money is one of the primary factors for entry and advancement in the sport. Tennis is probably the worst example, but you're going to eventually need private lessons and tennis club membership if you want to go pro, etc.
Still ... for the person who said it's now all about technology and no longer about technique and swimming ... I don't think Paul Biederman was floating on his back sipping a tall drink while his suit did all the work. Just because Michael Phelps lost doesn't necessarily equate to something wrong with the OTHER swimmers. This swimming suit is an obvious factor, but my point is that maybe Phelps wasn't quite at his top form, etc.
Every single sport in the modern age has benefited (and forced to change) because of advances in technology.
Tennis is NOT the same game it was back in Rod Laver's day. There are hardly any serve & volley players any more ... a completely lost art. The rackets themselves are so much lighter and generate so much more power than ever before ... that most players elect to just sit back at the baseline and smack the hell out of balls. How much of that is from the racket technology?
Would Federer and Nadal been as effective and successful playing with an old wooden racket?
Now, I know what's coming next from all y'all ... so, let me say there does need to be some type of "uniform" code of conduct across the board.
Either FINA makes this thing very NASCAR-like and confine the suit bounds to very, very exact specifications ... or they need to make a whole sale ban all together.
Hell, make 'em wear nothing but a g-string.

All sports with equipement benefit from technology advances. Did anyone complain when carbon fiber bikes arrived in cycling? Did anyone complain when ridgetopped football boots arrived? etc etc So why complain about the equipement for a swimmer. It is not a cost ofwho can afford it as at the top level of competion the contestants do not "buy" their own kit it is all suppied via sponsorship etc. So the poly suit is just the latest technology evolution for the "kit" for a swimmer. I see no problem.

Let's really get to the heart of the situation. A person wearing the suit goes faster than the same person not wearing the suit. Therefore, the suit gives them a mechanical advantage. A device that improves your performance. At $500+ a pop, with a life of about 5 days tops, it becomes a manner of who can afford to have the best, not the swimmers who are the best. Times drop slowly through hard work and technique not through a device they can get their hands on. The swimmer who beat Phelps even admitted that the suit was a contributing factor. . . Hey, maybe the sport of swimming should become a sport not about working hard, improving technique and SWIMMING... but rather the sport technology of fluid dynamics!

They're being banned because the news of the sport is being dominated by the controversy and arms race one-upmanship attitude of the suit companies. Instead of focusing on the Paul Biederman's accomplishments in setting world records at the World Championships in Rome, people are saying A) Somebody beat Michael Phelps and B) He's using one of those crazy new suits.
Its bad publicity for the sport for the media picture to be focused largely on the equipment involved.