Hoorray!!!!
1 posted on
07/29/2009 3:57:28 AM PDT by
Perdogg
To: Perdogg
Have them all swim without suits. At the very least it might boost viewership
2 posted on
07/29/2009 4:05:09 AM PDT by
muir_redwoods
( How come when I press "1 for English" I still can't understand what's being said?)
To: Perdogg
Ironically the first Olympics were supposedly of naked athletes.
4 posted on
07/29/2009 4:12:32 AM PDT by
Eye of Unk
("If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace." T. Paine)
To: Perdogg
5 posted on
07/29/2009 4:37:47 AM PDT by
Daffynition
("...... we are about to be czarred and fettered." ~ alterum ictum faciam.)
To: Perdogg
What about the Burkinis worn by the Saudi Arabian Women’s Swim Team?
6 posted on
07/29/2009 4:48:54 AM PDT by
bondjamesbond
(Don't blame me... I voted for PALIN!)
To: Perdogg
Having spent many years breathing Chlorine at more natatoriums then I care to remember, both as a swim parent and swim official getting rid of the suits is the right thing to do.
My swim days ended as this era was just beginning and I had to spend some serious dough on what were called “paper suits” and I can only imagine parents trying to pay for some of the newer versions at $500 a pop.
I don't expect results will change as far as who wins or loses just that the playing field is now less expensive and technology will not factor in to a posted time.
7 posted on
07/29/2009 4:59:38 AM PDT by
Recon Dad
( MARSOC DAD)
To: Perdogg
I'm not surprised at the ban. EVERYBODY was worried that we were headed towards what amounted to a highly-slick version of the scuba-diving wetsuit--one that would have cost over US$1,000 per suit.
10 posted on
07/29/2009 11:18:09 PM PDT by
RayChuang88
(FairTax: America's economic cure)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
