January 19, 2012

Not your business: after a yes-it-is-no-it-isn't ruling on the permissability of her underwear, Tina Maze tells the FIS where to get off.

posted by lil_brown_bat to other at 09:11 AM - 8 comments

The FIS, of course, being well known to always have skier health and safety as their overriding concern in all their rules and decisions.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:14 AM on January 19, 2012

Can someone explain why it would be an advantage? It's under her suit.

posted by yerfatma at 09:21 AM on January 19, 2012

There's an argument that the combination of suit plus underwear is largely impermeable to air, and thus more aerodynamic. This may well be true, but like most bodies that govern sports these days, the FIS has forgotten why all the regulations against performance-enhancing this and that were created, i.e., to prevent athletes from doing things that gave them an edge and were harmful to their health. Now, it seems, they reflexively regulate against any practice, substance or equipment that could improve an athlete's performance, even if it's harmless.

...although they did come up with some weak-sounding argument about how impervious underwear is unhealthy for the skin: "Apparently the amount of plastic in the underwear might prevent a skier's skin from breathing properly." One wonders if this is a realistic concern for Tina Maze, who apparently bathes and washes her clothes regularly, but perhaps FIS officials have a different standard of personal hygiene.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:30 AM on January 19, 2012

Jim McMahon, you've been outsloganed.

Wish I were the Slovenian team Sharpiemeister. You can't ink a message like that with the garment removed.

The flak is real.

posted by beaverboard at 10:21 AM on January 19, 2012

That's ridiculous, lil_brown_bat. Everyone knows it's all right as long as you leave a small bare patch at the base of the spine to allow the skin to breathe.

posted by Etrigan at 10:48 AM on January 19, 2012

The garment is said to have passed the permeability restriction (supposedly insures that the skier's skin can breathe properly). I believe that this fabric is rejected for being too plasticky.

posted by offsides at 01:58 PM on January 19, 2012

This sounds like something the NCAA would come up with.

posted by roberts at 06:45 PM on January 19, 2012

This underwear ruling clearly disadvantages male Mormons.

posted by owlhouse at 08:05 PM on January 19, 2012

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.