IF Lexan masks WILL save Fencing's Olympic status should... Please read post before!

[Inquartata]

Very well said!

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Fencing should take strength -- and seriously consider the fact -- that in a large number of very important sports, the Olympics, frankly, aren't the pinnacle of the sport, and never will be.

Tour de France. Baseball Word Series. NBA finals. Soccer World Cup. Tennis (Wimbledon, Davis Cup, New York, Paris, Australia). Maybe even the world championships in rowing, equestrian, and yachting. And more.

All these events are greater, more important, more demanding, more challenging, more enjoyable, longer lasting, more meaningful, and perhaps, even more definitive of a sport than the Olympics ever will be.

The challenge for fencing is obvious.

We should do more to make FEI Worlds even greater than the Olympics (through funding, focus, sponsorship, energy, effort, application, approbation, enthusiasm, enjoyment, celebration, and reward).

Yes, at least five sports where the world championships are a bigger thing that the OG gold medals. (Incidentally, that is why I think that men´s soccer should be booted - their governing body has made rules so that the OG will always be less important than their own cash cow, World Cup) Note that those five sports in the example all are either big internationally, or have a very strong base in some large countries. They can afford to scr*w the olympics. Note that the OG also chose to scr*w one of them - baseball. BTW, Ice hockey is another of those sports. It also fits the pattern that I outlined.

We are small. We can not afford to lose the only sure time when we can get at least some media coverage, at least every 4 years. And if you think that we can make the FIE world championships a big thing without OG money - then we come from different planets.

With sponsorship, a portion of the costs in fencing can be carried by nonfencers. Without the OG, the only sponsors will be small, local companies, companies where someone in the leadership has a fencing family member, and fencing companies. All money flow will be going on inside fencing, which leads to a cash-starved system. I do not want to have it that way. Why should 4-th rate soccer players have a better life than world-class fencers?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Alan]

Olympics is good for fencing but not at any price.

If it means being forced to wear ugly clear visor masks or taking drugs
to be telegenic enough, forget about them.

On the other hand, if fencing keeps its soul, the Olympics will have no choice
than inviting it.

[downunder]

what does keeping its soul have to do with the olympic games?

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

On the other hand, if fencing keeps its soul, the Olympics will have no choice
than inviting it.

What????

Do you seriously think that the IOC members think fencing is as important as we do? Make no mistake: they can dump fencing, and if they do so, they will not get much flak at all from the 99.99% proportion of the world´s population that does not fence. We do not have any position of power to argue from, they can dump us - there is no legal court to refer to. No TV station will champion our cause. Very few outside of fencing will mourn our going, and few of those who do will fight for us.

In the early 1900eds, tug-of-war was an olympic sport, and reasonably successful. They got kicked out 1920 or so. Look at them now - how much coverage do they get, how many beginners do they attract, what endorsements do their champions sign? Tug-of-war is, BTW, easier to film, more objectively ruled, and easier to understand to the layman than fencing.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[jBirch]

Peter,

I think there is a give and take relationship between the IOC and the FIE. The FIE is in a much more difficult position when it comes to attracting new members to the sport without the Olympic brand to lean on. I think we agree on this.

The problem is that the Olympic brand is changing. In recent times, the sports highlighted have moved away from athletic endeavour and more into athletic games playing as the Olympic Brand has moved from "The best athletes" into "The most watched sporting event". This is a key change (whether for better or worse is open to debate).

As the IOC moves further into "the most watched sporting event", the games that are less appealing to watch are vulnerable. If fencing does not follow suit, it risks exclusion from the games.

At what point do we sacrifice the fencing brand for the IOC brand and vice-versa? How much does fencing need to devolve into merely another game in a quest to attract players? Yes, this is a continuation of the evolution of sport fencing over time from its elite roots to its more sportif incarnation now. It is, in effect, the same argument as historical vs classical vs sport fencing.

The question is how much further down the road should we go?

James.

[Inquartata]

People are saying "But we won't get any coverage!" and "We'll lose money!" if fencing isn't in the Olympics. As though (a) both of those were established fact, and not just possibilities, and (b) as though either would mean the end of fencing.

Does your club function without TV coverage right now? Does it provide you a place to fence without receiving IOC money? Are your competitions any different? Do you see them on television? Is the IOC financing them?

You know which fencers would be hurt by the loss of the Olympics? The ones who are ONLY fencing because they are salivating at the prospect of being in the Olympics. The very top elite fencers...who'd then have to "settle" for the mere World Championships. Boo hoo. Cry me a river.

Who else? The bureaucrats in the FIE, who enjoy the power of being in charge of an Olympic sport. Again, picture a tiny little violin.

The vast majority of the rest of us would go on as we always have, going to practice, taking lessons, bouting, occasionally competing, and would no more notice that there were no Olympics than we notice during the three years between Games now. I don't think it would affect most of us, or the sport, a whit.

[downunder]

You know which fencers would be hurt by the loss of the Olympics? The ones who are ONLY fencing because they are salivating at the prospect of being in the Olympics. The very top elite fencers...who'd then have to "settle" for the mere World Championships. Boo hoo. Cry me a river.

But thats the thing, the lure of the olympic games creates these elite fencers. The standard of fencing in the long term would most likely deteriorate if we lost the olympics due to less young kids knowing about it, seeing it at the games, knowing they could get there one day. Also the ticket sales loss that i keep bringing up and no one seems to acknowledge. Grants for elite fencers would be decimated.

I understand that any benefits are not seen by you currently, but you have to look to the future. What if we got regular television coverage of major events. What if we got sponsors that weren't just fencing manufacturers or owned by fencers. Clubs could be getting to see this money. It does trickle down - it just has to start at the top.

One of the clubs in Western Australia has just recieved a significant (5 figures so i heard) corporate grant over 3 years, along with government funding etc. It can happen, and does - but the only way it will continue to do so is to maintain that exposure on the television, and keep the prospects of gold medals every 4 years alive.

Inq, i understand where you are coming from mate, i really do... i just want this sport to be bigger, better... etc. I'm only a junior now, but i'd like to think that the sport will have developed so much by the time i have any real say on what goes on.

[achilleus]

You know which fencers would be hurt by the loss of the Olympics? The ones who are ONLY fencing because they are salivating at the prospect of being in the Olympics. The very top elite fencers...who'd then have to "settle" for the mere World Championships. Boo hoo. Cry me a river.
...
The vast majority of the rest of us would go on as we always have, going to practice, taking lessons, bouting, occasionally competing, and would no more notice that there were no Olympics than we notice during the three years between Games now. I don't think it would affect most of us, or the sport, a whit.

Maybe in the US, at first. You forget that in many other countries, the sport is sponsored/subsidized by the state. There is a good chance that this funding would disappear without the Olympics.

Considering that the USFA gets most of it's money from the IOC, fencing in the US would change vastly, over time.

Yes, fencing would survive without the Olympics, but to function at the same/similar/ or even better level, it will require funding. To build the World's as the premier event would require the same things that the Olympics are gunning after, and we're right back to square one...

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

People are saying "But we won't get any coverage!" and "We'll lose money!" if fencing isn't in the Olympics. As though (a) both of those were established fact, and not just possibilities, and (b) as though either would mean the end of fencing.

I googled for a list of sports that have been booted from the Olympics. Here it is:

PAST SPORTS LIST
(from http://www.olympic.org/uk/sports/past/index_uk.asp)
Cricket
Power boating
Croquet
Rackets
Golf
Rink-hockey
Jeu de paume
Roque
Lacrosse
Rugby
Pelote basque
Tug of war
Polo
Water skiing

(Also, club swinging, sculpture, and single synchonized swimming should be on the list.)

14 sports. Of these, golf, cricket, and Rugby can be described as big international sports. (Incidentally, all 3 have tried to get back on the OG program. Even sports with that kind of exposure still want the OG. Think about that.) Of the rest, Rink-hockey, Lacrosse, and possibly Pelote basque could be considered big in one country. The rest, 8 sports, are strictly minor sports.

Why, if fencing were dropped, should be become a major sport, considering that we are minor (in some places medium-size) sport with the OG?

The 3 big on that list share one thing - they are all among the set of sports that were spread around the world by British colonialists (tennis, another such big sport, was out if the OG roster from 1932-1988, but lobbied for re-inclusion). Fencing does not share that characteristic.

The 3 middle-tier sports in the list are either big-field team sports or a sport with a very strong ethnic link (basque <-> pelota). Fencing does not fit those characterics either.

Of the remaining 8 (Power boating, Croquet, Rackets, Rink-hockey, Jeu de paume, Roque, Tug of war, Polo, Water skiing) 5 (Croquet, Rackets, Jeu de paume, Roque, Tug of war, Polo) have old-time image among non-practicioners, just like fencing. 6 (Power boating, Croquet, Rackets, Jeu de paume, Roque, Water skiing) have a poof rich-heir image among non-practicioners, just like fencing.

I see a large risk of us going the way of Jeu de paume or Tug of war if we get booted from the OG roster. Those sports, just as fencing are reasonably cheap (concerning personal equipment), completely objective, require no really difficult specialized arena, easy to record for TV. Yet, they are really small nowadays.

Why risk this for the purity of a all-wire mask?

There is a wannabe OG: the World Games. Heard of it? That is part of my point. Anyway, here is a list of the sports done in the latest WG. http://www.worldgames2005.de/en/sportarten/
Of those 39 sports, at least 13 (billiards, bodybuilding, bowling, dancesport, fistball, karate, korfball, orienteering, powerlifting, roller sports, rugby, sumo) have wished to enter the OG. So, if we get out, there are many more jostling to take our place.

(It is interesting to note that american football is relegated to invitational sports level among the WG sports, below stuff like casting, Lyonnaise boule, and fin swimming.)


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Peter,

I think there is a give and take relationship between the IOC and the FIE.

Well, sort of like the give-and-take relation between Olds, AB city council and the Ottawa govt.

At what point do we sacrifice the fencing brand for the IOC brand and vice-versa?
James.

Fencers in the olympic competitions should follow IOC and FIE rules. Outside the OG, the IOC will not bother with how we go around our business.

If it is any consolation, other sports have also had to adjust to the IOC wishes (redoing and compressing the pentathlon program, changing wrestling weightclasses, dropping shooting events, etc.)


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Inquartata]

And you know, Peter---most of those sports don't use face-obscuring masks and never have. So it can't have been that important to the decision to omit them from the Olympics, can it? It certainly hasn't gotten them on TV.

And a number of those sports have a lot of money going into them as well. So money didn't save them, either.

Why should we believe the IOC or NBC when they tell us that making faces visible will "save" fencing from the axe? Or that changes=coverage=money=success? The causal chain is not established, and can break down at any step. Or all of them. Personally I think they're selling us a bill of goods here.

As for me, I am content to have fencing be a "minor" or "medium sized" sport. What exactly do people think is going to happen if fencing should by some miracle become a "big" sport? And if there are any benefits to that, how likely are they to outweigh the possible unintended consequences?

As for recruiting...does anyone know a fencer who was lured into taking up the sport because of the Olympics? In my experience, if we are really serious about recruiting people into fencing we should dress like Zorro! He's gotten more people interested in fencing than any other single concept of which I can think...

[downunder]

As for me, I am content to have fencing be a "minor" or "medium sized" sport. What exactly do people think is going to happen if fencing should by some miracle become a "big" sport?

well clearly the standard/depth of fencing is going to improve at all levels

[LUDICROUS]

This is vaguely off topic, but hey.

Regarding the "televisation" of fencing through transparent masks...


Cricket is starting to have more 20 over 1 day Internationals. Usually its 50 overs an inning.. People are getting bored with 50. See? Cricket's changing, and I'm sure a few cricket people are unhappy with that..

Note: I don't actually KNOW if that will become the norm, but there seems to be alot more 20 over matches lately(in years). It's more tv friendly.

Making fencing more popular: All the colour we want.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

And you know, Peter---most of those sports don't use face-obscuring masks and never have.

Yes - true but irrelevant. Those sports were axed for a variety of reasons (very small depth of field, few countries, low public interest, etc).

So it can't have been that important to the decision to omit them from the Olympics, can it? It certainly hasn't gotten them on TV.

No, see above. Cricket, rugby and maybe some more gets definitely more TV time worldwide than fencing.

And a number of those sports have a lot of money going into them as well. So money didn't save them, either.

I was in NZ during june-july this Year. (Went to Ludicrous´club, but missed him.) Anyway, a series of NZ-British Isles rugby matches were the by far major thing on TV, and the amount of merchandize involved, indicated a lot of money. Thousands of GB fans flew halfway around the world to follow their team. So you are right - major money in there.

Why should we believe the IOC or NBC when they tell us that making faces visible will "save" fencing from the axe?

Well, IOC is the one that wields the axe, and I do not fancy being on the chopping block. They can decide pretty much what they want in this case. The fact that NBC does not air fencing even when it has the opportunity to indicates to me that they would not come to our rescue.

Or that changes=coverage=money=success? The causal chain is not established, and can break down at any step. Or all of them. Personally I think they're selling us a bill of goods here.

We are quite possibly being had. However, the OG is the only real show in town. The risks, IMO, are so great so that I am willing to do a lot of stuff to stave them off.

I do not think that the Lexan mask makes fencing look better, (quite the contrary) or that it gives a good view of the competitors. That is however, beside the point.

The valid point for me is not whether Lexan masks are good per se, but that they are demanded (maybe in an underhanded way) by the powers that be.

This is to me case of doing what the boss orders me to do, even if it is dumb. Have you never done that in your personal life?

As for me, I am content to have fencing be a "minor" or "medium sized" sport.

And I am not. I really do not want it to shrink further to micro-sized. If you think that you have to travel long distances for competitions, check out how long the tug-of-war competitors have to travel.

What exactly do people think is going to happen if fencing should by some miracle become a "big" sport?

A lot of things. But that is the topic for another post or thread.

And if there are any benefits to that, how likely are they to outweigh the possible unintended consequences?

Several. But that is the topic for another post or thread.

As for recruiting...does anyone know a fencer who was lured into taking up the sport because of the Olympics?

Personally, I have heard of several who got the idea from channel-flipping during the OG, and thought the idea: Fencing - that seems neat! I should give it a try!

In my experience, if we are really serious about recruiting people into fencing we should dress like Zorro! He's gotten more people interested in fencing than any other single concept of which I can think...

But you do not want people to dress up in any way!


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[I_luv_saber]

There are some good points, and if it was strictly about them wanting top level fencers to wear these silly masks... fine. But my issue is more safety oriented, and testing ability, etc. I don't think, under any circumstances, fencers should be forced to wear equipment that may not be safe. If the IOC is approached by fencers saying, "hey, these things can't be tested, how do we know if they are still safe after repeated use", or even better, approach media with that, that would either shut them up or make them safe.

I believe these things are probably safe to begin with, but without a way to check safety, is it really worth it?

[Inquartata]

Yes - true but irrelevant. Those sports were axed for a variety of reasons (very small depth of field, few countries, low public interest, etc).

Yes, exactly...and that's why fencing will be ousted, too, if it IS ousted. Lexan masks will not save it, and I think the IOC and network people who intimate to the FIE that it will are being disingenous. I think they are just used to squeezing concessions out of people with whom they are dealing as a matter of course, and they do it reflexively. Especially the TV people.

But the point is I think very relevant. If we control for all the other factors that get sports cut from the Olympics except "faces can be seen", well, that factor didn't save other sports, so why should we think it will save fencing?

Cricket, rugby and maybe some more gets definitely more TV time worldwide than fencing.

Those sports never had face-concealing masks. They got cut anyway. Hence "faces visible" is not a factor that saves sports from the Olympic dustbin, nor one which brings TV coverage to sports. ( Is anyone discussing dropping bobsledding or luge from the Olympics? If so, are they getting the same carrot dangled in front of them as we are? "Get rid of faceplates and we'll talk"? I suspect not. )

The ones you mention get less coverage than motocross, car racing, and American football, none of which sports make competitors' faces particularly easy to see. If that's an important factor in popularity and "telegenicity", then we should expect things to be the other way 'round, should we not?

Well, IOC is the one that wields the axe, and I do not fancy being on the chopping block. They can decide pretty much what they want in this case.

But what I'm wondering is: What if the IOC wants to get rid of fencing no matter what, and is just putting the FIE off with these little demands and "suggestions"? Then in the end we lose the Olympics anyway---AND we have made all these stupid changes in the basic nature of the name in the name of aesthetics, and gone through all this turmoil, for nothing...

Why is the FIE so willing to buy a pig in a poke? When the IOC and NBC puts something on paper---and I mean a firm, specific contractual agreement in the nature of "You adopt changes X and Y and we'l give you A and B"---then we may have a different ballgame. Right now there appear to be only vague backroom rumors and unenforceable hints at possible benefits to be had. This sounds suspiciously like bait to me. Where is the hook?

We are quite possibly being had. However, the OG is the only real show in town.

Why do you say this?

The risks, IMO, are so great so that I am willing to do a lot of stuff to stave them off.

Why? What is it that you think fencing has to lose by sticking to its principles and not bowing to vague threats and vaguer promises? What is it that you think losing the Olympics will do to fencing---and how?

The valid point for me is not whether Lexan masks are good per se, but that they are demanded (maybe in an underhanded way) by the powers that be.

Wow.

Is there any change in the sport at which you WOULD balk?

This is to me case of doing what the boss orders me to do, even if it is dumb. Have you never done that in your personal life?

Except that the IOC is not my boss. It isn't even the FIE's boss. Still less is a television network...

I like to think that the fencers of the world are the FIE's boss. Isn't that the way it's supposed to work?

And I am not.

Fair enough.

But I have to ask again: how far are you willing to go to propitiate people who aren't fencers and do not necessarily have our interests at heart? How much blackmail would you be willing to pay, in other words? ( I do not think that "blackmail" is too strong a word for what the IOC and the networks are doing, if what Alex says correctly captures the true state of things. )






[quote]Personally, I have heard of several who got the idea from channel-flipping during the OG, and thought the idea: Fencing - that seems neat! I should give it a try!

Objection, your honor! Hearsay!

But you do not want people to dress up in any way!

Indeed I do NOT. I think it would be as silly to dress as Zorro just to increase recruitment as it is to adopt Lexan masks for that purpose. That is the whole point...

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Is anyone discussing dropping bobsledding or luge from the Olympics? If so, are they getting the same carrot dangled in front of them as we are? "Get rid of faceplates and we'll talk"? I suspect not.

Bob&Luge are at danger of being dropped, but for another reason. Those sports require a costly and very specialized arena, which adds a great deal to the cost of each winter OG. The fact that they are in the winter OG works in their favor though - the winter games are not crowded like the summer ones, and the IOC is actively looking for more true snow&ice sports to add.

But what I'm wondering is: What if the IOC wants to get rid of fencing no matter what, and is just putting the FIE off with these little demands and "suggestions"? Then in the end we lose the Olympics anyway---AND we have made all these stupid changes in the basic nature of the name in the name of aesthetics, and gone through all this turmoil, for nothing...

If IOC would want to get rid of fencing no matter what, they could have done so already. Remember that they axed baseball&softball, sports which surely were closer to the heart of NBC than fencing.

If we get booted, the Lexan mask will at least have postponed it for an OG or two. Once out, we can go back to setting whatever rules we want. In the meanwhile, one can hope for more WS medals to USA, which may swing NBC around.

Why is the FIE so willing to buy a pig in a poke? When the IOC and NBC puts something on paper---and I mean a firm, specific contractual agreement in the nature of "You adopt changes X and Y and we'l give you A and B"---then we may have a different ballgame. Right now there appear to be only vague backroom rumors and unenforceable hints at possible benefits to be had. This sounds suspiciously like bait to me. Where is the hook?

There will never be any such contractual offer on paper. The FIE does not have the bargaining position to force it, and neither IOC or NBC would ever think of offering it - that would set a precedent that they do not want.

A fish is caught with bait and hook because the fisherman wants something - in this case fish meat, or possibly sporting experience. However, that does not go for IOC or NBC. We have nothing to offer that is important to them, so they have no motive to hook us. NBC does not show fencing, which shows how little they value fencing. What would we have that they want? The untold billions in the FIE bank account? No. IOC can keep us or dump us, and neither will be problem for them.

Why do you say this?

Because I believe it, of course. The OG is the only chance for fencing to get outside viewers, and a big influx of new participants. The World Games - how much did you read about them in the media?

Why? What is it that you think fencing has to lose by sticking to its principles and not bowing to vague threats and vaguer promises? What is it that you think losing the Olympics will do to fencing---and how?

As I said before, this is the topic for another post which is coming up soon. Quit badgering me!

Wow.

Is there any change in the sport at which you WOULD balk?

Yes. A demand that we take away masks altogether, or removal of any other safety equipment.

Except that the IOC is not my boss. It isn't even the FIE's boss. Still less is a television network...

I like to think that the fencers of the world are the FIE's boss. Isn't that the way it's supposed to work?

When it comes to the issue of being in the OG, yes, then IOC is indeed the boss. FIE is more of a minor board member fighting not to be kicked off the board.

Furthermore, you did not answer the question whether you had done something you thought dumb just because your boss told you so.

Fair enough.

But I have to ask again: how far are you willing to go to propitiate people who aren't fencers and do not necessarily have our interests at heart? How much blackmail would you be willing to pay, in other words? ( I do not think that "blackmail" is too strong a word for what the IOC and the networks are doing, if what Alex says correctly captures the true state of things. )

I do not think that any more blackmail will be forthcoming. My prediction is that they will either accept fencing with Lexan, or dump it thinking "No amount of tinkering will make this a winning proposition. Get out the axe."

Personally, I have heard of several who got the idea from channel-flipping during the OG, and thought the idea: Fencing - that seems neat! I should give it a try!

Objection, your honor! Hearsay!

I have heard those people say it to myself, so it is not hearsay. Furthermore, I am one of those people myself. When Björne Wäggö got OG silver in ME 1984 I took note, and it was one of the things that got me fencing a few years later. No, I never fancied myself a OG-caliber fencer. This spring, I met Björne at a Swedish Fencing Federation meeting and had the chance to tell him that. He was pleased. We were there as club representatives. He comes from ZZ´s club, BTW. Furthermore, hearsay is allowed as evidence in Swedish courts, if it is identified as such. So, you objection as hearsay is triply countered.

(Both parties in a Swedish court are allowed to use anything they wish as evidence to their cause. This also includes incorrectly gathered evidence by the police - no Miranda clause here. If such evidence is presented, it can be used by the prosecution, and the cop will be tried for obtaining it in a separate court case.)

A post of the dangers of being booted from the OG is forthcoming, no need to ask more times for it.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

But what I'm wondering is: What if the IOC wants to get rid of fencing no matter what, and is just putting the FIE off with these little demands and "suggestions"? Then in the end we lose the Olympics anyway---AND we have made all these stupid changes in the basic nature of the name in the name of aesthetics, and gone through all this turmoil, for nothing...

Why is the FIE so willing to buy a pig in a poke?

Well, Inq, I was under the impression that you would savour the spectacle of Rene Roch having to bend over backwards (or forwards! ) in humiliation!


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Insipiens]

Bobsleigh and Luge are pretty much the only two winter olympic sports I watch with any interest. They get quite a lot of coverage on TV in the UK when the olympics are on. This is quite possibly because they represent the best chance the UK has of winning a medal (apart from Curling of course).

My only connection with the winter olympics is as a television spectator and therefore potentially open to associated advertising. But of course in the UK the olympics are on the BBC and so there is no TV advertising.

If I were to take up any sport from the Winter Olympics it would probably be the luge (or skeleton bob); but that is highly unlikely.

Compare summer olympics and fencing. At Athens last year the BBC showed about 2 mins of fencing related time - covering Richard Kruse's quarter final success after the event. Nobody in the UK is going to hit fencing by channel-hopping on TV and many people in the UK probably only dimly register that fencing is an Olympic sport (like Greco-Roman wrestling or whatever it is they have). So the direct impact of the Olympics on fencing in the UK is pretty tiny. We have some funding for elite athletes now from Sport UK because of the relative success without funding achieved by Kruse and Louise Bond-Williams; that funding will not survivie after Beijing uness we do better there than at Athens. So being tin the olympics with or without Lexan masks is not going to attract a lot of people to the sport in the UK unless we actually win a medal.

But then each olympiad lots of people do win medals and their countries probably get more new fencers because of it.

I think to the average non-fencing spectator the Lexan masks will look just as weird as the traditional mask. But close ups of the mask do show people's faces, and if the lighting is right you can see in.