Updated June 9 with FINA correction of Cornel Marculesu quote.
LAUSANNE, Switzerland, May 28. DURING a press meeting held in Switzerland today, FINA stated that it planned to "cut the cancer out" when it comes to swimsuit technology according to an article by SwimNews.com. However, the timing of this move will happen after the FINA World Championships held in Rome.
"We are here to cut the cancer out," FINA executive director Cornel Marculescu told assembled media members. "It's a crazy area all of this, the professor cannot control this. We cannot solve everything at once. After Beijing, why did we interfere? Because we had understood that technology needs to be controlled."
In a Swimming World request for quote clarification, FINA later stated that the "cancer" quote was a mistake of translation and interpretation. FINA states that Marculescu said "We cannot cut this out simply like a cancer." The intent behind the quote was to say that FINA was in a transitional period, and that there is no magical solution to solve the problem immediately.
According to Craig Lord's report, many suits that are likely on the chopping block come Jan. 1, 2010 when permeability testing is the key, will still be in play for the FINA World Championships this summer. FINA just does not have the time to rectify the situation, but stated that it could not do so until it had "quantifiable science" to back up its decisions.
"We had to find a solution that was not just based on feelings but on science that told us what we need to know," FINA lawyer Jean-Pierre Morand said. "There will be stricter rules in 2010 and some things that are there now will not be there in 2010 and everyone needs to understand that."
Demonstrating understanding how the timing of the Dubai Charter has seriously impacted various national federations around the world, Marculescu stated that swimsuits and federations will have an open season. However, everyone should be prepared for a much stricter set of rules heading into 2010.
"The current suit rules apply only to FINA competitions," Marculescu said. "It is up to federations to do what they like. That can happen only in this transitional period, for one season only: until autumn 2009."
SwimNews.com also reported on the process by which suits will be authorized for use at the FINA World Championships. All suits to be worn by competitors will be sent in for testing the week prior to the event. After passing tests by the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, each suit will be embedded with a barcode system. Only these suits will be allowed during Worlds.
The process will also involve two separate ready rooms. The first step will check suit issues, while the second will be the standard ready room swimmers are used to.
Full text of SwimNews.com article regarding suit restrictions.
Full text of SwimNews.com article regarding suit ready rooms.
Search For More News About: Cornel Marculescu
Reaction Time Comments
Reaction Time responses do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions
of Swimming World Magazine or SwimmingWorldMagazine.com.
Reaction Time is provided as a service to our readers.
May 28, 2009 Why are you printing Craig Lord articles? They totally blow! He also provides no source references either. Submitted by: Groovydoo
May 28, 2009 Great. Right when swimming finally has the spotlight, let's send the whole sport back to the last century. Let's outlaw composite tennis racquets and carbon fiber bicycle frames, too, because everyone knows that they turn any hack into a world champion. Then let's muddle along without any clear or coherent philosophy for managing technology. Perfect. Submitted by: fluidg
May 28, 2009 The "cancer" is the governing body rife with conflicts of interests that result in spurious rules, not advances in suit technology. Submitted by: fluidg
May 28, 2009 fluidg,
I don't think that is what FINA is saying right now. I totally agree that both the sport of tennis and cycling have been changed due to technological advances which can affect different people for advantage without requiring them to "earn" it so to speak.
However if we look at both sport's past they have had their issues in the same vein of what we are dealing with now. Tennis controls the size and make up of what can be used legally in competitions (otherwise some joker would have made a super light weight racket with a 4 foot face and never miss a shot) and cycling had to outlaw many different types of bikes back in the early 90's when the new materials became available and set stipulations on what could be used and what frame designs were allowed (I believe the "Lotus" bike was one -- someone can correct me if I am wrong).
I think the gist of what FINA seems to be saying is not "no bodysuits" right now, they are saying a return to purely 'textile' suits (or in our speak--something like the FS-Pro) which is material and not rubber,polyurethane or have pvc panels.
I doubt we will ever see the return to the 'brief' suit, but what we have right now is madness. The swimmers, coaches and officials don't know what's OK and not. The swim suit makers don't know what's OK and not (and some seem hell bent on making things that really do take us away from true swimming).
I have been NO fan of FINA if you have read any of my posts on here, but I do agree that FINA has to stem the flow now and make rules. Too late? Absolutely.
But if we use your examples then we absolutely must move back at least closer to the last century to restore balance to the playing field. (by the way Thorpe's 3:41 in briefs circa 98 isn't a bad century to live in).
A balanced playing field is what we MUST have where it counts, which is the developing levels in our sport for it's future health, NOT just whatever outlandish suit one of the top 10 in the world can get their hands on. I always try to remember the impact that this issue could have on future swimmers, not just the folks who are fast now.
Then maybe an intelligent conversation can unfold as to where we as a swimming world want our sport to go. Right now that conversation is too full of emotion and conjecture and is not able to happen.
Cycling did it, tennis did it, and swimming now must do it.
** By the way, a GREAT article I would love to read would be if SwimmingWorld interviewed some of the top minds in the cycling and tennis world from the 80-90's to see how their sport dealth with advances in technology.....be interesting to hear first hand how those sports have dealth with this issue--illumination for us** Submitted by: rcoach
May 28, 2009 FINA makes no sense to me. OK. So cutting out cancer. good. But why would they go ahead and okay all these new tech suits if only for one year? All these ridiculous times will be swum. ratified as WR's. Then, the suits will be pulled back, and these huge records akin to the East German and Chinese drug records will be allowed to stand. It might take a generation of legit swimming to break them. This is not forward thinking and dealing with the cancer.
Why let it grow into a giant tumor and then cut it out? Why not stem it now? Can't they at worst just figure out the suits used in Beijing and only allow those again until next year? I mean it seems like most swimmers can get their hands on those easily enough.
Then in 2010 after all the testing is done they can figure out a suit that most resembles what was worn in out sport just before the LZR suits and all that and go to that or some other reasonable decision that would lead to a level field for all swimmers. I mean its not that hard is it? Submitted by: swimmcatt1
May 28, 2009 Suits will be sent for testing the week prior to that event? Does that mean that swimmers will not be told if they can wear their chosen suits until a day or two before the event?
That's crazy. Submitted by: flutterby
May 29, 2009 FINA basically sit on the fence not really knowing which way to go trying to be everything for everyone and pleasing no one! Except possibly Speedo.
They have to decide at the basic level, do they want a sport that relies on suits that have:
1) Minimal or no impact on the result of a race (my preference) Let the best athlete win. ie Briefs etc Easy to control etc
2) Bit of performance enhancing. But how much? Not easy or impossible to control, regulate or formulate rules. This is what they appear to be trying to achieve and failing miserably.
3) Free for all (Chaos) This past year.
Seems the first option is the fairest, easiest to control and manage and a huge step forward in this whole sorry mess.
Submitted by: scotswim
May 29, 2009 Why on earth is this publication quoting Craig Lord at this time. he has openly used "quotes" to insert what he thinks a person should be saying (both in editorials and in "reports") and other times quotes a "senior FINA official" who just so happens to use the same verbiage as he does. It's completely irresponsible and does not resemble journalism in any way. He has an on-going opinion piece. Good for him and he is certainly free to express his views, but to use him as a resource for news at this stage is meaningless. He's created more confusion with his work than anything else at a point and that would seem to be the last thing that coaches, athletes or parents need more of right now. FINA is doing just fine creating consufion on it's own.
Post the full transcript of this meeting or press conference and let people read it for themselves. Submitted by: cgkkpk
June 9, 2009 To alleviate all the confusion about suits, FINA, USA-S, etc MUST keep the rules simple.
1. Female suits shall not extend past the pelvis, above the shoulder towards the neck, outside the shoulders towards the arms, or cover the back;
2. Male suits shall not extend below the knees or about the navel;
3. No suit shall consist in any form or fashion any non-permeable material whatsoever;
4. A swimmer may only wear one suit during competition.
Now swimming is back in the hands of the swimmers. Money, at least not the hundreds of dollars being spent on current suit "technology" is an issue. Those who have put in the training and have the ability, succeed. Too many swimmers, coaches and parents have sold their souls for a record. Submitted by: justacoach
June 9, 2009 To alleviate all the confusion about suits, FINA, USA-S, etc MUST keep the rules simple.
1. Female suits shall not extend past the pelvis, above the shoulder towards the neck, outside the shoulders towards the arms, or cover the back;
2. Male suits shall not extend below the knees or about the navel;
3. No suit shall consist in any form or fashion any non-permeable material whatsoever;
4. A swimmer may only wear one suit during competition.
Now swimming is back in the hands of the swimmers. Money, at least not the hundreds of dollars being spent on current suit "technology" is an issue. Those who have put in the training and have the ability, succeed. Too many swimmers, coaches and parents have sold their souls for a record. Submitted by: justacoach
June 9, 2009 I don't understand why we are delaying the evolution of swimming as a sport. Especially with heads of federation making decisions that will impact the swimmers, I want to see each head of each federation get in these suits and swim then make a decision. Craig Lord jump in the Jaked see if you go 47.1? Submitted by: cr3at1ve
June 9, 2009 So now the FINA boss says that it is simple to cut out cancer. Let these suits be, and go cut some cancer then :-S Submitted by: Rókur
June 10, 2009 Regarding the comments made about Mr. Craig Lord, I would like to say that: 1.) Mr. Craig Lord is one the premiere editorialists and journalists in the world of sports and in the Olympic Movement. 2.) He is a solid and long time friend and supporter of Swimming World magazine, its mission, staff, and publications. He works with myself on a number of fronts and always conducts himself as a gentleman and with the up most integrity. 3.) There would be no independent testing without Mr. Lord. The truth is, in the historical record from Fukuoka onwards, FINA was against independent testing, for either testing equipment, such as touch pad timing systems, or testing the new tech suits in February or March 2008. The approval process alone in Manchester and rule changes demand an investigation.
It was only the persistant pressure of a journalist like Mr. Lord, who globally assembled the points of view, tabled the arguments, withstood the threats, and kept speaking out against the technologies (which have clearly broken the rules), lack of FINA rule application and prosecution, that we are now entering a period where the suits will finally be rolled back, and the sport given back to the athletes.
FINA is only re-active, not pro-active. They have harmed the sport. Independent testing for all aspects of aquatics should have been implemented years ago. This is rocket science. All other major sports have independent testing of equipment to protect the integrity of the sport. According to experts, only NASA and NIST, when contracted by a governing sport body, has the capacity to truly develop the testing procedures and framework for an independent testing program, not only for FINA but, for the other winter and summer federations of the Olympic Movement as well. As Mr. Lord has pointed out and others, FINA initially, had to be fought to implement the suit restrictions and the independent testing we have now. It was not easy. It was a long difficult fight. The issues are not over.
The next phase is to restructure FINA. As so many LEN and FINA officials have said, the sport needs genuine professional sport management where executive capabiliity is matched equally with proven character, integrity and sport accomplishment.
I stand with Mr. Craig Lord. He represents the best in our sport and continues to support Swimming World magazine and to fight for athletes rights.
In this particular fight against the unbridled use of new technologies, devices and materials in swim suits, the sport owes Mr. Craig Lord a large debt of gratitude. Its an honor to have him as a colleague.
Lets not copy certain members of the
FINA leadership that tear others down. Lets do the opposite and model what is the best from all of us. We need to change the sport and implement new governing structures, shore up the rules, and make room for others to come into sport leadership. Submitted by: Small Stone
June 14, 2009 If people take Craig Lord seriously, the interest in swimming will die off. Think the media will spend millions of dollars to broadcast swim meets that are boring. Think manufactures will sponsor and put dollars into swimming. NO! Its like this, "one gave the dog a ribeye now their wanting to give the dog hamburger". Let the swimmers vote. I'll bet 80% will vote for the LZR or similar make suits. Really, no one should take Craig Lord seriously. He is just full of himself. Submitted by: speedboat1990
June 14, 2009 If people take Craig Lord seriously, the interest in swimming will die off. Think the media will spend millions of dollars to broadcast swim meets that are boring. Think manufactures will sponsor and put dollars into swimming. NO! Its like this, "one gave the dog a ribeye now their wanting to give the dog hamburger". Let the swimmers vote. I'll bet 80% will vote for the LZR or similar make suits. Really, no one should take Craig Lord seriously. He is just full of himself. Submitted by: speedboat1990
June 14, 2009 Elizabeth Beisel...first RI swimmer to make the Olympic team in many, many years! Submitted by: flutterby
June 14, 2009 oops, I posted in the wrong thread.
I guess I can swim one meet in my TYR Titan before it goes the way of the dinosaurs. Submitted by: flutterby
June 14, 2009 Why is it that men can wear their suits to the knee and women can't? Submitted by: gailswim
June 14, 2009 Speedboat1990. So the only reason the media will broadcast swim meets because of performance enhancing suits?? Keep the suits because of money now flowing into the sport?? With this sort of thinking why not wear hand paddles, fins etc and let's open the door to more manufacturers and thus more revenue!! How about pharmaceutical companies, I'm sure they would sponsor if all their performance enhancing products were used and on show!! We now have a similar situation to cycling in the recent past with performance enhancing drugs! Yes, vast media interest and both hugely damaging to the integrity of the sport!! More media interest is due to the farcical situation we find ourselves in!! The media will always be there at the freak show or where there is a dispute, do we really want this?
If the media are not interested in man to man racing then so be it. Why sell our souls to the devil for cash and publicity??
Let's keep our integrity and leave the money aspects out of this.
Submitted by: scotswim
June 14, 2009 Speedboat1990. So the only reason the media will broadcast swim meets because of performance enhancing suits?? Keep the suits because of money now flowing into the sport?? With this sort of thinking why not wear hand paddles, fins etc and let's open the door to more manufacturers and thus more revenue!! How about pharmaceutical companies, I'm sure they would sponsor if all their performance enhancing products were used and on show!! We now have a similar situation to cycling in the recent past with performance enhancing drugs! Yes, vast media interest and both hugely damaging to the integrity of the sport!! More media interest is due to the farcical situation we find ourselves in!! The media will always be there at the freak show or where there is a dispute, do we really want this?
If the media are not interested in man to man racing then so be it. Why sell our souls to the devil for cash and publicity??
Let's keep our integrity and leave the money aspects out of this.
Submitted by: scotswim
June 15, 2009 I've watched a number of recent meets on Universal Sports, such as this past weekend's Santa Clara International, and in most races all you see swimming are undifferentiated black suits. I mean, it's always been difficult enough to follow swimmers in the water even with different colored or patterned suits and caps, but now it's virtually impossible to distinguish who's who without a close-up or the commentators' identification. So much for "progress." Submitted by: Charlie
June 15, 2009 Scotswim, you're far out in right field its ridiculous. 50% permeability in a swimsuit doesn't mean the next step is drugs. You're not real. I think the issue with you is the money to buy a suit. Look at it this way, a women will spend that much on one outfit and maybe wears it a few times. Or, take a family of four out for a nice meal at a 5-Star restuarant. Mimium $150 for 1 hour. $440 is a drop in the bucket. I say, let the swimmer vote! Also, if you can't afford $440, get a real job! Submitted by: speedboat
June 15, 2009 Hey all,
Just a reminder that we require civility in disagreements here. We're grateful for the passion of our users on a variety of subjects within the sport. But, please, remain civil. Submitted by: Jason Marsteller
June 15, 2009 Scotswim, you're far out in right field its ridiculous. 50% permeability in a swimsuit doesn't mean the next step is drugs. You're not real. I think the issue with you is the money to buy a suit. Look at it this way, a women will spend that much on one outfit and maybe wears it a few times. Or, take a family of four out for a nice meal at a 5-Star restuarant. Mimium $150 for 1 hour. $440 is a drop in the bucket. I say, let the swimmer vote! Also, if you can't afford $440, get a real job! Submitted by: speedboat
June 15, 2009 Scotswim, you're far out in right field its ridiculous. 50% permeability in a swimsuit doesn't mean the next step is drugs. You're not real. I think the issue with you is the money to buy a suit. Look at it this way, a women will spend that much on one outfit and maybe wears it a few times. Or, take a family of four out for a nice meal at a 5-Star restuarant. Mimium $150 for 1 hour. $440 is a drop in the bucket. I say, let the swimmer vote! Also, if you can't afford $440, get a real job! Submitted by: speedboat
June 15, 2009 Scotswim, you're far out in right field its ridiculous. 50% permeability in a swimsuit doesn't mean the next step is drugs. You're not real. I think the issue with you is the money to buy a suit. Look at it this way, a women will spend that much on one outfit and maybe wears it a few times. Or, take a family of four out for a nice meal at a 5-Star restuarant. Mimium $150 for 1 hour. $440 is a drop in the bucket. Submitted by: speedboat
June 16, 2009 Speedboat.
Actually, I could afford one of these expensive suits. However, I don't live in the USA and in my country of residence few could afford these suits. For me to then buy one and improve my times would in fact be embarrassing to say the least and discredit the result.
However, the point I have been making all along is that if the suit enhances the speed then it is wrong. The money aspect was mentioned by you. In some countries $440 is a month's wages or more!
Submitted by: scotswim
June 16, 2009 Scotswim, I assure you $440 is not a drop in the bucket in the U.S. either. And the "get a job" comment is one of the more insensitive I've ever seen in discussions of these suits. Speedboat, you're only going to alienate others with those extreme positions so please reconsider them. Submitted by: Charlie
June 16, 2009 We might be well served to get back to first principles: Why do we have suits in the first place. Originally, it was for modesty. The suits were not intended to impact performance, that was a best an afterthought. Once people began to realize that swimming with a couple of yards of wool fabric draped around them was actually slowing them down, folks began experimenting to try to reduce the negative impact of having a suit. The question was not, How much can the suit speed me up, but How can I get a suit that doesn't slow me down so much. That's why mens suits got smaller, and women's suits got smaller and tighter. As long as the innovation was geared to reducing the negative impact of the suit, we were still ok. The goal was to prevent the suit from making a swimmer slower than they would be with no suit at all. But then we hit a tipping point, when it was decided there was more the suit could do, and then the research shifted to trying to use the suit to make the swimmer faster than they would be without any suit at all.
That's the principle we need to get back to: The goal should be that the suit should not have an impact, plus or minus. That a swimmer should swim just as fast with a suit or without, or in a bow to modesty, a swimmer should be able to pick any brand suit off a rack of suits in the correct size, and swim the same time no matter what brand suit they picked. Submitted by: prhjd
June 16, 2009 Charlie, Thanks for your comment.
prhjd, you are right lets keep it simple, the suit should have minimal or no impact, the current situation where there is a "bit" of performance enhancing can never be controlled. Submitted by: scotswim
June 20, 2009 prhjd your concept of achieving the same results in any brand of suit is not realistic. Some products are just better than others. Submitted by: speedboat1990
Reaction Time responses do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions
of Swimming World Magazine or SwimmingWorldMagazine.com.
Reaction Time is provided as a service to our readers.
|
Subscribe Now!
|
