By John Leonard, Executive Director, American Swimming Coaches Association
FORT LAUDERDALE, Florida, August 1. OVER the past 18 months, the swimming world has been a frenzy of controversy over the emergence of technology in swimsuits. At the recent World Championships in Rome, the constant and overwhelming refrain about suits, echoed the volume and intensity of the last time we were in Rome for a World Championships, when the topic was doping....drugs distorting our sport...in 1994. Fifteen years later, the emotional topic was the new high tech suits that have swept through the sport from the World Championship level down to the local park district championships in the summer league. The parallels were impossible to miss.
FINA, in an unprecedented move at its Congress in Rome, banned the use of all "non-textile" materials from suits beginning in 2010, and limited the coverage of the body to "knees to navel for men" and "knees to shoulder straps" for women. 168 nations voted in favor of the restrictions, against a mere 6 in opposition (who apparently did not understand the word "textile"). This in the face of strong opposition to the move by the sitting President and Executive Director of the FINA organization. Amazing and never seen before. The USA delegation initiated the restrictions and led the opposition. Why such a strong reaction in opposition to the existing plastic and rubber suits?
A parent new to the sport, from a middle class background, might well say "hey, why not? Technology marches on! Equipment gets better. Why not let my son/daughter wear one of the fancy new suits and swim faster?"
It's a valid question that requires a thoughtful answer. Here it is.
The answer revolves around two words, with of course, a considerable amount of "side data" that adds to the intensity of the discussion and the strength of the resolution to end the problem worldwide.
Those two words are "Maximizing" and "Enhancing".
Quality lane lines "maximize" the opportunity of the athlete to swim fast, with minimum turbulence in the lane (you should have seen the waves in the pool back in the 60's and 70's.).
Good Goggles allow the athlete to see the turns, see their competitors, and comfortably compete.(to say nothing of allowing them to train hard for hours....impossible in the chlorine pool without goggles...in the old days, yardage and performance was a fraction of what it is today.) Goggles Maximize the opportunity of the athlete to work hard.
Evolution in coaching techniques in training and biomechanics allow the athletes to Maximize their ability to benefit from their time in the sport.
Swimsuits, up until approximately the year 2000, and certainly until early 2008, were designed to maximize the opportunity of the athletes to go fast....the manufacturers designed suits to "get out of the way of the water". Less suit, less friction with the water, less drag, tighter fit, and better materials MAXIMIZED the ability of the athlete to perform to their highest earned level.
Beginning in 2008, manufacturers took advantage (and must be applauded for doing so, within the existing rules, which were close to non-existent) of the idea of designing suits to ENHANCE the ability of the athlete to swim faster. A line had been crossed. Designed suits incorporated plastics, rubberized material and new design criteria, to enhance the ability of the athlete to be buoyant in the suits (riding higher makes you faster), wrapped more tightly (compressing the "jiggly parts" makes you MUCH faster) and shed water from the plastics and rubber materials much more effectively, thereby reducing the drag of the suits remarkably.
Since February 2008, 158 world records have been set by elite athletes. Their ability to perform has moved from being "maximized" by their swimsuits, to being "enhanced" by their swimsuits. This rate of improvement is absolutely farcical in the historical context of over 100 years of our sport. At the world championships, new world records were receiving polite applause akin to the "golf clap" for a good shot, rather than the historical roars of appreciation that a swimming crowd used to provide when a human barrier went down, as it infrequently did, by great athletes at the peak of their power.
How does this translate down to the local pool?
Pretty simple. The manufacturers don't make any money by selling suits to the elite athlete. They give the suits away to them. They count on age group swimmers watching the "big guys" and wanting the same suits and equipment.
And lo and behold, the same miraculous benefits accrue to 12 year old Sam and Samantha when they put on the "magic suits" in their local championships. The time drops are miraculous, the smiles are, literally, "priceless" and child, mom and dad are all happy.
Wait a second. That suit just ripped. wow. How did that happen? How much did it cost? Wow! You paid $500 for a suit that Sam just put his foot through, rendering it a $500 broken garbage bag? Uh-oh., well, honey, get him another one....we can't have Joe Jones's son Pete beat him in the 200 free tomorrow. Teeth Grit. This is a kids sport? We now have $1000 in suits so far.
And of course, all those magic benefits only last 7-15 swims, so good for maybe 2-3 meets, unless it's a championship and your child swims 6 events and makes finals in all events...in which case it's $500 a meet.
Let's see, $500 a meet, we go to 2 meets a month, 10 months of the year....Honey, its gonna cost us $10,000 Just for Samantha's suits this year!
Well, the solution is simple....just wear the suits for the championship meet and wear your regular suit the rest of the time. OK. Good.
But, Samantha's 58.5 100 free with the magic suit on, just became a 1:02 100 free with the old suit on. Smiles gone. Gone. From Samantha, from Mom. From Dad. Oh well.
And of course, there are some other objections as well.
First, the magic suit deal is like paying for your child to have instant improvement. Is that what you want your child to learn from the sport? Or do you want them to learn to persevere, EARN improvement with hard work, attention to detail, paying attention to the coach and, shall we say it again..."Working Hard". Or do you want them to learn that you can always "pay your way" with cash to what you want?
"Earn it, or buy it". Which do you want to teach? Answer carefully, parents.
Second, the suit does not affect everyone the same. The thin, fit swimmer will benefit marginally by it. The overweight swimmer will swim like a young seal in it. Spending the same $500 on two children will yield radically different results. Not a fair competition at all. Is that what anyone wants?
Third, and it seems unnecessary to say this...but if you just buy 3 suits a year, that's $1500 or MORE. (Today, purchasing one of the great European suits online from the USA will cost you $900...with no guarantee of fit, durability or return-ability, and about 30% of them RIP on the first attempt to put them on...no refund, folks.) Do we really want age group and high school swimmers to have to spend that kind of money to BUY success rather than work for it? It doesn't make our sport a middle class sport, it makes it a sport for wealthy families.
Are you pooh-poohing that? Wait till your son or daughter gets beat the first time by someone whose mommie or daddie could afford a more expensive piece of plastic and rubber than you can. The bitter taste in your mouth is not fun. Not much in the way of "sport" there.
So, in answer to the local official who asked "Why are "they" (FINA officials) wasting time with worrying about THAT? Don't they have better things to do?"
The answer is no, the suit debacle is the most important thing that any of us can attend to. It preserves the heart and soul of our sport....which is reverence and appreciation for the hard work, attention to detail, courage and teamwork required to be a fine competitive swimmer and to learn to succeed with those life-skills. Instead of with your Daddy's wallet.
The Congress (not the Ruling Bureau) of FINA took the rules into their own hands after the Bureau had time and again failed to establish the rules necessary to keep our sport vital, credible and important. Bravo for them.
Article reprinted with the express written consent of the American Swimming Coaches Association at the request of Swimming World's readers.
Search For More News About: John Leonard
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.
August 1, 2009 Thanks Brent for posting this!!
I passed this out to some of my swimmers parents and it was VERY well received.
Submitted by: rcoach
August 1, 2009 Oh please, John Leonard, you are not the "center of infinity of all things swimming. In fact I suspect you have a conflict of interest here.
Why is your opinion more "insightful" than someone who is pro speedsuit, John?
The organization you represent is nothing more "than a man behind a curtain" dishing out certifications for a fee. Submitted by: Groovydoo
August 1, 2009 funny, or should I say phony? it took nearly 10 years, since ian thorpe wore the full body suit and broke 400m record, for you to come up with the argument to swim moms and dads. that's really lame.
$500 per suit? get real, the price will drop like plasma tv once it does to volume production.
the real reason is so obvious that americans and aussies suddenly realized they are no longer dorminant, so there they go, crank up a media war again: people are clueless about swimming all know phelps lost to hi-tech swimming suit. Submitted by: zhaoleban
August 1, 2009 Kudos to zhaoleban - totally nailed it. Submitted by: Groovydoo
August 2, 2009 Groovydoo,
How about if you make an analysis of the stength, weakness or "insight" of John's various arguments and opinions for their logical value rather than saying nothing while making empty insults; you don't even seem to have a curtain. If you favor the speedsuits as an overall benefit to the sport and have an opinion, or preferably factually supported logical arguments, more "insightful" than John, whatever they may be, lets hear them. What you posted here is useless in forwarding any position. Not saying I agree or disagree with him, but John at least gave reasons for his position. If you believe differently, lets hear your reasons, your arguments that are more insightful. Please advance the discussion. Submitted by: dunc1952
August 2, 2009 Zhaoleban / Groovydoo,
Anti-American (and anti-Australian) inferiority complex, jealousy and paranoia fail to measure up as logical argument. You guys sound like so many of the Irish did for a few years after Atlanta, refusing to accept all the evidence of Michelle Smith's drug treachery and just tried to say the whole basis for the comments about Smith was that the Americans didn't want to admit they had been beaten by an Irishwoman. With the passage of time, her drug testing failure (i.e. alcohol drenched samples and shame which became apparent in personal appearances, the truth became apparent, and the Irish have now become more realistic and are working at their program (with Peter Banks they will unquestionably be working hard). The Americans were not the point then and they aren't the point now. Drugs then and unrealistically expensive and unevenly effective (and therefore unfair) suits, and their sequelae of affects on the sport as layed out by Leonard, are now. Submitted by: dunc1952
August 2, 2009 Dunc 1952, I stated a fact not an insult. ASCA is nothing more than an organization that certifies coaches after they study their materials, pay their fees, and get lucky enough to coach a winning team at the collegiate level. It is only then that you get certified by the ASCA as a level 4 or whatever "kung fu" belts they offer.
Here is a fact, a speedsuit is way less than $500. The Finis, the b70, TYR Tracer Light, and more. My TYR tracer light was $320. Suits a year older sell for $165 such as the Speedo FS Pro II.
Here is another fact: John provided nothing but anecdotal evidence so why can't I: My suit has lasted over a year and still has many swims left in it. SO do my friends and they wear b70 Neros.
Trust me, his editorial was nothing but a straw man argument.
Submitted by: Groovydoo
August 2, 2009 Grooveydoo.
So maybe the cost of suits mentioned by John is less or more, so what?
Also the ASCA and its effectiveness is not the point of the article either, it is about suits.
The other arguments against the suits are all valid.
As dunc1952 says "How about if you make an analysis of the strength, weakness or "insight" of John's various arguments and opinions for their logical value rather than saying nothing while making empty insults"?
Grooveydoo your response fails to address the issue of why the suits should be retained in the sport. In fact throughout all of the discussions about these suits I have still to see a valid well thought out argument for retaining them. The best the pro suit community can come up with are either insults or uninformed arguments. So your suit lasted longer than mentioned in the article, is this a valid argument to keep them in the sport?
The best the pro suit community can come up with is the argument that the suits don't actually have much effect!! Very strong argument this!! To…….eliminate them! No effect equals no reason to keep them! Also comments "it's not the suit it's me", the "suit doesn't swim on its own" etc etc all very simplistic thinking all good reasons to remove them and thus remove the doubt.
The suits problem has been here for a while and many of us have been highly critical from the inception of the LZR or before. Some have come to realize the problem much later and we need them to speak out to rid the sport of its current crisis. John's article is late in the day but this is not a reason to attack him and the more we state our case the more people will come to agree that these suits are not progress but an unfortunate side step which has damaged the credibility of the sport.
I hear the argument that swimming is now talked about more in the non swimming community due to the suits, well so what? This is not necessarily a good thing there is more attention in sport and other activities when something bad or undesirable is happening ie cheating drugs etc. This is not a cause for celebration.
FINA have by their lack of leadership done more damage to the swimming community than the GDR and China in the '70's,80's and 90's combined. Then there were some world records tainted, now all are tainted by these suits. World records that are performance enhanced have now become totally meaningless.
Submitted by: scotswim
August 2, 2009 Scotswim, compare a running track from 1949 to 2009 and you I'll show you a rubber track that returns energy beck into the runner's gate.
SHow me a running shoe from 1959 and I will show you a Spira, or Nike LunarGlide+ which returns energy back to the runner.
Show me a tennis racket from 1959 and compare them to Serena WIlliams racket which is wider, lighter and has changed tennis into an athlete's game rather than a stylists' game.
Tour de France circa 1959 versus Lance Armstrong's time trial bike 2009 and note the angles, the composite materials and the aerodynamic hubs.
The lowering of the pitchers mound in baseball in 1969 so more home runs could be hit.
Boxing in 1959 - MMA and UFC in 2009.
Formula One in 1959 as compared to 2009.
Why can't swimming
Sports move into the future and so should swimming. Tracj and Field in not conducted barefoot.
Watch our briefs and jammers once again become the object of ridicule and derision. Submitted by: Groovydoo
August 2, 2009 Hi Groovydoo:
Thanks for your response: My answer:
The sports you are talking about are predominantly equipment based.
Should swimming be equipment based or technique based? This is the question. We believe it should stay as technique based not equipment based. If the sport is to become equipment based, as it unfortunately has over the last year or so, then the logical step is fins, paddles etc. This will also increase the speed and faster times, are you advocating this? Limit the "progress" to only suits? Why? Let's just go the whole way, make it a totally equipment based sport, use whatever you can to progress down the pool faster than the next man. This is exactly what we find undesirable, this is not what swimming is all about.
Swimming has had progress through the years through stroke changes, underwater kicking etc etc all initiated by the swimmers efforts and technique not by equipment.
There are anatomical reasons why runners use shoes to run in as well as performance. Try training for marathons with bare feet, not really desirable at all. Your feet won't last too long. Shoes have been around for a long time and there are health and safety reasons why they should be used. Performance enhancing suits to my knowledge don't provide health benefits, at least none of the arguments I have seen have highlight them. In fact are they really healthy? Non permeable wrap doesn't allow sweat to dissipate thus could lead to heat exhaustion etc
The comparison with running tracks and swimsuits is not valid, the comparison / analogy could only be made between track improvement and pool improvement. We are not advocating changing pools back. The topic is performance enhancing suits. To have them or not? Simple as that.
Your argument is that we should keep the suits because "briefs and jammers once again become the object of ridicule and derision" this is hardly going to sway people towards you opinion. It is a capitulation to peer pressure i.e. If you don't smoke and smokers ridicule you will you start smoking? Champion swimmers generally do not succumb to this type of peer pressure. Actually I have worn briefs in the pool all my life and can't remember all the derision and ridicule you seem to have suffered. Did Janet Evans, Matt Biondi etc all suffer from this derision and ridicule? Not to my knowledge. Now, if you wore an LZR or Jaked to the beach will you be ridiculed? Quite possibly.
Submitted by: scotswim
August 2, 2009 Swimming is not an equipment based sport does not wash!
Last I looked, goggles, caps, and lycra was equipment.
Apparently you believe that running is an equipment based sport. I always thought was is an innate ability that we all, or those who have not suffered a tragic circumstance, can participate in. The first time you every ran you were probably barefoot or were you wearing equipment?
My argument is that swimming was getting stale with several records lasting for decades, plural! (Evans. Popov et al.)
I feel speedsuit and money t the sports athletes and meet directors.
DO you know how many people and how little money is going to going to back into swimming now?
Submitted by: Groovydoo
August 2, 2009 Thank you, Groovydoo. Your last two posts have been much more valid in making arguments, whether some of us agree with your positions or not; at least you are stating arguments.
I'm just afraid that part of your last post must have had some typographical issues because the latter parts make no sense. I quote:
"I feel speedsuit and money t the sports athletes and meet directors.
DO you know how many people and how little money is going to going to back into swimming now?"
I've got to tell you I can't decipher your meaning on either of these "sentences," though the earlier parts of the post made some sense.
As far as the idea that swimming was getting stale because several records were long-lasting. I can't say you are wrong on this front as it is not a right and wrong issue. I just have a different reaction to it. While some of the records may have had a shelf life, others fell several times. There were just few enough of the ultimate (World meters; US Open/American yards) records broken for them to be considered special accomplishments. When the records lasted for a period it allowed us the ability to appreciate the heritage of great performers we have had in the sport. For many years, starting late '50s to the late '80s, among the problems the public/press had with our sport was that we broke world records so often that they were not considered all that special by the folks who were not "within" the sport. Anything less than a world record wasn't worth a whit in their eyes, and even when the records were broken they weren't always seen as all that special. I say this with some personal experience. I was once in a final where 4 athletes broke the world record and the 5th place finisher broke it the next year. That type of multiple person "cheap" world records was simply due at the time to improvements in tanks and training. They were not so "cheap" again till this week, and this in a post-Olympic year when, as always, several of our top athletes were either not swimming or on a less stressful training schedule (Kitajima, Coughlin, etc.)
It may have seemed stale to you to see the likes of Evans and Biondi still in the record book. Me, I'd like to see the best athletes in the book. I'd be just as happy for them to remain in the book till someone else with improved technique, more effective training, more natural skill, a better body, better coaching and/or higher motivation comes along.
I felt John addressed your thoughts about the goggles, caps and the like quite adequately with his "maximize" v "enhance" discussion. And to suggest the arguments about the expense of the suits are "strawmen" demonstrates you are either quite well-off or just swimming yourself and not with multiple kids in the pool. That is not a strawman. It is one of the subjects central to the potential damage that would have been done by continuation of use of rubberized suits. The derisive attitude that we are economically a "country-club" sport, which can be partially read as effectively "lily-white" as well despite several highly skilled black swimmers over recent years, would have renewed credibility despite very significant and well-intended and supported efforts at increased diversity in the pool. We have a hard enough time keeping the sport in high schools and colleges as it is. Add the kind of budget necessary for enough rubber suits to remain competitive and the result would inevitably be even more programs dropped. We would lose a great number of "middle class" kids. Period. The loss among those less well advantaged would be a huge setback. Some strawman.
As a final thought on the complaint of this being an issue based on Americans feeling loss of their dominance, consider the following. Over the years, US support for some issue (i.e. Three per country) has been like the kiss of death at FINA. We have not always been very successful at getting rules through, no matter how reasonable they seemed, if anyone saw them as beneficial to the U.S. My understanding is that this American-backed change was supported 168-5, even with the opposition of the normally powerful FINA executive director and sitting president, each of whom -- rather than John Leonard and ASCA -- may really be said to be the folks with conflicts based on relationships with the suit companies. Truly, the rest of the world recognized this is an issue for the benefit of the sport and not one pursued to protect Americans.
Submitted by: dunc1952
August 2, 2009 Scotswim, you argument isn't valid either. I agreed with Groovydoo. And, I got my Jaked01 for $450 from Jaked...the $900 mentioned in the article is wrong as well as the $500 for the LZR. Just a scare tactic. I'll go for a LZR design suit. The "poly" suit is much at this time. However, its exciting to watch all the swimmers competing in them. Really, its no different than the MLB lowing the pitches mound a few inches to create more home runs and interest in the sport. Put baseball and swimming on the "tube", the baseball Nielson Rating will be 20x that of Swimming. Really, put nearly any of the major sport in competition with swimming, swimming comes out the bug "loser". Little Johnny would rather be playing, tennis, baseball, football, basketball, track, etc...than swimming. Take away the excitement and the participants and viewers drop off. The 2012 Olympic Trials in Omaha will be nothing like it was in 2008. Without the interest from the media, NBC will cut back their coverage time and the sport goes back to something the media covers only every 4 years and briefly in the summer. Who is the real loser here...I say the sport and who cares if its a "moral" thing to do. Being right isn't always correct. Submitted by: speedboat
August 2, 2009 Oh, I thing I forget to mention. A loss in interest and participants in the sport of swimming will mean a loss of coaching jobs and clubs in the USA. For one, I think the swimming coaches are over paid which increases the fees for "Little Johnny".. The American Coaches push this FINA ruling, hopefully a few of them will lose their job or take a big paid cut. Lets wait and see how long it will take for USA Swimming to increase their fee to cover the loss in $$$. For my future children, I'll put them into T-ball, Little League,....where we don't have a $200 a month pool fee. Kids have a higher percentage of getting into minor league or major league baseball than making the USA Senior Nationals in swimming in their lifetime. Submitted by: speedboat
August 3, 2009 Thanks to all participating on this blog.
Yes, you are right goggles and caps could be classed as equipment. However, there are various reason to wear them not just performance enhancing. Where I live all of us have to wear swim caps in the pool whether competitive or recreational it is a rule. Goggles make swimming more enjoyable and also limit eye infection transfer etc. I'm not so sure that the suit manufacturers are pushing these benefits for the suits. They are purely to enhance speed. As for enjoyment of wearing them, after a race they can't wait to get out of them.
I think the media interest is more to do with the Phelps phenomena and the breaking of Spitz record of 7 golds in one Olympics. A record that withstood the onslaught of a few decades, created a myth and something that was admired around the world. This didn't make swimming stale in my opinion. If this type of accomplishment was common place there would and will be even less interest.
The races / match ups between the likes of Popov and Biondi, Phelps / Cavic and the media attention has nothing to do with the suits it is the competition that is important and the challenge. The suits detract from this and do not enhance the interest. The publicity due to suit wars is all negative.
Is the Joe public's interest in the sport due to faster times? Well really this is too much. How many of then could tell the difference between a 49 and 47 swim. Not many! How many of them will remember the names of the winners at this championships? I live swimming and I can't keep up with the names, I don't think I'm alone in this regard. This is all quick fix, here today gone tomorrow stuff.
Also compare the visuals on TV Beijing '08 against Barcelona '92. The picture quality is so much better, underwater shots so superb in fact it could be argued better and clearer than over the water shots. This is also what makes the sport more interesting.
The above combined with personalities such as Rice, Thorpe, Hackett, Phelps, Beard, Coventry etc and this is why it is more media friendly. Longevity in the sport also creates the interest and the human interest story ie Torres, Mark Foster etc
The story of the performance enhancing suits is in fact a distraction to the sport not an attraction. Fine performances over or undervalued due to the suits. The winners questioned whether it is them or the suits, swimmers having to justify their performances and others making excuses. All of this is not healthy for the sport.
In response to speedboat:
"The American Coaches push this FINA ruling, hopefully a few of them will lose their job or take a big paid cut"
So if you don't get your own way you hope other's will suffer because of it?
You also state " For my future children, I'll put them into T-ball, Little League,...."
These comments don't do much for your case at all and show you have even less commitment to the sport of swimming than you would have us believe.
One final point I am not American and have been against these suits from the start.
Submitted by: scotswim
August 5, 2009 Thanks to all participating on this blog.
Yes, you are right goggles and caps could be classed as equipment. However, there are various reason to wear them not just performance enhancing. Where I live all of us have to wear swim caps in the pool whether competitive or recreational it is a rule. Goggles make swimming more enjoyable and also limit eye infection transfer etc. I'm not so sure that the suit manufacturers are pushing these benefits for the suits. They are purely to enhance speed. As for enjoyment of wearing them, after a race they can't wait to get out of them.
I think the media interest is more to do with the Phelps phenomena and the breaking of Spitz record of 7 golds in one Olympics. A record that withstood the onslaught of a few decades, created a myth and something that was admired around the world. This didn't make swimming stale in my opinion. If this type of accomplishment was common place there would and will be even less interest.
The races / match ups between the likes of Popov and Biondi, Phelps / Cavic and the media attention has nothing to do with the suits it is the competition that is important and the challenge. The suits detract from this and do not enhance the interest. The publicity due to suit wars is all negative.
Is the Joe public's interest in the sport due to faster times? Well really this is too much. How many of then could tell the difference between a 49 and 47 swim. Not many! How many of them will remember the names of the winners at this championships? I live swimming and I can't keep up with the names, I don't think I'm alone in this regard. This is all quick fix, here today gone tomorrow stuff.
Also compare the visuals on TV Beijing '08 against Barcelona '92. The picture quality is so much better, underwater shots so superb in fact it could be argued better and clearer than over the water shots. This is also what makes the sport more interesting.
The above combined with personalities such as Rice, Thorpe, Hackett, Phelps, Beard, Coventry etc and this is why it is more media friendly. Longevity in the sport also creates the interest and the human interest story ie Torres, Mark Foster etc
The story of the performance enhancing suits is in fact a distraction to the sport not an attraction. Fine performances over or undervalued due to the suits. The winners questioned whether it is them or the suits, swimmers having to justify their performances and others making excuses. All of this is not healthy for the sport.
In response to speedboat:
"The American Coaches push this FINA ruling, hopefully a few of them will lose their job or take a big paid cut"
So if you don't get your own way you hope other's will suffer because of it?
You also state " For my future children, I'll put them into T-ball, Little League,...."
These comments don't do much for your case at all and show you have even less commitment to the sport of swimming than you would have us believe.
One final point I am not American and have been against these suits from the start.
Submitted by: scotswim
August 8, 2009 I am late to this discussion, but I have read the comments with interest. There are pros and cons on both sides of the argument - and honestly I sway from one side to the other.
If we want to be able to compare the best times of swimmers from different eras, why is it okay to make faster pools (and have you seen the new starting blocks - why are they needed?), faster (not just better) goggles and caps, etc, and not faster swim suits? Clearly some (if not all) of these other evolutions also contribute to enhanced performance.
Should tennis really be described as an equipment based sport? Yes - racquets are a key part of the game, but do you ever hear anyone attribute the outcome of a match between Federer and Nadal, for example, to the racquets - and does anyone seriously suggest tennis players should return to the days of wooden racquets? A similar point could be made in relation to golf. Does Tiger Woods win because he is using superior clubs? I don't think I have ever heard a commentator refer to Tiger's clubs as being the reason for his success. Should golfers go back to using steel (or even wooden) shafts and smaller club heads?
I agree the cost of the new swim suits is for most of us prohibitively high, but I also expect the costs will come down over time to the point where they are within reach of the most families - just as almost all young tennis players now have access to affordable graphite (or some other composite) tennis racquets.
It also appears likely the new swim suits impact some swimmers more than others - but some swimmers also have access to better coaches, training facilities, opportunities to compete, etc. There is never going to be a completely level playing field.
Clearly there needs to be a limit to how far and how fast a sport should be allowed to evolve with new technology. Have we really reached that point with swimming? If everyone has access to the same or similar swim suits, will swimming be any less of a technique based sport requiring, also, hard work and discipline? Won't technique, discipline and hard work then remain as three of the main differentiators? Does swimming really need to return to old technology? Personally, I don't really care, except that I probably have a bias towards allowing technology to evolve (just as technique and training methods have evolved). (Note - I am not linked to any swim suit manufacturer.)
The thing that really, really grates me, however, is that at these key meets (Beijing and Rome) swimmers were not lining up with the same technology. Some swimmers were clearly (and in Rome it would appear materially) disadvantaged because of their swim suits. Yes - in some cases, that was their choice - but, to me, at an Olympics or World Championships, that is just not right. We want to know who the fastest swimmers are (and not the fastest swim suits). Also, some swim suit manufacturers believe they were unfairly disadvantaged by the FINA testing / approval process. I will follow TYR's complaints with interest. I can't help but to put a lot of the blame at FINA's door. This entire episode appears to have been very poorly managed. But is the only solution a return to the past? What about some clearer rules and requirements (e.g., around "availability" and pricing), and a more transparent testing and approval process - enforced by a competent ruling body?
It's late, so let me apologise now for any spelling or grammatical errors. Submitted by: hsnamf
August 8, 2009 Really, swimming sucks. You've got one set of rules. Next month another. Who can plan anything. From what I understand, NCAA is starting Sept 1st, FINA Sept 30 and the suits need to be to be presented then. However, the definition for the fabric doesn't come out until Sept 30th. That doesn't make sense. Get suit for the Fall, it'll probably not meet the standards. Its plan stupid... Submitted by: speedboat
August 8, 2009 It is too ridiculous right now when the suits are so expensive to allow age groupers and high school kids with the biggest check books to get such an advantage. It will drive kids from the sport. Submitted by: deepender
August 9, 2009 I would like to share a parents point of view on the issue of suits. A bit of background.... my daughter has been swimming since she was 8 years old and in two weeks she will be leaving to swim at a Division 1 University. She first qualified for Senior Nationals when she was 14 years old, been a finalist at Nationals and Junior Nationals, competed at Olympic Trials in 2008 and World Champ Trials 2009.
Every parent out there knows the sacrifices we all make helping our children succeed in the sport of swimming. Years spent driving to 5am practices, sleeping in the car waiting for our swimmers, back to the pool after school, meals in the car, homework in the car, travel expenses, the athletes giving up a "normal" social life and the hours in the pool practicing and perfecting technique. All this working towards the one or two big meets a year, hoping to stay healthy so that all the hard work and sacrifice will be rewarded with a best time or two or a new "cut". That is all good, life lessons to be learned in a good clean sport.
2008 rolled around and the LZR became the biggest headache for every parent I know. How to get the suit, how to pay for it, should we buy two in case one rips, gets lost or stolen? Luckily Speedo loaned suits at Olympic Trials and my daughter was able to wear a LZR for the first time at the biggest meet of her life. Her club team is a small team with no suit sponsorship so in those days good luck finding a LZR if you weren't Speedo sponsored!
At the height of the difficult economic times last year we made the decision to purchase a LZR in the spring of 2009. It wasn't an easy decision but we felt that it was important for her to be on an even competitive field at her big meets. We felt she had earned it through a lot of hard work, so we bought a LZR knee suit with an open back for her to wear to the spring meets, high school champs and World Trials this summer. ONE suit that had to last through about 20 swims! Every time she swam I would pray that it wouldn't rip. Even in good economic times, how many families can not be anxious about budgeting for multiple suit purchases? For those of you who post on this site who are not parents, let me assure you that only a small percentage of families can absorb the cost of these suits on an ongoing basis.
As if all this weren't challenging enough, along comes suits of a completely different level....Jaked, Arena and their ilk with an insane price tag and unavailability to match. Watching World Champs in Rome gave me a sinking feeling knowing that my daughter could be priced out of the sport at some point. In less than a year technology took such a leap rendering the LZR a dinosaur, what would the next year bring?
I am acquainted with approximately 30 parent who have children leaving this month and who will be swimming in college. Every single one of us...heaved a huge sigh of relief when the NCAA came out with it's decision on suits beginning in Sept 2009. In the news release I don't believe cost was mentioned but it had to be a leading reason for the decision that was made. The controversy and expense surrounding the suit issue would have been the beginning of the end for college swimming. The reasons are obvious.
I do believe there is a place for new products and technology in the sport of swimming. Reducing the suit profile is a good compromise which will allow for new fabrics etc but will limit the amount of benefit still requiring the physical work needed on the part of the athlete.
Cost must be considered so as to be reasonable. Availability to ALL at a swim store nearby, NOT requiring a lengthy internet search etc. and calling that "available to all".
All that said, what was saddest about the past year for me as a parent was seeing how unprofessional and ineffective swimming's governing body was. I valued my belief that swimming was an honest sport where hard work and dedication paid off for the athletes. A sport where success could be measured, where there was never failure as you could always find something to feel successful about even at a meet where things didn't go all that well. Don't even get me started about the friendships made that will last a lifetime. It's been a great journey until now.....I hope the future will be a better one for all concerned.
PS Scotswim and rcoach, I enjoy reading your comments, you both make a hell of a lot of sense. Please keep coming with your comments. Speedboat, you almost sound desperate in your need for the speed suits and some of your comments are downright offensive to individuals who deserve respect.
Submitted by: chapter13
August 9, 2009 chapter13.
Thanks for your fine comments and support. Submitted by: scotswim
August 10, 2009 chapter13.
Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!
I have been trying to figure out a reply to some of these posts that have been put up here and my answers never come in shy of a book chapter so I have been hesitant to post, yet I was the one who asked Brent to post this in the first place.
However your post was EXCELLENT!! I am not sure how anyone can argue with your posting and it hits in the very heart of my two major issues in this matter and that being of the "up and coming" swimmers from age group through college, that being the impact to swimmers and families.
So my post here is going to be a shorter one.
It is a very simple invitation to all the people that have posted on this article who feel they know best regarding needing to keep the suits around.
GET INVOLVED FOR REAL!!! DON'T JUST POST OPINIONS ON A BLOG!!
I am. I post here because I think it's a great way to pass along information, opinions and generate HEALTHY dialogue on some of the most important issues in our sport which hopefully gets people more interested in getting INVOLVED.
If you are a swimmer, get on an athlete committee and talk about this issue (INTELLIGENTLY -- be open to both sides--but feel free to plead your case). If you are a coach, then you should definitely be involved. Go to USA Convention this fall (or if you are from another country....go to whatever meetings your NGB holds). If you are a parent become involved at the Local Swimming level in dialogue and discussion with other parents, officials and people who may be involved already who can give detailed and knowlegable data to you on this (or other important items).
I think posting blogs is great. But I am also highly involved in the sport "for real".
I am betting that some (am I right scotswim??haha) of you are already doing this.
But the best course of action is -- if you are posting here against the suits...that's fine, that's your opinion and your right to do so...but if you feel so passionately about it...get out there and DO something other than post on here.
I have been a little put out on here about the more personal level attacks at either John Leonard or ASCA. The thing is, they are out there DOING something about this.
What are you doing? Submitted by: rcoach
August 10, 2009 I'm a little confused about this article because I thought the speedsuits were banned from age group swimming by USA Swimming?
On another note though. I'm not for or against the suits but I have to wonder how this ban on the suits will affect swimmers psychological. It's pretty obvious some swimmers are benefiting more from these suits so what's going to happen when you never swim another "best time?" I have to believe it's going to be in the back of many swimmer's head-- ex: geez, it hurts way more to swim slow. I'm framing this question mostly around the general swimming population. I have no doubt most world class elite swimmers will be able to adjust and re-evaluate their goals accordingly but what about the swimmer who put on the suit and just barely qualified for Olympic trials, or Juniors, or whatever cut they were aiming for. Some swimmers are just never going to be at the same level again. I hope coaches are preparing to deal with this mental aspect because I have a feeling their might be backlash from the swimmers who gained a lot from these suits. Let's face it, as hard as swimmers work we're not going to see a lot of these records (especially some of the women's WR like the 200 free) broken for many, many years. One year your on top, next year your not, that sucks.
Submitted by: biffoflevi
August 10, 2009 I have been watching replays of US nationals, which took place a month before the world championships, on universal sports, and just noticed almost everyone was wearing THE suit. Funny, no one talked about or was against it then. All of sudden, at the beginning of the worlds, the propaganda war began. Maybe, it became so obvious that Phelps was going to be beaten badly by the european? Submitted by: zhaoleban
August 11, 2009 Zhaoleban:
Funny you should comment that there has not been an outcry against the suits.
Most of the comments on this site over the last 6 months plus have been suit generated. Most have been arguments against the use of performance enhancing suits.
Yes, there was an enhanced awareness after Michael suffered a defeat at the hands of Paul in the 200m free at the World Champs. From the point of view of riding the sport of the suits this was the best thing that could have happened, it woke some people up to the fact that all was not well with the sport. Some individuals neither for or against the suits have been made more aware of the issues. I think that it is unfortunate that the winner, in my opinion a very talented swimmer, has had his victory overshadowed by the suits.
On Swimnews.com Craig Lord has been tireless in his condemnation of the enhanced suits. Almost every article mentions them.
rcoach and I have regularly commented on these issues and in our own small way have tried to inform the swimming community of the problems the sport has brought on itself. Not everyone agrees with us and we welcome honest debate on the matter.
Some have taken their time to realize that there is a problem and that the suits issue has done nothing but damage the credibility of the sport. That realization may have been slow in coming but better late than never.
As for wearing the suits, well there are many who have literally been forced to don the suits for various reasons, for example government funding for the whole sport (not necessarily individuals) could be cut in some countries if performances at the World and Olympics are not of a certain level i.e. lack of medals or finalists. Many have donned the suits because to be competitive this year it has been necessary. Many (I would say most) will welcome a return to a technique based sport that swimming has traditionally been. After all who wants to train for many hours every day for months and years only to have their big moment questioned due to the suits, not many I would suggest. The few that wouldn't mind, would obviously be the ones benefiting most from the artificial boost. Like an addiction they will fight to keep them.
Biffoflevi: For every swimmer that gained an advantage over others there are many more that were penalized by the use of the suits, some benefited more than others and it is only natural that the ones who benefited most should argue that they should be kept. However, the fairest way for all is to limit the size of the suits and thus their impact on the performance. Better that all have an equal opportunity to excel once they dive in than worry about a few who may miss their artificially enhanced speed. After all it is the racing, the finishing place and the overall healthy aspects that are important. So the time maybe slower but at least they will be aware why they are not as fast. Better that than always having a question mark over your head and the constant doubt that the result was only achieved with artificial aids. I would say that is more demoralizing. Also having been beaten by someone in a faster suit can also create resentment and that is also unhealthy.
Rcoach: please don't worry about the length of your comments they are always worth reading, well written and thought out. Showing a true commitment and passion for the sport. Thanks for the insight you have brought to the debate. Submitted by: scotswim
August 11, 2009 What happen to January 1, 2010? Is USA swimming going to make an immediate ban, too? If so, a lot of people and distributors are going to eat a lot of money! No one can believe anything any governing bodies has to say….FINA, USA Swimming, NFHS…they're all a joke. Between now and December 31st, 2009 what meets will allow the use of the hi tech suits?
Submitted by: Susan B_1987
August 11, 2009 The Junior National meet times are ridiculous. And I do assume the times being so fast it has to be more than just suits. But the suits are much much more than most think for some of these swimmers. Meet records are dropping by so much. With muscle compression, and the way it seems to fight fatigue, maybe it's 4 to 8 seconds in events like a 400. People don't even seem to get tired. The winner of the 100 free was able to pop out of the free and smash the 200 back record in the very next event by 4 seconds, a record by one of our Olympians! And people who didn't think there was outcry about the suits before Phelps got beat just didn't pay any attention to who was talking and where they were talking. NCAA even added people to the championships because of the problems with double suits and unfair access to suits and the waffling about the suits. I've watched the introduction of a lot of innovations that were fairly revolutionary on the times...someone mentioned goggles, but there was Berkoff blastoff, no touch back turns, dolphin kick on breast walls, to mention just a few more, and the three point shot, oh yeah, we don't have that, but it takes something away from the sport for me when suddenly you take records that should be legendary and make them forgoten in a season. And if these records are done in a tech suit, say it, sort of like you can't do a record in a wind aided tunnel! Submitted by: deepender
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!
|
.jpg)
.jpg)
