Two More Arguments Against the New Suits

Guest editorial by John Craig

PHOENIX, Arizona, May 4. THE discussion of late about the new suits has pretty much drowned out everything else, even news of new world records, which is sad.

We've all heard the arguments, pro and con. The pro argument basically boils down to, you can't stand in the way of progress. Proponents of the new suits seem to suggest that the nays are Luddites who want to turn the clock back to the days of wool suits, no lane lines, and no goggles. There is also one particularly lame argument, which gets repeated over and over: hey, I threw the suit in the water and it didn't swim by itself. This same argument might be made for steroids: hey, I put the vial of steroids in the pool and it didn't swim by itself. But, people wouldn't use these things if they didn't help.

Of course, I'm not suggesting those who use the new suits are on a par with those who took steroids: the suits are legal and steroids are not. There's nothing wrong with the swimmers who've set records using the new suits, they're just playing the game that FINA has essentially forced on them. The question is: "Should the suits be legal?"

The main arguments against are that they're an artificial aid, they've made a mockery of the record book, they're expensive, and they create an uneven playing field.

There are two more arguments I'd like to make against the new suits.

I recently competed in one for the first time (I won't mention the particular brand, because it is not important; the complaint I have is generic.) The suit I wore was tight, constrictive, and it made the entire swimming meet a somewhat unpleasant experience.

Meets are supposed to be fun affairs, the payoff for all the hard training we do. But the entire time I was wearing it, I felt a little as if a (somewhat weak) boa constrictor were trying to slowly squeeze the life out of me. I could never get completely dry in between events. And, when I tried to loosen up in the warm-down pool after my events, I never felt really loose, since the suit was too constrictive. (I know, no one forced me to wear the suit, but if I hadn't, I would have been at a disadvantage to my competition.)

You've undoubtedly heard about those unfortunate women in the 19th century who had to wear corsets. Maybe you've even seen pictures of women having their corsets tightened by their ladies in waiting. I remember thinking, upon first seeing such pictures, what a miserable way to spend time. (I think the Guinness Book of World Records one year featured a picture of a woman with a 16-inch waist achieved through constriction.) Well, we're now their spiritual cousins.

Think of all the videos you've seen of record setters this year. What is the first thing they do upon climbing out of the pool? They get someone to unzip them, then they immediately pull their tops down. (Female swimmers don't even get to do that.) I couldn't wait to get out of mine. And, I was actually wearing one which was a size larger than had been recommended for me. This is not even to mention the dehydrating effect of being in a tight rubberized suit for hours. Sure, it's fun to do faster times. But times are relative, and if no one were wearing the suits, you could do times that are just as fast – relative to your competition.

Going to the bathroom in one of the new suits is a major undertaking. I pretty much had to forego the last-minute trip to the urinal before my event, a meet tradition for any swimmer who makes the effort to stay hydrated.

I accomplished my goals at the meet, so I should have been happy. And I was — especially when I got out of the suit. The best analogy I can think of is being given good news while you have a toothache: it's hard to fully appreciate and enjoy the good news.

Sports are supposed to be fun. If they're not, why do them? So my first argument is, anything that makes swimming unpleasant is in the long run going to drive away swimmers, and we don't want to do that.

One of the main benefits of swimming is that if you do it right, and perhaps combine it with a modicum of dry land training, it makes you look like a Greek god. I've always been proud of the build that swimming has given me — and mine is nothing special by swimming standards. The phrase "swimmer's build" has always had a nice ring to it, particularly to us swimmers. And one of the attractions – and inspirations — of big time swimming meets has always been all the people milling around who look as if they just stepped down from Mount Olympus.

So here's my second argument: why hide all that magnificence? If most big meets – and all televised competitions – feature swimmers who all look like tightly encased sausages, some of the sex appeal of the sport disappears. Would the original Tarzan movies have been hits if Johnny Weissmuller had played him dressed up in a rubber suit? Would Michael Phelps have been as big a hit with the ladies last summer if he had worn the full bodysuit for his fly and IM events? I doubt it.

The prohibitive expense of the suits, their short lifespan, the uneven playing field they create, and the fact that they go against the spirit of the original rules against artificial aids in swimming are the best arguments against the new suits. But, the two reasons just mentioned are also factors.

Let's bring back the (wholesome) sex appeal of swimming. And, let's make meets enjoyable again.

Name*

Email*

Welcome to our community. We invite you to join our discussion. Our community guidelines are simple: be respectful and constructive, keep on topic, and support your fellow commenters. Commenting signifies that you agree to our Terms of Use