Hello, friends,
I've been wondering where to post this message, so I might as well start here.
There is a lot of talk about records broken in the tech suit era and some people want asterisks on those records.
But no one talks about the suit which Thorpe wore in the 2000 Olympics. It sure looks like a wetsuit to me:
media.olympics.com.au/.../20100707_101809625_ian_thorpe_wins_400m_20001.jpg
Why aren't his victories and records tainted by the use of this suit?
Does the rule change about suits help explain why he was unsuccessful in his comeback attempt?
Any thoughts?
Parents
Former Member
Fina Rule SW10.8: "No swimmer shall be permitted to use or wear any device or swimsuit that may aid his/her speed, buoyancy or endurance during a competition."
I don't know what is more embarrassing: that FINA has had this rule for decades, and ignores it, or that the rest of the swim world remains largely mum about such a raging contradiction.
Similarly, a gold medalist and world record holder explains to the public how and why he cheated to win. He confesses. He implicates his coach and other swimmers. There is incontrovertible documentary evidence of the violation. There is no doubt that the violation improved his results. Yet he keeps his record and medal.
Would a swimmer also get to keep his record and medal if he explained to us afterward how he managed to take a performance-enhancing drug and avoid detection, or how he managed to slip on a non-approved suit while no one was looking prior to competition, or any other obvious performance-enhancing rule violation that he got away with?
Apparently in swimming the statute of limitations on rules violations expires not long after official results are posted.
Reply
Former Member
Fina Rule SW10.8: "No swimmer shall be permitted to use or wear any device or swimsuit that may aid his/her speed, buoyancy or endurance during a competition."
I don't know what is more embarrassing: that FINA has had this rule for decades, and ignores it, or that the rest of the swim world remains largely mum about such a raging contradiction.
Similarly, a gold medalist and world record holder explains to the public how and why he cheated to win. He confesses. He implicates his coach and other swimmers. There is incontrovertible documentary evidence of the violation. There is no doubt that the violation improved his results. Yet he keeps his record and medal.
Would a swimmer also get to keep his record and medal if he explained to us afterward how he managed to take a performance-enhancing drug and avoid detection, or how he managed to slip on a non-approved suit while no one was looking prior to competition, or any other obvious performance-enhancing rule violation that he got away with?
Apparently in swimming the statute of limitations on rules violations expires not long after official results are posted.
