technology doping

RE: technology doping

Former Member — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 16:51:05 GMT

I think this whole suit issue is way out of hand.... The fastest swimmers are the fastest swimmers. If you put all swimmers in jeans, sweatshirts, and tennis shoes and had them race in those "costumes" the fastest swimmer would still win. It all comes down to swimmers having access to the same "costume". Cheating happens when competitors do things that aren't allowed for all competitors. It would be an issue if the "costume" became the engine. I don't think the LZR has set any records without a swimmer wearing it...... As for the old WR's some may have been faster if they had access to these suits 10-50 years ago, but most of these records would of or will be beaten by bigger, stronger, faster swimmers. "Evolution Happens" :2cents::bolt:

RE: technology doping

Former Member — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 15:24:14 GMT

Your argument isn't really true either. Some kids can afford $150.00 hightops or the newest Nike football cleats and some kids can't. That doesn't stop them from playing for the most part. Again, there is a distinct difference between Nike hightops and a Speedo LZR. Nike actually makes poor football equipment. They are sold for $150 because LT wears them, not because they make you a better football player.

RE: technology doping

Former Member — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 15:19:52 GMT

Are you kidding? Travel soccer costs the earth and 12 year old kids are running around in new $150 kangaroo skin cleats and $200 Adidas warm ups every season. That must be why the US dominates soccer. Because we spend $350 on equipment everyyear. Oh. Wait. Fortress, you couldn't have been more off point. Unlike (appearantly) a LZR, expensive cleats and warmups do not make you a better soccer player. And while it may be true that kids have to be part of a travel team to play soccer HS sports in suburbia, I was actually referring to the real world.

RE: technology doping

Former Member — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 13:52:54 GMT

George is right about the pro thing. I remember the first time the "dream team" basketball players went to the Olympics, it seemed like a big joke to me. Now it's gotten to the point where you just take it for granted that pros will be competing against amateurs. These LZR (lazier) suits are a different type of phenomenon, but they still make the games less relevant, and less honorable. Does the LZR-clad swimmer who swims a time he couldn't have swam without the suit really think he deserves a medal over the guy in the next lane who is a better swimmer but either can't afford or refuses to wear the suit? I don't. These guys may be impressing themselves by setting new so-called world records with the suit, but it isn't impressing me. I think it's lame. Pool swimming is starting to become like triathlon now with these techno-suits. In a sprint race, there is a very fine line between a FS pro or a LZR and a wetsuit. People intentionally keep the suits dry to take advantage of the added buoyancy. Buoyancy. you know, like that provided by a pull-buoy or a wetsuit or... a noodle. Ironman Hawaii is the holy grail of triathlon, and wetsuits are not allowed in that race. I think the Olympics should set a similar high standard and ban all of these suits which are designed to add buoyancy. If they had done that years ago, it would have preserved the meaning of the term "Olympic record", honoring past athletes who set true records without using dope suits. They didn't though, and I don't expect they will do anything now. I fully expect to see deck after deck of homogenous LZRs in Beijing.

RE: technology doping

Frank Thompson — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 10:49:28 GMT

Here is a historical perspective on this issue. coachsci.sdsu.edu/.../table.htm www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/.../17838.asp

RE: technology doping

Former Member — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 16:59:59 GMT

Would it be appropriate to limit time spent training. no more than 2 hrs a day. This was a problem in the past. Some atletes worked every day and had to fit their practice into free time. Others countries had their athletes in the armed forces and rather than training to be in the service their job was to train for sport. Other athletes who did not have support from their govenments had to work to put food on their tables. It has always been an unfair world. To swim in the Olympics I was not even allowed to work in a recreation centre, or receive a penny to assist me. If anyone gave me a bathing suit I would have been called a pro, and not allowed to be an Olympian. What ever happened, now professional athletes are competing in the Olympics. It should not even be called the Olympics it should be The Pro Games. The Olympics no longer follow the Olympic Creed, it is now Olympic Greed.

RE: technology doping

Former Member — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 16:44:48 GMT

But, they allowed a person to train better, longer and acheive better times. How is this not performance enhancing. Is it because they are cheap? I don't think that anyone is proposing restrictions on practice attire, if people want to wear LZRs in practice no one will object, the question is should they be allowed in competition. It seems to me that one has to look at both sides, why ban them and why not ban them? In the case of goggles it is better for the health of the athletes to allow them while there doesn't seem to be any argument for banning them. No one is disadvantaged by allowing goggles. And yes, excessive cost would be one possible consideration, along with detrimental health effects were there any. I suspect that if someone came up with some new technology that improved performance by 10% but cost $1,000,000 there would be very little argument before it was banned, so the cost argument is one of degree and people will differ on where to draw the line, trying to make it into a black and white issue doesn't move the discussion forward.

RE: technology doping

knelson — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 12:25:59 GMT

The rules don't dictate how you train other than listing what substances are banned. The rules specifically allow goggles to be worn during races.

RE: technology doping

Former Member — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 06:15:48 GMT

I really can't speak for all freshmen. The freshman I know on the Freshman Teams are/were travel players. I was really referring to the varsity level though. No way do you make varsity without being on a travel squad. For swimming, there's only varsity. No non-USS swimmers are on any high school teams that I know of. Only sport I know of that is happens is cross country and track where there are just regular youth teams. I just watched my freshman son run his first varsity 2 mile race on the track. :groovy: Only "technology" involved was a $48 pair of spikes. Last year, I paid a total of $180 to sign him up for youth cross country and track. That's dirt cheap. Gotcha. Most HS sports around here seem to take anybody on the Frosh squads...football most notably. Not all HS swimmers are USS swimmers around here. In fact, the HS teams have actually provided our USS team with some additional swimmers. Once the HS season is over, they want to keep going and our USS team gives them that opportunity.

RE: technology doping

Iwannafly — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 05:59:56 GMT

Not true about all of sports. Football, basketball, and soccer in particular. This is why those are the most popular sports: because playing it is attainable by the masses. A $550 suit contibutes to the unpopularity of the sport. That is why I don't like it. Your argument isn't really true either. Some kids can afford $150.00 hightops or the newest Nike football cleats and some kids can't. That doesn't stop them from playing for the most part. The same holds for swimming. Most kids train in and race in briefs or grab bag jammers. Some of them get their parents to spring for the newest and most expensive suits and other kids swim in whatever they have. I've seen some kids in cheap jammers swim some pretty impressive races and beat some kids wearing FSII suits.

RE: technology doping

aquageek — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 04:50:05 GMT

No, because they are not inherently performance enhancing. They certainly make both training and racing more comfortable, but they don't inherently affect your speed in the water. But, they allowed a person to train better, longer and acheive better times. How is this not performance enhancing. Is it because they are cheap?

RE: technology doping

Former Member — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:49:59 GMT

What is with all of this costume business anyhow? Why not just call a spade a spade? It's a swimsuit for crying out loud.

RE: technology doping

Former Member — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 15:53:42 GMT

I would stop at 1968 when I was in the first year of being on my high school swim team. At that time, there were no such things as “technology or innovations” in swimming (except for the rather mundane lane dividers). The “advances” at that time were hours spent in the pool, in the weight room, and practicing general fitness. We went in the pool wearing just simple and comfy briefs (which were the standard uniform issued throughout the city’s school district) and after that, it was up to the individual and their innate talent and training. There's another piece of equipment, or costume, or whatever you call it, that everyone seems to be ignoring. This item allowed swimmers to greatly increase the amount of time they were able to spend training in the pool. Consequently, big drops in times were seen when this item came into widespread use. The item is... GOGGLES. Were goggles in widespread use in 1968? (I'm too young to remember, but all of the photos I've seen of Mark Spitz show him swimming goggle-less.) Are goggles considered part of the "costume"? Or are they "equipment"? I would argue that they are definitely "performance enhancing." Should they be banned?

RE: technology doping

Former Member — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 15:48:08 GMT

I'd propose that the following be the rules for new suits: 1) At most, it could be have a specific density no less then 1.0 - i.e. not bouyant (sp?). 2) It could not aid in propulsion and/or aid in increasing leverage against the water - e,g, the wetsuits with the flaps at the arm pit area are out. 3) It does not fundamentally change the shape of the human body. For example, you can't wear something that makes you basically torpedo shaped, Compression is fine - one of the benefits of swim caps is compressing the hair. To this end, any swim wear used for competition may not have any part of it be more then X millimeters away from the part of the body that it is supposed to cover. 4) Swimwear is to be non-rigid and made from woven fabric that is completely permeable to water, regardless of material. 5) It may not extend above the wrists, base of the neck or below the ankles. Other than that, have at it. -LBJ

RE: technology doping

Former Member — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 15:30:55 GMT

I would argue that the turning back the clock argument is a red herring and the attempts at defining the appropriate limits on the cut of suits are a side show. The important question is what is the appropriate role of the suit/costume in swimming? Is it to cover the body or is it to enhance performance? The rules are pretty clear that suits are not supposed to enhance performance but the authorities want to have their rules and their sponsorships too. The secondary questions seem to be whether it is practical to define and avoid performance enhancing, and whether the current system of manufacturer sponsorship is the best way to fund the sport. I don't know if there is any practical way to avoid performance enhancement due to compression short of defining the cut. Is there a practical way to legislate away corset technology? There are various sports that mandate standard equipment so that is one viable route, and it still allows for controlled technological advancement. On the economic impact front you could make a rule that any suit used in competition has to be available to the public for $100, or whatever cost you like.

RE: technology doping

Former Member — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 15:18:57 GMT

So where does swimming go from here? Let's say at the Olympics umpteen world records are set by LZR-wearing swimmers. After the Olympics Speedo "invents" $800 fins that don't provide an advantage according to FINA. They just make the foot more slippery in the water and keep the foot in a super streamlined position. Again WRs are set by sponsored swimmers who wear them but not by those who do not. Arena "invents" $1,000 hand paddles that don't provide an advantage according to FINA but WRs are set by swimmers who............ Speedo "invents" a $1,500 blow hole device so a swimmer can breathe though the thing mounted on their back without ever turning his or her head. FINA says they don't provide an advantage but WRs are set by swimmers who.............. FINA decides: who needs swimmers? We'll train dolphins to do flip turns and relays in a pool. People will bet on the animals like they do at dog races. People will adopt dolphins that can no longer race because of injuries or age. FINA will get rich. Sounds like a idea for a Monty Python movie starring FINA --mjm

RE: technology doping

Former Member — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:53:02 GMT

About the male-female thing: it seems to me that the body suits are a more drastic change from male briefs compared to "conventional" female suits. Conversely, the change from the Duke Kahanamoku suit (forums.usms.org/showthread.php to the brief represented a greater change for men than that era's women's suit to the present ones (mostly a change in leg and arm coverage). So, as Geek asks: what era do we freeze the technology into? Max Planck had a take on this for the development of Physics: "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." (see en.wikipedia.org/.../Paradigm_shift). We can replace 'scientific truth' in the above with the 'technological development' and have a perfectly applicable adaptation of Planck's statement. One thing I have learned in 66 years of being alive. You simply can't win an argument one-on-one with anyone. There is too much personal ego and emotion involved. The only arguments that can be won are the purely formal ones judged by a group of supposedly neutral individuals. That's why science can develop at all and that's why our esteemed councilor from DC can win cases occasionally. Otherwise, arguing is just a waste of time. Hmmm. Does that mean that I should find something more productive to do? But wait, it's so much fun to show everyone how smart you are and how incredibly dense the other guy is...

RE: technology doping

Former Member — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:29:24 GMT

Replying with further condescension. Should I have expected anything more? No. I'd prefer regulations against suits that go past the knee. For men, any material above the waist would also be prohibited. For women, nothing on the arm or neck. That's jammers for men and kneeskins for women. This fits in with the "less is better" era of swim suits, except for some extra fabric on the leg if people desire more modesty (and maybe a little speed boost). Less fabric means less opportunity for performance differentiation between tech suits, and more affordable suit prices. It wouldn't be about what you're wearing quite as much as it is now. Also, this is the outfit that Gary Hall used to win a gold medal in the 2004 Olympics. It's not slow.

RE: technology doping

Former Member — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:11:48 GMT

Rather than continue to listen to the incessant whining of people who want to turn back the clock on swimming, I'd prefer to know at what point/date you would desire to stop the technology advances. I asked the same question to the Smiths in a topic a while back when they were complaining about rule changes (eg: dolphin kick off the wall on breaststroke) hurting the sport. That said, the one problem I do have with the LZR is that it is very expensive and thus some are left out.

RE: technology doping

Former Member — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:57:33 GMT

Do you know this for a fact? No, I don't. I'm just taking historical, stereotypical demographics for workers in research and development (pure science and engineering) to be a fact in this particular case.

RE: technology doping

knelson — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:36:02 GMT

I admit just saying "ban all tech suits" is an untenable position. Leonard's attempt at rules for suits is a pretty good start. Maybe FINA just needs to spell out more precisely what is allowed in a suit and then make sure they are testing any new suits thoroughly. I agree with Lindsay that the new suits blur the line between being merely a costume and being a piece of equipment, and that's my problem with them. You shouldn't compare a swimsuit to, say, a bike or a pair of skis for that reason: those are considered sports equipment, whereas a suit should be a costume. And, yes, Geek is right, too. The problem with "turning back the clock" is where exactly do you turn it back to?

RE: technology doping

aquageek — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:01:58 GMT

Leonard's case is pretty good, well stated. As to the notion of mandating a price for a product, forget that. If you can't afford it, tough luck!

RE: technology doping

Former Member — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:59:02 GMT

Name a year, state your opinion(s) as to why. Then, after you do that, which will obviously be around the time you were relevant in swimming, please tell me why innovations that assisted you should be allowed, but not subsequent innovations. In other words, please explain why you should be allowed to benefit from advances in your era but not today's swimmers. Well, I'm afraid I'm condescending, too, on this matter. My feelings are EXACTLY the same as The Geek's. It comes across loud and clear when you read the responses posted on different threads on this Forum since NO ONE has suggested going back to early 20th century swimwear. Kirk has even developed a perfect personal rationale why we shouldn't: Because the early suits only got in the way of the swimmer and newer briefs were just getting out of the way of the swimmer. Never mind that, as is obvious to the casual viewer, The Duke's swimwear looks pretty much like a kneeskin in design. Anna Lea pointed that out. So, does that mean that the kneeskin is getting back in the way of the swimmer? Apparently. So, it must actually be a disadvantage rather than an advantage since the swimmer must go through such terrible mental agony to wear it. It looks like future shock to me, folks. It's also interesting, to pick up on something Leslie alluded to, that women haven't yet complained once on this forum (that I've read) about the technical suits. Some prefer one and some prefer others but most seem to be in favor of the new suits. So, here is my conundrum: Men do most of the developmental work on the new suits but seem to have the biggest problem accepting the change when it occurs. This should be reason enough to shun additional doses of testosterone, even if it weren't frowned upon by some organizations.

RE: technology doping

knelson — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:58:33 GMT

What is with all of this costume business anyhow? Why not just call a spade a spade? It's a swimsuit for crying out loud. That's what FINA calls it in the rules. They would probably just call it a swimsuit if it weren't for the full-body suits. They probably didn't no what to call what is effectively a body condom. ;) I would argue that they are definitely "performance enhancing." Should they be banned? No, because they are not inherently performance enhancing. They certainly make both training and racing more comfortable, but they don't inherently affect your speed in the water.

RE: technology doping

aquageek — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:27:35 GMT

Balking at price? That is quite a statement from someone who loves cycling! :) Yes, but if I spend a fortune on a bike I can use it for years, as opposed to this suit which has a lifespan of one or two meets.