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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
