The Case for Banning the New Generation of Swimsuits and Rescinding All World Records Set Since February 2008

The swimming community (‘the Fina family’) is in agreement that rule SW 10.7 is a good, clear, robust and fair rule.

SW 10.7 No swimmer shall be permitted to use or wear any device that may aid his speed, buoyancy or endurance during a competition (such as webbed gloves, flippers, fins, etc.). Goggles may be worn.

The post- February 2008 swimsuits contravene Fina SW 10.7 on all three counts of permissibility:

1. Buoyancy: it is now accepted fact that the new generation of suits aid buoyancy. This is the reason Fina enforced the ‘one suit’ rule in the Dubai Charter. In accepting that multiple suits aided buoyancy the only questions still remaining are, ‘Is the buoyancy aided by a) the air trapped between the layers of the multiple suits, b) is it aided by the material used in the suits or c) is it a combination of both?‘ If the answer is a), and a) only, then the question of permissibility still remains. If the answer is b) or c), then the new generation of suits are illegal.

2. Speed: by aiding buoyancy the new suits aid speed by decreasing both wave drag and form drag and probably also friction drag. They therefore lower resistance to forward movement; for the same technique and effort the swimmer swims faster; the input/output ratio of applied effort and subsequent propulsion is changed. The new suits also aid speed by further decreasing form drag caused by the shape of the body presented to the water. This is achieved by constricting the tissues which both lowers the cross-sectional area being propelled through the water (reducing form drag and improving the length/width ratio) and helps prevent or minimises undulations of the muscles and fat caused by waves flowing along the body surface. Minimising these undulations reduces wave drag. Reducing drag improves speed.

3. Endurance: a definition of endurance is the ability to continue at the same speed for a longer time. As a consequence of decreasing drag the new suits permit the swimmer to conserve energy by expending lower degrees of effort for the same speed, especially in the earlier parts of a race. This allows more energy to be available during the later stages of a race which, in turn, permits the swimmer to swim faster or to maintain the same speed for longer. The new suits therefore aid endurance.

It is very clear to everyone involved in our sport that the new generation of suits should not have received Fina’s approval. How they did so remains a mystery to the majority of the swimming community. However if the arguments about buoyancy, speed and endurance given above are correct, it is also clear that the approval was incorrectly given and that the new generation of suits are illegal under existing Fina law.

Fina must now act as its own ‘Court of Appeal’ and overturn the approval of all post-February 2008 suits.

This extreme measure should not be seen as a climb-down or loss of face. It should be seen as an admission of error which has inadvertently taken our sport into chaos and to the very brink of disaster. Correcting the error is the ‘right’ thing to do and Fina has started on that process with admirable conscience, consultation and openness.

As an aside: goggles – the wearing of goggles increases drag. Designing goggles for minimum drag merely attempts to bring the wearer back to ‘square one’ where the natural shape of the face is replicated. Goggles do not aid speed, buoyancy or endurance, they aid vision.

Reversing the approval of all post-February 2008 suits would reverse the ratification of all world records set since that date. That would no doubt upset a large number of swimmers (there is no point typing a specific number because it would be outdated by the time the sentence was completed; a telling of example of the ludicrous and farcical times we are experiencing) but that is a price to be paid for saving our sport. Performances (times) should be nullified but results (placings) should remain. The placings and medals for competition since February 2008 should remain in place – to a large extent the suits were available to most (if not all) competitors and ‘the Kitajima stance’ showed that where there were odds against accessing the new suits they were not insurmountable odds. It is accepted that not everyone had complete access to all types of suit all the time from February 2008 onwards but that is a fact which cannot be changed. Swimmers swam under world record times in the new suits and that is a fact that cannot be changed, but they did so wearing suits that had been ‘approved’ in contravention of our sport’s existing rules. Retrospectively overturning the approval is the only way to bring sense and sensibility back to our sport.

If International Federations chose to follow suit (no pun intended) and reverse the ratification of national records is not a consideration here. There have been many instances in the history of Fina where individual Federations have had rules and regulations in place which have differed from Fina rules and regulations; not an ideal situation but also not one which would bring about the destruction of our sport.

Reversing the approval of post-February 2008 suits and instigating new measures for what constitutes an aid to buoyancy, speed or endurance would save our sport and elevate the reputation of Fina to a magisterial level.