Swimsuit Complaint Suit
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 11:40
Michael Phelps’s coach, Bob Bowman, ripped swimming’s governing body FINA on Tuesday for allowing polyurethane bodysuits at the current World Championships in Rome. He also threatened to pull the Olympic hero from any upcoming international meets until such suits are banned, saying that the advantages provided by such swimwear diminish the value of world records.
The tirade mays seem like sour grapes from a coach whose swimmer just lost a world record to a relative unknown (Germany’s Paul Biedermann) wearing one of the controversial suits (Phelps himself was contractually obligated to wear a Speedo LZR Racer suit, which raised eyebrows itself at the Beijing Games). And I don’t question that there very well maybe some bitterness on Bowman’s part.
But Bowman does have a point. World records are dropping like flies at these World’s–fifteen to date. More importantly, FINA has already outlawed the suits for next year, a ban that should take effect either in April or May. If the suits devalue individual accomplishments so much that they need to be banned at all, why wait a year? How many records will be shattered in that time?
It’s the equivalent of allowing major league baseball players to use aluminum bats for a season (I guess that would alleviate the steroid problem, as even pitchers would be hitting home runs with regularity). Or the equivalent of football players battling it out on a fifty-yard gridiron .
Oh, wait, they’ve done that. It’s called the Arena Football League. Ever check out the scores on any of those games? They’re astronomical.
Sour grapes or not, Bowman’s complaint is legitimate. And to be fair, he was quoted as saying:
I would be perfectly happy if we adjust all the records starting with the LZR. If we took them all out and went back to 2007. Even those in Beijing. We can have them in a separate list. These were done in polyurethane suits and then these are done in textile suits. Then we can start over in January and make the sport about swimming.
Doing so would wipe away many of his man Phelps’s records off the books, too. But it would even the playing field, so to speak, between the records of the past and the records of the future.
Garth Meyer
says:
July 30th, 2009 at 1:08 am
Nate,
Way to go… right down the middle. It's another bunch of asterisks to apply to a modern sports feat. Mark Spitz didn't even have goggles, I believe.
Mary
says:
July 30th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
he is 100% right, why should one person win becuase of their bathingsuit. If you ask me Phelps should wear one until they are banned.
ernessa
says:
July 31st, 2009 at 1:32 am
Hmm, I agree that if they're going to ban the suits, they should just ban the suits. I assume there's some sponsorship nonsense to blame for the ban not being more immediate.
However, I think we have to ask where the line should be drawn. Speedos are faster than the heavy trunks that people used to have to swim in. Should they be banned b/c all of the former trunk wearer's records were shattered? Where do we draw the line between progress and keeping every body in place, just so too many records don't get shattered. It's a fact of life that athletes get better throughout the generations, often due to physical-training, scientific, and equipment advances. If we ban this swimsuit now, will every sport have to start banning clothing and equipment advances. Societies should progress I say.
And you KNOW Phelps' coach wouldn't have complained if Phelps had a sponsorship deal with the poly suit guys as opposed to Speedo. Just saying…
Nate Barlow
says:
July 31st, 2009 at 1:43 am
Unfortunately, his deal with Speedo won't allow for it.
Nate Barlow
says:
July 31st, 2009 at 1:53 am
It's a very fine line between progress and trying to maintain the balance between players and history. In tennis, the composite rackets of today are far lighter than the wood rackets of old, which translates to faster motion. But in the long run, the record for fastest serve is pretty meaningless in the game–the records that matter are tournaments won, etc, which, since everyone has the same rackets, one can argue aren't affected (at least directly).
But thatt's why baseball does not aluminum bats in the majors–power totals with lighter bats would be ridiculous. Baseball's home run record is very meaningful to the game, so the inflated numbers that would occur with aluminum bats would distort things greatly.
Which is exactly why steroids are such a big issue. From a team playing team standpoint, when everyone was using them (and apparently nearly everyone was using them), no team probably had an advantage over another–they were all drugged. So World Series results are not tainted in the same way individual records are, since Barry Bonds home run totals are very much juiced when Hank Aaron's were not.
Gairzo
says:
July 31st, 2009 at 5:21 am
I don't know if I put swimsuits in the same argument as steroids.
The way I remember Beijing, was damn near every swimmer was wearing some form of the new swimwear.
If the playing field was uneven for a match or two it's leveled out since.
Besides, by covering less of the swimmer or by covering her more hydro-dynamically isn't it akin to the new bicycle wheels/suits we've seen developed in the last few years–that is, aren't we seeing a truer picture of what the properly suited swimmer can do?
Steroids alters the individual competitors ability to recover from the stress of competition and working out. They allow gifted, well built athletes to increase their natural performance levels. The Great Pumpkin-Headed Barry Bonds tells the tale. His home run totals increased 25%+ AFTER AGE 35. Unprecedented in the recorded history of team sports.
The aluminum bat ban in major league ball has as much to do with safety as with power. The pros would be endangering pitchers every game.
If equipment changes were acceptable in golf and tennis, why not swimming?
And, Ernessa hits the nail when she asks where we draw the line. Mark Spitz had a moustache and a full head of '70s hair. Somebody figured out if swimmers shave their heads and wax their body hair they could shave their times. So what? Does that mean the hairy guy who held a record in the '50s has a right to protest the hairless freaks swimming today.
If Nicklaus had the workout regimen of the modern golfer, he'd have won 30 majors. If Mario lemeiex had done his back exercises he would have made Gretzky look like a Hansen Brother. Babe Ruth never saw a gym unless it came with a beer tap and hot dog stand.
Where does the bitching end?
Nate Barlow
says:
July 31st, 2009 at 5:36 am
Gary, you misinterpret my comparison. I do not equate steroids with equipment changes. You are correct, steroids alter the individual competitors in a variety of ways. Equipment is the tools of the trade.
However, I do think the validity of records can be compared between steroids and equipment changes when you are dealing with an equipment change that so radically alters player performance that records are shattered left and right and you can basically throw out the old record book. How valid is the new set of records? Not at all valid, since they are completely defined by the equipment, just as steroids redefine a player's performance.
It may seem like a fine line between the comparisons, but it's an important distinction.
Gradual equipment changes over time are one thing. Yes, they may give the new players an advantage, but the players still have to make them make a difference. But radical jumps in technology take it out of the hands of the players and into the equipment itself.
I am all for equipment changes that improve the game, but not that completely obsolete everything that occurred before. Steroids are wrong in every instance, since the modify the player.