Swimming records: Final recap of Rome

A final word on the record record-fest in the swimming pools of Rome

There may have been spread-betting prior to swimming's World Championships in Rome, but you'd have been hard-pressed to get anyone to agree that there could possibly be 43 world records in the pool in Rome. The previous record was 29, back in 1976, when drugs were alleged to be giving the swimmers a boost. Beijing saw 25 world records fall, while the previous World Championships in Melbourne in 1997 saw 15 world records.

So 43 world records represents something of an explosion - not entirely unexpected, of course, but nevertheless, the sport has surely never seen such a dramatic leap forward.

The current age of swimming world records - a summary of Rome

On the men's side, 14 events were swum faster than ever before, while on the women's side, only 3 records survived (out of 20 each). The table below is a final summary of the Championships, showing the age of the records in days (measured from today, 4 August). The average age of men's records - 198 days, compared to only 79 days for women's records. However, that men's figure is inflated by what is now the oldest record in swimming by a considerable margin - Grant Hackett's 1500m record.

His time is in fact only one of two across either men's or women's events that dates back to before the Beijing Olympic Games. The big problem for FINA is that if they ban the suits from 2010, this table will start ageing pretty quickly, and very few records will be set. While those in swimming may not care, the excitement generated among casual observers by the record-spree would soon die down, and there is a concern that the sport will suddenly stagnate. Effectively, the egg has been scrambled, and putting it back into the shell now is, well, impossible.


The great debate

The huge debate around the suits has been a source of fascinating reading for me in the last week. I could almost save myself the time of writing this post and simply refer you to the discussion and comments section from our last post, where you have made some telling points and great arguments. It's well worth a read for those who don't usually go through the comments - there are some informed opinions from both sides of the debate. I do apologize for not responding to each, but work has prevented me from doing them justice! Your opinions have come through loud and clear though, thank you!

Me? I'm undecided. I admit that my position on the suits has perhaps softened in the last few weeks - initially, I would have called simply for a ban, as FINA have promised to do from 2010 onwards, but the more I've thought about it, and the more I've read the reasoned responses from those who are advocating that technology happens to be part of sport, the more I question that myself!

The world record issue - one for the purists, but not disasterous

Certainly, the purist in me desires to see world records set by great performances, with the knowledge that I really have seen the greatest swimmer in history swim faster than any other human being ever has. It's difficult to think that when a world record is broken in a semi-final, then the next semi-final, and again in the final! And when the top 5 swimmers all go under the world record time, it's hard to believe you're witnessing a momentous occasion! (and this happened far too regularly!)

I can however acknowledge the argument that says that great swimmers will be remembered for their performances in spite of the transient nature of world records. So Ian Thorpe and Alex Popov's names no longer occupy a place on "current world records". Does it diminish their achievements? Hardly. The question of whether the person replacing them is as great a champion is another issue altogether, of course...

Equality of competition

The other problem is the equality of competition. It seems that for a while yet, some suits will remain better than others. Did we see gold medals being given to the world's best swimmers in Rome? In some cases, yes, definitely. In others, maybe not. Regardless, it hardly seems fair that the winner will either be doubted on the basis of which suit they wore, or the loser will be denied victory for the same reason! This disparity is a problem that I don't think many people would argue is bad for the credibility of the sport. Swimming has always been man vs man (or woman), and suits that overcome natural differences in performance ability change that dynamic.

Then again, the counterpoint is that over time, the technology will even out, and by the end of 2009, all the major manufacturers will have adopted the same designs. That assumes, of course, that FINA actually puts into place proper boundaries with respect to materials and design. If that were to happen, we'd pretty soon be back on an even playing field and it would be man vs man once again. The only difference is that they'd all be swimming much faster than "man from 2007"!

Prohibitive cost for juniors

Then the final argument, which we aired in our previous post on swimming, is that position occupied by parents and coaches, that the legalization of super suits will make swimming prohibitively expensive. At $800 a suit, and with the lifespan of a suit being only a dozen swims (if that, take a look at the picture at the bottom (pardon the pun) of the post), it would elevate swimming into that category of sport that requires substantial money just to compete in. Those involved in swimming, with the most to lose (or spend) are most vocal against this possibility.

This is a valid concern, of course, and parents are coaches are concerned. However, it's not too difficult to ban the suits at junior level, and have a different set of restrictions in the professional ranks. So while I empathize with the current predicament, this too is not an insurmountable problem.

Final verdict?

So, a debate with a point and counterpoint at every turn. FINA has promised to ban the suits from 2010. There are of course implications. As mentioned above, they would effectively be "freezing" many of the records for the forseeable future. Does that matter? If the 2011 World Championships produce five world records instead of 43, will they be undervalued and dismissed as boring? Last year's Beijing Olympics saw three track records broken in men's events. It was hardly boring. If the IAAF World Championships produce more than three world records, they'll go down as fanastic. It's pretty common for only three or four world records to fall each year in athletics. I don't believe this is too big a concern, except perhaps for the neutral observer who thrives on the hype.

The other argument, of course, as pointed out by Vava in the comments, is that each world record (and they would fall eventually - people who are saying they'll last decades are exaggerating) will be even more exciting and spectacular - this can only be a good thing compared to the routine nature of world records in the last 12 months.

I do believe that in terms of commercial rights and sponsorship, for both FINA and the swimmers, the ban on super suits will harm the swimming market. I realise that the manufacturers will still sponsor swimmers because they wish to encourage aspirant children to pick their brand to swim in. However, the standardization of technology and suit design will effectively force on the manufacturer a situation where their only means to differentiate themselves will be on the basis of colour! Given that everyone in the sport will know that one suit is identical to the next, it's difficult to see more than a couple of manufacturers surviving - swimming would be narrowed down and only those with the best production/supply chain or economies of scale would be able to survive. They would, of course, and may even thrive, but the market would effectively close.

Finally, what is most interesting to me is that everyone, from the winners, to the losers are saying the same thing about the suits - ban them. From Michael Phelps, a winner in five events but loser in one (200m freestyle), to the man who beat him, Paul Biedermann, are saying that they look forward to the day when we go back to basic swimsuits. I'm often reminded that my opinion is that of an outsider, someone who follows the sport with a keen interest, but without a vested interest. I can only take particular note of what those with an interest are saying, and to a man and woman, they seem to be asking for the ban.

Therefore, concerns about commercial aspects, sponsor relationships and world record stagnation aside, I do think that the ban is the best option. How much easier would this have been to solve had FINA, back in 2008, created clear guidelines for swimsuits, as everyone was calling for? The whole world saw the problem when Speedo launched the LZR, but unclear boundaries, FINA's inaction, and the natural evolution in technology have scrambled the egg, and getting it back into the shell will prove a slightly more difficult proposition!

Ross

Donate and support The Science of Sport

Thank you for taking time to read and follow our coverage of the swimming world championships here at The Science of Sport. We hope you've enjoyed the insights we've tried to provide! Your time and energies are greatly appreciated!

We run this site as a "labour of love" and will continue to do so, but of course, any support is greatly appreciated. So, if you would like to donate and support our continued efforts to bring you the insights and analysis, please consider donating to our site. You can do so in one of two ways:

1. If you are reading this on our site, then simply scroll up to the top of the page, where you will find the DONATE button at the top right of the page.
2. If you are reading this in our email newsletter, click here to be taken to our site, where you will see the DONATE button at the top right of our homepage.

Thank you once again, and keep on reading!

Swimsuit debate: Differing perspectives

Two points of view, as the swimsuit debate continues

One of the positive effects of the ongoing swimsuit debate is the range of perspectives it brings forward. I had planned a detailed post on swimming world records, a historical look at how swimming has evolved, largely in response to some your comments regarding how what we're seeing is progress and natural evolution.

But then a couple of very diverse opinions arrived, courtesy of Mark (a reader) and Jim (our maven, who sends me great pieces on this issue every day!). Both are worthy of our attention, and so I have decided to take the "lazy" option and delay my own swimming world record analysis until the Rome World Champs are over, and instead post these perspectives.

The "welcome to progress view"

First of all is a comment from Mark, received in response to yesterday's post. It's without doubt one of the best comments we've received (and we've had some great ones), because it's succinct, to the point, black and white. It's on the cynical side, but it's realistic, and it's difficult to fault the interpretation of the current situation. It's shown below, unedited, in lighter grey text:

It was inevitable that technology eventually reached swimming. What is surprising is that it took so long. As much as the purists or traditionalists hate the thought, swimming is now changed forever. There is no going back or delaying the inevitable by trying to ban technological development of the swimming costume. It will not do to have the elite swimmers of the world swimming slower than a club or casual swimmer simply because they are not allowed to use the technology, however fair it makes the competition. It is like banning technology from a Formula 1 car and having a normal passenger vehicle able to lap faster around a track.

As Einstein pointed out, you can’t solve problems at the same level as you created them. As ludicrous as this sounds, we must now accept that swimming and power boating are pretty much synonymous, the only difference being that one is powered by a human machine. What swimming has to do is to accept the technology and manage it to make it as fair as possible for all the elite competitors. So, as for power boating or motorsport, lay down rules and regulations, introduce costume checks, and then either go with a F1 scenario where the manufacturers are allowed to develop their own costumes within certain guidelines or have a NASCAR type scenario where a finite number of manufacturers create a “chassis” and the swimmers have a choice of one of these for their event.

I can almost hear the traditionalists being sick. But their nausea is going to get worse because athletics and road running can’t be far behind. After all, we already have a bionic man who is cleared to run if he makes the qualifying times. It is a short step to aerodynamic suits, body implants, and special shoes. Pure, unadulterated, mano-a-mano competition is very close to being history altogether. Drugs put paid to fair competition a long time ago already. Kicking and screaming won’t help. It is time to accept and manage the situation.

Swimming has now joined all those other sports where one can’t be sure if it is the man or the equipment doing the winning. Because this whole scenario is so new, there are obviously disparities right now, but these will soon be wiped out. Speedo will not sit still and will be back on a par with the other manufacturers sooner rather than later. And as with other sports such as golf and tennis, all the elite competitors will have access to the latest technologies and then it just remains a case of seeing who can utilise them the best. It may not be pretty, but welcome to progress.

Pretty much spot on, from start to finish. It brings a different perspective to the debate, which is why I enjoyed it so much. Many of you have been saying the same things, and it certainly does make one think twice about how the problem can be solved, now that it has been created. A great quote from Einstein, and a dilemma for swimming.

I'll be honest, I cannot see the simple solution here. The more I think about it, the more I believe that for FINA to ban the suits outright would drive a stake through the commercial heart of the swimming world, because the suit manufacturers are integral to the commercial survival of swimming. Imagine legislation was passed that said all cars had to be black sedans with an engine size of 1.6L - pretty soon, BMW, Lexus, Mercedes-Benz and Audi would be out of business. Is that where swimming will go? There's a danger of it!

Here's an even worse scenario, for the swimmers themselves - why would a swimsuit manufacturer even consider a sponsorship of an individual swimmer (or a national federation) when all suits are the same and as basic as possible? Answer - they wouldn't. If there is no opportunity to differentiate themselves from competitors, then manufacturers would have no incentive to show the world that Michael Phelps chooses Speedo, or that Alain Bernard swims with Arena. It wouldn't matter, and therefore the value of sponsorship would be massively reduced. Commercial "competition" would be negated, and the victims will be the athletes. Integrity of performance is one view, commercial survival of swimmers is another.

The coach perspective: Implications from the top, to the bottom

The next perspective I want to share is that of a coach. This is a letter written by John Leonard, who is the Executive Director of the American Swimming Coaches Association. It's a little less succinct, and not quite as direct and elegant as Mark's post above, but it brings out some key points which I haven't yet posted, and which may be new to you as you follow this debate. The more I think about it, the more I think that this aspect of equality at the children's level might be the biggest danger posed by the suits. I'm not sure I agree with all of the arguments in the letter, but there's a lot to chew on. I've posted the letter in grey, with some "running commentary" from me in black at various intervals in the letter.

Over the past 18 months, the swimming world has been a frenzy of controversy over the emergence of technology in swimsuits. At the recent World Championships in Rome, the constant and overwhelming refrain about suits, echoed the volume and intensity of the last time we were in Rome for a World Championships,when the topic was doping....drugs distorting our sport...in 1994. Fifteen years later, the emotional topic was the new high tech suits that have swept through the sport from the World Championship level down to the local park district championships in the summer league. The parallels were impossible to miss.

FINA, in an unprecedented move at its Congress in Rome, banned the use of all “non-textile” materials from suits beginning in 2010, and limited the coverage of the body to “knees to navel for men” and “knees to shoulder straps” for women. 168 nations voted in favor of the restrictions, against a mere 6 in opposition. (who apparently did not understand the word “textile”) This in the face of strong opposition to the move by the sitting President and Executive Director of the FINA organization. Amazing and never seen before. The USA delegation initiated the restrictions and led the opposition. Why such a strong reaction in opposition to the existing plastic and rubber suits?

[Extra-ordinary that the vote was passed 168 to 6. A couple of people have said that we've seen this before - I can't imagine that strong an opinion existed from within a sport.]

A parent new to the sport, from a middle class background, might well say “hey, why not? Technology marches on! Equipment gets better. Why not let my son/daughter wear one of the fancy new suits and swim faster?”

Its a valid question that requires a thoughtful answer. Here it is.

The answer revolves around two words, with of course, a considerable amount of “side data” that adds to the intensity of the discussion and the strength of the resolution to end the problem worldwide.

Those two words are “Maximizing” and “Enhancing”.

Quality lane lines “maximize” the opportunity of the athlete to swim fast, with minimum turbulence in the lane. (you should have seen the waves in the pool back in the 60’s and 70’s.)

Good Goggles allow the athlete to see the turns, see their competitors, and comfortably compete.(to say nothing of allow them to train hard for hours....impossible in the chlorine pool without goggles...in the old days, yardage and performance was a fraction of what it is today.) Goggles Maximize the opportunity of the athlete to work hard.

Evolution in coaching techniques in training and biomechanics allow the athletes to Maximize their ability to benefit from their time in the sport.

Swimsuits, up until approximately the year 2000, and certainly until early 2008, were designed to maximize the opportunity of the athletes to go fast....the manufacturers designed suits to “get out of the way of the water”. Less suit, less friction with the water, less drag, tighter fit, and better materials MAXIMIZED the ability of the athlete to perform to their highest earned level.

[The line between "maximize" and "enhance" is very grey indeed! I would be cautious to stake my argument on such a volatile term, which can be taken to mean different things by different people! You may decide that goggles also enhance performance, depending on your starting position. Or that the suits maximize talent. The line shifts very quickly. I appreciate the principle, but it's difficult to avoid this become "circular" in nature - it all depends on where you draw the line between the two.]

Beginning in 2008, manufacturers took advantage (and must be applauded for doing so, within the existing rules, which were close to non-existent) of the idea of designing suits to ENHANCE the ability of the athlete to swim faster. A line had been crossed. Designed suits incorporated plastics, rubberized material and new design criteria, to enhance the ability of the athlete to be buoyant in the suits (riding higher makes you faster), wrapped more tightly (compressing the “jiggly parts” makes you MUCH faster) and shed water from the plastics and rubber materials much more effectively, thereby reducing the drag of the suits remarkably.

Since February 2008, 158 world records have been set by elite athletes. [I didn't know it was this many - amazing figure, surely unprecedented in the sport] Their ability to perform has moved from being “maximized” by their swimsuits, to being “enhanced” by their swimsuits. This rate of improvement is absolutely farcical in the historical context of over 100 years of our sport. At the world championships, new world records were receiving polite applause akin to the “golf clap” for a good shot, rather than the historical roars of appreciation that a swimming crowd used to provide when a human barrier went down, as it infrequently did, by great athletes at the peak of their power.

How does this translate down to the local pool?

Pretty simple. The manufacturers don’t make any money by selling suits to the elite athlete. They give the suits away to them. They count on age group swimmers watching the “big guys” and wanting the same suits and equipment.

And lo and behold, the same miraculous benefits accrue to 12 year old Sam and Samantha when they put on the “magic suits” in their local championships. The time drops are miraculous, the smiles are, literally, “priceless” and child, mom and dad are all happy.

Wait a second. That suit just ripped. wow. How did that happen? How much did it cost? Wow! You paid $500 for a suit that Sam just put his foot through, rendering it a $500 broken garbage bag? Uh-oh., well, honey, get him another one....we can’t have Joe Jones’s son Pete beat him in the 200 free tomorrow. Teeth Grit. This is a kids sport? We now have $1000 in suits so far.

And of course, all those magic benefits only last 7-15 swims, so good for maybe 2-3 meets, unless its a championship and your child swims 6 events and makes finals in all events...in which case its $500 a meet.

Lets see, $500 a meet, we go to 2 meets a month, 10 months of the year....Honey, its gonna cost us $10,000 Just for Samantha’s suits this year!

Well, the solution is simple....just wear the suits for the championship meet and wear your regular suit the rest of the time. OK. Good.
But, Samantha’s 58.5 100 free with the magic suit on, just became a 1:02 100 free with the old suit on. Smiles gone. Gone. From Samantha, from Mom. From Dad. Oh well.

[This whole section is very emotionally written, surprising from a high-ranking official, I must confess. I'm not sure of the intended target of the letter, but it's colloquial rather than professional, which I don't think would make much impact on those for whom it should be important (FINA officials). But still, it is a valuable point in the debate. Will parents have to buy these top-end suits? Cycling is expensive, does that restrict access and opportunity? It would be a shame for swimming to go this way, where financial capacity determines junior success]

And of course, there are some other objections as well.

First, the magic suit deal is like paying for your child to have instant improvement. Is that what you want your child to learn from the sport? Or do you want them to learn to persevere, EARN improvement with hard work, attention to detail, paying attention to the coach and, shall we say it again...”Working Hard”. Or do you want them to learn that you can always “pay your way” with cash to what you want?

“Earn it, or buy it”. Which do you want to teach? Answer carefully, parents.

Second, the suit does not affect everyone the same. The thin, fit swimmer will benefit marginally by it. The overweight swimmer will swim like a young seal in it. Spending the same $500 on two children will yield radically different results. Not a fair competition at all. Is that what anyone wants?

Third, and its seems unnecessary to say this...but if you just buy 3 suits a year, that’s $1500 or MORE. (Today, purchasing one of the great European suits online from the USA will cost you $900...with no guarantee of fit, durability or return-ability, and about 30% of them RIP on the first attempt to put them on...no refund, folks.) Do we really want age group and high school swimmers to have to spend that kind of money to BUY success rather than work for it? It doesn’t make our sport a middle class sport, it makes it a sport for wealthy families.

Are you pooh-poohing that? Wait till your son or daughter gets beat the first time by someone whose mommy or daddy could afford a more expensive piece of plastic and rubber than you can. The bitter taste in your mouth is not fun. Not much in the way of “sport” there.

So, in answer to the local official who asked “Why are “they” (FINA officials) wasting time with worrying about THAT? Don’t they have better things to do?”

The answer is no, the suit debacle is the most important thing that any of us can attend to. It preserves the heart and soul of our sport....which is reverence and appreciation for the hard work, attention to detail, courage and teamwork required to be a fine competitive swimmer and to learn to succeed with those life-skills. Instead of with your Daddy’s wallet.

The Congress (not the Ruling Bureau) of FINA took the rules into their own hands after the Bureau had time and again failed to establish the rules necessary to keep our sport vital, credible and important. Bravo for them.

All the Best, John Leonard

All in all, apart from the tone of the letter, it raises an interesting counter-point. I'm not a parent, I have no experience in coaching young children, and so I cannot speak from experience. However, the sport of swimming, which is heavily time-based and where talent is identified on the basis of time needs to ensure more than perhaps others sports that it allows young children equal opportunity to express their talent. If financial limitations prevent this, then it would indeed be a shame.

Then again, other expensive sports have done fairly well, but perhaps lose out on talent for this very reason. And finally, over time, the suits will become cheaper, and so this argument is not necessarily a great argument for banning suits outright.

I'd love to hear your views, as always!

Ross

Swimming world records - not a good day for Speedo

The battle of the suits continues in Rome: Swim suit analysis

Tuesday the 28th of July was not a good day for Speedo. Michael Phelps, the greatest swimmer of all time (in terms of medals), and Speedo's big name sponsored athlete, beaten into second in an event he has for a long time dominated. Beaten by a man who only a year ago was 5th in the Olympic Games in the same event. A man who, one year on, has improved his time from that Olympic final by a staggering four seconds, wearing Arena's X-glide swimsuit. A man who has himself admitted that the suit makes "him really fast; honestly, about two seconds in the race. I think the suits are destroying a little bit the sport. It’s just, put on a suit, and you’re really, really fast". (Just for those who are interested - Biedermann's 400m time from Beijing was 3:48. The other day, he swam 3:40 - perhaps "two seconds" is a little bit of an underestimate..)

And this is not criticism of Biedermann. He's emerged from the middle of the pack (he was young in Beijing), and is now a double record holder, double world champion and has taken two of the great records in the sport.

In case you missed it, he won the 200m freestyle final in a new world record of 1:42.00. That's a full 0.96 seconds faster than the old record, which belonged to Michael Phelps. The same Michael Phelps who he beat yesterday, by about 1.5 seconds, and who was wearing the suit from 2008 - Speedo's LZR Racer. So a bad day for Phelps, and a bad day for Speedo.

Queen continues to get air-time in Rome

The Biedermann world record brought to 11 the number of events whose world records have been broken - I've just about lost count of how many times the records have gone, because some events have seen the record improved twice, often in successive races. I think it's 15...or was it 16? Who knows, I guess I'll find out later when I watch this evening's action. All I know is that Queen has continued to get maximum air-time in Rome!

And, perhaps more worryingly, it seems that it is not only world records that are meaningless. Yesterday, we looked at the world records, and the fact that only one or two are older than one year. Call me a purist, but I like the idea that a world record is a challenging boundary! However, I can accept that it's not necessarily a bad thing for records to fall on average every few hundred days, and almost certainly at every major championship.

The problem for swimming, and this answers a question covered below, is that the way the situation has been managed has actually compromised the integrity of the competition. That is, we do not know if were are seeing seeing swimmers compete on a level playing field (or pool as it were). It's a tough thing to say, but World Champions from Rome will always have an asterisk next to their performances.

Did we see the best swimmer win the 200m freestyle race yesterday? Did the best swimmer win the women's 400m freestyle title on day 1? Has the best swimmer won anything this week? You can see the problem with the doubt created by the suits - great swimmers, deserving of titles, are either unfairly doubted, or flat out denied a title because their suit is two seconds slow. It's a lose-lose all around. As for the viewer, we'll never know because there is apparently such a large discrepancy between rival swimsuits that the outcome of the race may be significantly influenced by a sponsorship agreement that prevents an athlete from wearing a certain brand.

Michael Phelps may never have won the title - perhaps Biedermann was the better swimmer. Phelps did swim slower than he did in Beijing - by .22 seconds. I certainly do not wish to be a Phelps-apologist and say he "was robbed". Similarly, I would not say that Kirsty Coventry, Stephanie Rice, or Aaron Piersol are "victims" of the swimsuit debacle. However, their sudden (because 11 months is sudden) fall from the top step to sometimes not even making finals is symptomatic of a shakeup caused by something other than training and talent.

So Phelps did not improve between Beijing and Rome. Biedermann did (by 4 seconds). One would not ordinarily expect the level to improve by that amount in so short a time. Yet it has happened, and maybe Biedermann deserves his success. Fundamental to the debate is that we should not have to wonder - the best athlete should win. And that brings us to the debate stimulated by yesterday's post...

Why bother? Perhaps we should accept technology?

In response to yesterday's post, we had two really good questions, from Sigmund1 and tr3v (you can read these in the comments section to yesterday's post). Basically, they made the point that perhaps we shouldn't even care about banning the suits. Perhaps we should embrace technology and accept it as part of the sport, with the knowledge that in a few years, developments will plateau and we'll have equal competition.

I think there is some merit to that position. I will say, however, that if you trace the current situation back, then you start to appreciate why the technology poses more of a problem for swimming than for a sport like cycling, or even javelin (two examples often given for how governing bodies have "rolled back" the records).

The marketing/sponsorship problem

First of all, the current situation has its origins in early 2008, when records first started to fall. At that stage, it was quite clear something was afoot - the Speedo LZR, with its high-tech design and polyurethane panels was contributing to records that had stood for years. The problem then was that there was only one such suit - Speedo's. Arena, TYR and others cried foul because they'd been caught off guard. They thought that the suit should be illegal according to FINA's laws (which were non-existent). Speedo didn't, and took advantage of a loophole in law to design it.

Swimming coaches cried foul - their incentive was to promote swimming at all levels, and the creation of a suit that cost $800 threatened swimming equality, they said.

And of course, swimmers cried foul - you must remember that for a swimmer (unlike a cyclist), there is one significant sponsorship source - the swimsuit manufacturer. That is, a swimmer is often reliant on a swimsuit manufacturer to make a living. Cyclists have pro teams with contracts, and range of sponsors in what is an equipment heavy sport with plenty of branding options for sponsors (helmet, gloves, nutrition, hydration, accessories, and that is just within the sport). Swimmers often earn little outside this one deal. Suddenly, the prospect that Suit X (be it Arena, adidas, TYR, Nike) was inferior to Speedo was a crisis that could not be solved simply by wearing another suit, since it would cost valuable sponsor goodwill.

And so began the swimsuit wars...swimmers jumped ship, violating sponsor agreements (sometimes with permission) to try to win medals. Beijing came too quickly for rivals to match Speedo, but once it was done, they caught up, and then some. Arena, Jaked, TYR, all designed suits that took Speedo's LZR concept and moved it to the next level. The problem was that Speedo (the biggest sponsor in swimming, courtesy USA and Australia) was now left behind, and the end result is the situation we now have - many swimmers are "tied" into contracts that prevent them from wearing the suits that are performance enhancing. Or, alternatively, they cannot get access to them. Either way, the problem is not technology, it is the unequal distribution and implementation of technology.

The challenge of ensuring equal competition - not as simple as it seems

Two final points to make in this regard - because of its efficiency characteristics (swimming is really inefficient), small changes seem to have a big effect on performance. So technology is always going to do major things to swimming times - you see this with biomechanical analysis, the advent of underwater analysis and so forth. I have some data that shows how swimming records have always been more 'fragile' than running, but that is for another time (when I have more time!)

However, the implication of this is that the impact made by technology is potentially larger in swimming than it would be for say running shoes in athletics, even tennis racquets in tennis. This means that ensuring equality of competition through technology is much more difficult for swimming. The difference between Nike and Adidas running spikes is minuscule. Trek and Specialized may like to believe they make the best bikes, but the performance differences are tiny, if not non-existent (at that level, of course - my Trek is very inferior!). But for swimming, the differences in technology may be large enough that they outstrip the natural difference between swimmers. Then we have Formula 1, not swimming...

History - a purist view, but a tainted record

Secondly, swimming relies heavily on history and world records for its interest. It is a timed sport (different to cycling in this regard) and so generations are often compared by longevity or records, quality of performances. The current swimsuit situation negates that comparison entirely. I am (again) a purist, but I look at greats of swimming, the likes of Alexander Popov, who was the world record holder in the 100m freestyle only 18 months ago. He's now well outside the top 10 times ever swum, obliterated from the books, and swimmers with less talent are now well clear of him. There is of course precedent for this - javelin record books were wiped clean when the new javelin was introduced. However, in this analogy, at least everyone got the same javelin...! And it was easy to document where the change had come - a clear, distinct moment separated old from new. For swimming, access to technology is compromised and the line between "before" and "after" less clear.

So the issue is not new technology, but the control over that technology, and equal access. And, at some point, control over its limits. It's a debatable issue for the future.

For the present though, one might need to enjoy the World Championships but not take results too seriously, because if FINA eventually get around to banning these suits, the pecking order may be tipped on its head. And for the future, FINA should take very seriously the threats and reports, including the threat that Michael Phelps (the sport's biggest drawcard, like it or not) may not swim in international competitions until the high-tech suits are banned.

You may think that is a spoiled gesture, sour grapes (please let us know!), but what it seems to suggest is that the swimmers themselves are disgruntled and unhappy.

This was a much more marketing heavy post, more on the 'philosophical' side, and not the analysis of the world records, which I hope to return to by tomorrow. If time permits...

Ross

Swimming world records fall like meaningless tenpins

Who wants to live forever? Not swimming world records, that's for sure

Queen's song "Who wants to live forever" has been working overtime in Rome. There is a certain irony in the fact that every single time a world record is broken in the pool during the current World Swimming Championships, Freddie Mercury's voice echoes around the Foro Italico, asking a rhetorical question that typifies the sport of swimming at the moment.

In response, I thought I'd play around with some numbers and try to illustrate just how swimming records have been cheapened, so below is that analysis.

Background - the swimsuit wars

You would be forgiven, had you been out of touch lately, for thinking that maybe the Italian swimming pool had been built a few meters short! If you have followed the media for the last 18 months, then you'll know that we're seeing the effects of the "swimsuit wars", initiated by Speedo in 2008, and now carried forward by Jaked, TYR and Arena. To sum up a long, complicated story, the debate is around what materials and designs should be legal in swimsuits, and whether the manufacturers have developed costumes that are performance-enhancing through improving buoyancy and body shape in the water.

FINA has been slow to respond, allowing Speedo's LZR Racer, then allowing the others...sort of...I think! Some are banned, some are awaiting ratification - I must confess it's been difficult to keep up with from outside the sport!

But the result is that swimmers are jumping ship, violating sponsorship agreements to swim in what they perceive to be the superior suits. Meanwhile, retired greats have been shot out of the top 20 of all-time, displaced by swimmers who seem to have come from nowhere. All the while, watching the sport, I'm never quite sure whether I'm seeing a great swimmer or a good one, wearing a superior costume...

Rome World Champs - meaningless world records

Two days in, nine world records gone. Not that this is surprising, for world records in swimming about as common as a starter's pistol - almost every race is won in the "greatest performance ever". And when a world record is not broken, as for the men's 50m butterfly event last night, there is almost a sense of disbelief, a feeling that maybe that wasn't really the final, but a qualifying heat, because the swimmers must have been taking it easy to NOT break a record.

Being a follower of athletics, I'm accustomed to a sport where world records are special, seen by only a few lucky people, achieved by the true greats of the sport. Anyone who has ever witnessed a running world record, for example, can be assured that they were seeing a human being run faster than anyone in history, and that this performance was special.

Swimming world record age analysis

For swimming, it is not the case. The records are broken with an extra-ordinary regularity. Part of this is the sport - swimming does lend itself to more frequent records, because small changes in things like technique, body position and training can produce relatively large effects on performance.

However, we've never seen anything quite like the impact of swimming costumes on the world records. I thought an interesting analysis would be to go back to something I did last year, looking at the age of swimming world records in the immediate aftermath of the Beijing Olympics.

Back then, I worked out that BEFORE the Beijing Olympics began, the average swimming record was only 1 year and 10 months old for men, and 2 years 6 months old for women. Thanks to a spate of world records in Beijing, that age fell to 1 year and 1 month for the men, and 8 months for the women - that's right, the average age of the swimming world records for women was 8 months.

That is incredibly short - it's placed into context when you realise that the average age of athletics world records is 8 years 11 months, and 14 years 9 months for men and women respectively, as the graph below shows.

There are of course factors that contribute to this - drug taking in the 1980s has rendered many of the women's athletics records "unbreakable", and so it is not surprising that women's athletics records are a little older. The same can be said of many of the men's events, especially in the field.

Cycle to cycle - the lifespan is determined by competition

But for swimming, a record is now very unlikely to last from one major championships to the next. In fact, in Beijing, 21 events out of 32 had their world records broken. In Rome, this statistic will be even worse.

To kick off the analysis of swimming, I thought I would update last year's analysis and look at the current age of swimming world records. The table below shows the ages of the records (in days) on the eve of the current championships:

I have highlighted in blue the records already broken in Rome (this was after 2 days, at the time of writing). You'll notice that on the men's side, the second oldest record (Ian Thorpe's 400m Freestyle) was broken. For the women, the oldest record has already fallen (100m butterfly), as have the second and fourth oldest, and so both the men's and women's record age will fall dramatically when I revise this analysis to INCLUDE the current World Championships (which I'll do once they are complete).

Obviously, because we've had nearly a year since the Beijing Games, many of these records are now older than in my previous analysis (the analysis is somewhat "artificial" because records are only really broken in discrete events). However, I want to point out the following:

• For men, only four world records were older than 1 year. Now that one has gone, three remain, and this is likely to change as well, I suspect
• For women, only four world records were older than 1 year. Three have been broken already which means that only a single world record is older than one year
• In men's swimming, only three world records have survived both the Beijing Olympics and the year following it. With four days of swimming remaining, it's unlikely that all three will survive, which means that for men, every single record may have been set between Beijing and the current world championships
• For the women, this situation almost already applies - one single world record remains, at it may well be broken in the next two days. Swimming world records do not, in the current environment, last beyond two major championships
• A final observation that some of you may have made is that the longest-lasting records are without fail in the slowest events - the men's 400m, 800m and 1500m records stand out, and the women's 1500m event is a sole survivor. Until the Beijing Games, the women's 800m was the oldest record in the books. Only the 100m butterly record was a true outlier, but it has now fallen, two days ago. It may be that the suits are more effective at higher speeds - an Olympic medallist revealed to me that his experience was that the suits were ineffective at slower than 2 m/s (which is the speed in events up to around 400m freestyle - greater than this, speeds are too slow)
  

Ban the suits as from 2010 - records will suddenly "live forever"

All of this is good and well, of course, as long as the momentum can be maintained. The problem is that FINA have finally decided that they will ban the controversial, high-tech polyurethane material as from 2010. This means that all the swim suits currently being worn during these "greatest performances ever" will be outlawed, and we will not see swimming world records broken for a long time. Or, alternatively, FINA will not allow these latest records, effectively turning the clock back and banning the suit. But, they would then find themselves with the almighty problem of figuring out WHERE to cut the records - was it before Beijing? Before the LZR? What about the full-length suits used in Sydney in 2000? It's a tricky one, without an easy solution.

We received a telling comment about 2 months ago from a reader, who asked what would be worse than allowing the suits? The answer of course, is to allow them for a short time and then ban them, which is exactly what FINA have done.

That's not to say they're wrong, of course, it's just that this decision is long overdue, and not one that they should not have seen coming, given that all this debate around high-tech costumes kicked off in January 2008. But, politics, business and administration make for some conflicted decisions, and the end result is that Queen's song "Who wants to live forever" may soon be out of favour - the new theme song for swimming will be from a James Bond film, "Die Another Day".

Ross

Join us tomorrow for our next swimming analysis, which will look at two examples of how the current swimsuits have impacted on swimming world records. Swimming records do tend to have shorter lifespans, and breaking records in 'batches' is not unheard of. But, what we're seeing now is unprecedented, and I'll look at that in a bit more detail tomorrow!

Also, Michael Phelps races against Paul Biedermann tonight in the final of the 200m freestyle. Biedermann broke Thorpe's 400m Freestyle record, racing in an Arena suit. Phelps on the other hand, is "so 2008" in his Speedo LZR, and so it makes for an intriguing clash, in which the world record will surely fall. It's just a question of to whom?

Swimsuit debate continued

FINA approves the controversial swimsuits: Flick the switch on world swimming

Regular readers will have been following our ongoing discussion around the new range of controversial swimsuits that have, in the estimation of just about all concerned, blown swimming records out of the water in the last 18 months.

The very latest development is that FINA, swimming's governing body, has approved the latest controversial swimsuits, at least until the end of 2009.

As you'll see below, the latest prediction is that the suits will be banned from 2010, which, according to a letter shown below, will represent an acknowledgment by FINA of "its mistake in allowing these suits to be used during 2008 and 2009". This makes it all the more mystifying why these suits have now been approved for the remainder of 2009...

The suits which have reportedly been approved include Jaked's all-polyurethane suit (shown to the right) that helped France's Frederick Bosquet to a world record over 50m earlier this year. On that occasion, the fastest record in swimming was broken by an astonishing 0.34 seconds!
It has since emerged that Alain Bernard's Arena has not been approved and therefore his world record in the 100m will not be ratified, though Bosquet's, drug-testing pending, seems likely to be ratified.

This from a good swimmer, an Olympic medalist in relays, but a man who had never reached an individual Olympic final and had never threatened a world record before. The suit helped propel a swimming "veteran" to a time that is almost a second faster than those who beat him by a second only a year before. At the time, I wrote how this was the equivalent of a 2:14 marathon runner showing up and carving out a 2:06 in their tenth year.

The issues - history and fairness

The problems for swimming are numerous - primary among them is a credibility problem that is caused by a sudden rewriting of the record books, the frequency of records, and the devaluing of records. Not to rehash a debate we've held many times on this site, but there is a fundamental problem when the history of the sport is basically rewritten. Legends of swimming have been relegated to footnotes within a year, men and women who featured in the top 10 of all time now lie outside the top 20 and there is an unnatural distribution of times by era.

But more than this, the problem is that swimming records are now broken so often that they lack all credibility. And while some will argue that the point is the race, not the time (which is partly true), there is a lot to be said for history of sport, and the perception among sports followers (not necessarily swimming followers) when record-holders emerge from nowhere and are replaced only months later by similarly 'unknown' swimmers - the suits have enabled this scenario.

Formula 1 in the water

Pretty soon, the sport begins to resemble Formula 1, which is a currently a sham as far as the ranking of human skill is concerned. Formula 1 is obviously in turmoil right now, but what 2009 has shown is that a driver who was making up the numbers in 2008 can suddenly find themselves almost unbeatable thanks to a few changes in the rules. And the drivers who, from 2005 to 2008, were dominant, are now fighting the traffic at the back of the grid. That is not sport, it is a technological battle - the notion of "best driver" is a farce. Formula 1 has merit as a technological showpiece only, but not as a contest of driver vs driver. You cannot tell me that Jenson Button has transformed himself into the best driver - the car has transformed him.

(I realise die-hard F1 fans are likely to cry foul, and I appreciate that F1 drivers are remarkable athletes. But I'm not questioning THEIR ability, only the fact that we so readily rank them when the 2009 season has clearly exposed that the difference in technology exceeds the difference in driving ability. That is, the best driver may be 2% better than the worst driver, but the best car is 10% better than the worst car. So changing cars is sufficient to re-order the driver's apparent ability. The result is a race between cars, not drivers)

Swimming faces the same issues - is Frederick Bosquet the best swimmer in the world? Right now, yes, but is it the suit, or is it the swimmer? And if Bosquet beats Sullivan later this year in the Rome World Championships, was it the Jaked beating the Speedo? And what about the Arena worn by Bernard?

The point is, the uncontrolled technological explosion devalues the performances of the individual, and because we cannot compare performances by era, we are left only with the doubt that is created as a result of unequal distribution of that technology.

Over time, the discrepancy will disappear. All the swimmers will soon get hold of the new technology, or the manufacturers will catch up, and we'll have 'equal' races. But right now, the sport is in turmoil, and the latest FINA decision has well and truly flicked a switch that says that swimming will henceforth be defined as BS and AS - Before Suits and After Suits.

The World Championships in Rome will provide the first competition and it will be interesting to document how many Olympic champions disappear as a result of out-dated suits, or whether the technology develops fast enough to ensure that they too carve a second of the times they swam in Beijing only 9 months earlier.

Ross

P.S: An appeal to ban world records in the new suits

Ironically enough, it was only a few days ago that I received an email from Forbes Carlile (via Jim Ferstle), calling FINA to ban all new suits from January 2010. The letter, which I paste in full below, strongly suggests that all federations will agree, which means that the suits will be banned. That makes the latest decision to approve the suits all the more mystifying, but anyway...

The other call is for all records set in the new suits to be scrapped, and for FINA to recognize only records set in suits made of woven textiles.

For those who are interested, that letter is below:

Bartolo Consolo, Honorary Secretary of FINA, is asking all swimming federations in a mail vote to agree that from 1 January 2010 competitive swimmers may only use suits made from woven textiles. The federations will almost certainly agree with the Consolo proposition, meaning that all the new generation performance-enhancing suits that appeared from 2008 will be banned from use in competition. FINA will therefore be acknowledging its mistake in allowing these suits to be used during 2008 and 2009.

While this is good news, if Mr Consolo's proposal is adopted that will leave the issue unresolved as to what to do with the unprecedented number of world and other records set in suits which were clearly constructed to be performance-enhancing.

Some of the record times set this year are yet to be ratified and were made in suits which were not approved under current FINA by-laws. However, these by-laws were adopted as a "quick fix" by FINA in March in a move which has since been widely discredited. These by-laws recognise records in the Speedo LZRs but reject those set in other suits used this year because FINA now opts to believe the newer suits may be faster than the LZRs. However the 2009 records set in these later suits rationally should be ratified together with 2008 times.

It has been argued that the East German doping period provides a precedent in that FINA allowed these tainted records to remain without any note as to the circumstances of they circumstandces of they occurring in During the German's doping period. However it should be remembered that whereas it was not known for certain that doping played a part in every record set by an East German, we do know that every record set in the fast suits was performance-enhanced. The argument of precedence therefore is not strictly tenable , and is not a good reason to justify inaction which would allow obvious unfairness, which can be equitably righted,thus preventing staining of the sport.

To honour outstanding swimmers past, present and future; including those who made records in all the performance-enhancing suits worn in 2008 and 2009, the following recommendations should be adopted:

1. All world records which are known to have been set in suits which will be illegal from next year be recognised as records and be marked with an asterisk to acknowledge assisted swims.

2. If the world record has been set in a suit which will be illegal after Jan 1st 2010, then the fastest time made in a woven textile suit (before or after 2008/9) should be noted next to the world record until the "textile" time stands alone as the record.

Forbes Carlile

Swimming's drama continues

If it's not the LZR, then it must be Arena.. Or Jaked....swimming's farce becomes even more farcical

Regular readers of The Science of Sport will be well aware of what transpired in the pools of the world last year, when Speedo's LZR battled Arena's Powerskin for pool supremacy!

In the end, the LZR (or should that be the swimmers wearing the LZR?) triumphed, as swimming saw an unprecented number of records broken. Only 2 events managed to survive Beijing with their Olympic Records in tact, and never before had so many world records fallen.

At one point, just after the Beijing Olympics, I calculated that the average age of a swimming world record for men was 1 year and 1 month. For women, it stood at 8 months. By comparison, the average age of track and field records was 8 years 11 months or 14 years 9 months for men and women respectively.

You can read that post here.

Different year, same situation

But, the madness has not stopped. The first part of 2009 has seen the record glut continue in the pools of the world, as we build up to the world championships in Rome. Just last month, both the 50m and 100m freestyle records were smashed by French swimmers. First Alain Bernard destroyed the 100m record in a suit that was still awaiting ratification by the sport's governing body. Then, only a few days later, the 50m freestyle record fell, this time to Frederick Bosquet, wearing a suit that had been ratified.

His, made by the company Jaked, can be seen to the right. It's pretty flashy, of course, but the secret to the suit, apparently, is the polyurethane material that covers it entirely. You may recall that Speedo's LZR Racer had strategically placed panels that reduced drag. The new suits represent an improvement, the theory goes, because they provide full drag reduction.

They also, according to critics, improve buoyancy, which would make them illegal according to FINA rules of last year. However, pinning down FINA's rules, and how they are enforced, is apparently more difficult than it must be to get into one of these suits.

And so to date, despite what I suspect must be a very straightforward measurement, FINA has not stamped out the use of any suit, and as they are entitled to do, the manufacturers have gone crazy in their efforts to gain a performance advantage (cue running shoes and Oscar Pistorius here)

So good are the new suits, that Bosquet, a man who had never, in 7 years, made an Olympic final, managed to smash 0.34 seconds off the old world record in the shortest event in the pool. The magnitude of the improvement, from a swimmer who has stived for a decade to improve but not done so by more than about a 1 second range, is suddenly swimming nearly a second faster than those who beat him only 3 years ago. Over one length, he has improved by almost a second compared to ten years of performances. That is like a 2:14 marathon runner suddenly improving to 2:06 after ten years of trying. It just doesn't happen.

But it's not the suit - yeah right

Yet he still denies the suit is assisting his performances, pointing instead to better training methods and preparation. This is incredibly insulting to those in the sport, it has to be said. It's as if there was a sudden epiphany among coaches in late 2007 that saw the 2008 performances jump ahead a generation in a few months. Great swimmers of only 5 years ago are now relegated to footnotes of swimming history, their once-great world records not even managing to feature on lists of top 20 performances in history.

Swimming is a complete farce right now, thanks to the toothless, rudderless (apologies for the mixed metaphor) leadership that failed to clamp down on the suits last year, and given plenty of warning, has failed again this year. Critics abound - read this latest article on the Bosquet-defence for an example. And at the bottom of this post is a letter that was written by Professor Brent Rushall, a respected sports scientist at San Diego State, in which he is scathing of the FINA leadership that has allowed this situation to develop.

Sadly, a sport like swimming needs all the support it can get. It lies somewhere in the second tier of sports when it comes to global popularity (apologies to swimming fans, coaches and athletes), but the truth is that the sport needs to reach out to its non-followers, the neutral observers. Unfortunately, when it degenerates into the farce that is world-swimming at the moment, it becomes difficult, if not damaging for the sport. Few people can appreciate the intricacies of the sport, but everyone can see the ridiculous situation that FINA have allowed to develop with these suits.

Sadly, it was predictable from a long time ago, yet we find ourselves debating the same thing, with no end in sight. A ruling is expected in Lausanne tomorrow, but it is not the first meeting to discuss suits. I dare say it won't be the last.

We'll bring you more news as it develops.

Until then, the letter below by Brent Rushall expresses what is pretty close to my opinion. More to follow I am sure!

Ross


Perhaps the best strategy to solve the problems in which swimming now finds itself would be to call for the complete dissolution of those holding positions in the current FINA Bureau. While it has been in "power", it has manipulated events in such a way that the reputation and popularity of the sport of swimming is under grave threat.

In the late 1990's when bodysuits came onto the scene, one manufacturer (Adidas) advertised its suit as "equipment" (which is a synonym for "device"). At that time, FINA should have acted on both Rule 5.0 to cover the device factor and Rule SW10.7 to cover the also advertised performance enhancement of the equipment in suits . Similar claims were made by other manufacturers, the general implication being that their "devices" produced unnatural phenomena that enhanced performance. The magnitude of the enhancement claims far exceeded any improvement that would be possible from using any performance-enhancing drug, and the reprehensibility of that action is well recognized and accepted.

FINA's intransigence about the intrusion of artificial assistance has distorted the sport to the point where now it is subject to considerable ridicule rather than admiration. The failure of the Bureau to uphold the laws of the sport and to act on behalf of "swimming" (all competitors and officials associated with practicing and competing in the activity) and to seemingly cow-tow to manufacturers and their profit motives is a clear dereliction of duty. Those responsible for allowing the intrusion of artificial aids in a once pristine and admired activity, a "pure" sport, should be held accountable and dismissed.

The current complicated, manufacturer-friendly, unsatisfactory three-phase procedure that is supposed to correct the situation is seen by most persons actively engaged in the sport as being ridiculous and failing to address the problems and growing concerns of the majority of serious swimmers and swimmer-representative organizations. The ridicule-deserving action of the Bureau, and its steering of "decisions" through various FINA bodies to make it "official" is one of the most blatant insults perpetrated upon serious sportspersons in Olympic sports.

In less than 10 years, a grand history of human physical endeavor has been undone by a few individuals. It is obvious that the current FINA executive and Bureau are incapable of controlling swimming to make it the test of the human vs. human it has traditionally been.

Why haven't FINA acted to save the sport from the intrusion of technology that makes competitions unfair? What is FINA's motive? One can only speculate on a range of motives from incompetence to undisclosed personal incentives.

We are watching the most rapid decline in the concept of fair and natural performance in the sport's history. Swimming medals, once determined by 1000ths of a second of natural talent, now are determined by the suit/equipment/performance-aid of specific makers. Manufacturers are now aggressively escalating the violation of the sport's traditional competition ethics while the Nero-like FINA members sit idly by, seemingly frightened to act in the Circus that continues to unfold.

Clearly, those acting as the power-brokers in the sport and taking responsibility for the actions and inactions that have been witnessed have much to answer for and deserve condemnation and removal from involvement in the sport. The longer they stay "in charge" the worse will be the problem, the more difficult will be the reversal of FINA's transgressions, and the longer will any rectification take.

A new Bureau, a new FINA is in order!

Brent S. Rushall Ph.D.,R.Psy

Top 8 of 08: Number 3

Number 3: The Speedo LZR Racer creates a splash

The Number 3 Sports Science story of 2008 comes from the swimming pools of the world. It is a story we've featured heavily this year, perhaps more than any other (so it may even have been deserving of the Number 1 slot), because of the scientific, philosophical and ethical questions it has thrown up.

It was over a year ago that the suit was released, but it was in March that we first commented on the LZR Racer. You can read that post here (no point rehashing the story). At that stage, NINE world records had been set, and the LZR Racer was the common denominator. That was nothing compared to what would happen in the coming months...

The French technical director called for a review of the suits, but back then, he was something of a lone voice - everyone else saw no problem with them. This was perhaps the result of the fact that the French had a sponsorship by Speedo's rivals, Arena, whereas the USA and Australia were both benefitting from the Speedo technology.

The swimsuit wars begin

That was a precursor of what was to come - in a matter of months, the number of world records had risen from nine to about thirty. That was before the Olympic Games, where a further 25 world records would be broken (and this does NOT include the poor swimmers who swam seconds faster than the old world record and still finished seconds behind, often outside the medals!). All in all, only TWO events survived the Olympic Games with their Olympic Records in tact - it was an unprecedented "cleansing" of the record books, and while there are certainly other factors in play, the swimsuit has been the one dominating the news.

We began to look at some of the technical matters surrounding the suit, the design, the principles, the debate over whether the suit improved buoyancy. That post, along with some interesting comments from a swimming hydrodynamics expert colleague of mine, can be found here.

It was at around this stage that the battle moved away from the pool and into the factories where suits were being manufactured. Speedo's LZR, developed partly by NASA, partly by 1000 swimming flume, hydrodynamic sessions in New Zealand, was clearly in the ascendancy in the marketing battle. With the Olympic Games looming, no respectable swimmer wanted to be seen in anything else, which of course posed a problem for those swimmers sponsored by Arena, Adidas, and Nike.

Swimmers decided to abandon sponsorships and wear the Speedo - some were sued. Entire teams revolted, insisting that they'd swim in Speedo (and not Adidas, as was the case for Germany). As a result, Adidas last week decided not to renew its sponsorship - the implications of this swimsuit war go well beyond the pool and the record books...

Arena had developed its own full body suit, but then sought to have the LZR banned - a letter, written by the Arena President, was sent to the International Swimming Federation, in which he said that "FINA faced an "irrecoverable loss of credibility for swimming sports," if they did not act to stamp out the use of the suits. You can read that letter, and some more of the amazing quotes, in our post done at the time.

At the time, Arena was losing the battle for world records 18-1, which makes it hardly surprising that their CEO was pushing for a ban!

The calls for a ban intensify - is there evidence?

By the end of the year, however, even his voice was being drowned out by coaches, swimmers, federations, just about anyone involved with swimming was calling for a similar ban on the suit! Admittedly, things were getting out of hand - swimmers were wearing not one, not two, but three suits, so that the material was thickened and their buoyancy improved. This is blatantly making use of equipment to improve performance, and many would label this very obvious cheating (my question - how is it different to wearing one suit when you know that the same relative effect exists compared to wearing your old suit, or a non-speedo one? Seems to me that both lie on the same continuum, which means you have a moral dilemma)

Most recently, following the European Short Course champs in Croatia (where the total number of records for the year hit 105 - incredible!), a number of federations have petitioned FINA to ban the suit, or at least to review its use. All in all, 15 out of the 17 European nations have petitioned for a number of regulations to be discussed and implicated.

One thing that is interesting is the debate around the scientific merits of the suit. In 2009, we'll look much more at those studies (this review is not the time or place! And besides, it's holiday season!) and discuss whether the suit is really having that large an effect. To my mind, there's little doubt - the number of world records set this year is now triple the normal number, and while the Olympics provides the catalyst for this "rush", it cannot explain the growth by itself.

The nature of competition and access

Some other silly comments have been made - early on, a number of swimmers were of the opinion that the suit "doesn't swim by itself". Yes, rather profound...their argument, though, is that the suit doesn't change the nature of competition, provided all swimmers have access to the suit. You should not be surprised to learn that the swimmers saying this were wearing Speedo's LZR at the time!

The point is, and this is probably the crux, that competition is changed when the suit is not available to all. So either everyone must wear the same, or no one must wear it. Unfortunately, the "roll-out" of the suit made it impossible for all swimmers to get it (and there were sponsor conflicts, as mentioned above), and so suddenly, it did become a battle of technology.

Of course, as you read this, you may be thinking "why should Speedo be punished for innovation that produced a superior costume?" And you'd be right - it's not fair to "standardize" costumes and prevent natural market forces and competition from having their effect. So how can you force them to make the suit available, or ensure that other manufacturers, who, let's face it, missed a trick, are brought up to speed? As you can see, the issue is highly complex!

But can they ban it now? What are the implications?

One voice that has come out and opposed the idea of banning the suits is that of Libby Trickett, of Australia. She says "I read that in 1972, I think, there were 53 world records broken, and there has been 54 [long course] this year," Trickett said. "What provided that difference that year?" She goes on to say that banning the suits would set the sport "back a decade".

Regular readers of The Science of Sport would know the answer to Trickett's question, because we covered that back in August - the 1972 development was the invention of swimming goggles, which allowed swimmers to see the wall and improve by perhaps half a second on the turns! (Trickett is clearly not a reader!)

However, where I do agree is that if the suit is now banned, they'd have to accept that the number of world records broken will fall dramatically for a number of years. The sport would begin to resemble track and field athletics for women, where world records are simply not broken, because so many of the existing records were set in the drug-heyday of the sport, the 1980's. We did an analysis of this recently, and showed how doping-aided performance of the 1980's had made women's world records irrelevant. Speedo's LZR threatens to do the same.

Swimming's decision, then, is do they wish to eliminate the chances of seeing world records for a while by closing the door long after the horse has bolted, or do they ban the suit on legal grounds?

I can't see how a ban would be tenable - my suggestion would be to draw a line very clearly at the current point - the current suit is acceptable, but no further enhancements will be allowed, and see how that goes.

FINA meet in February to discuss. As always, whatever the outcome, we'll do the analysis right here!

Top 2 coming up in the week before Christmas!

Ross

A cricket comment for those outside the USA

P.S. I've just finished watching the conclusion of the First Test Match between Australia and South Africa. As many will know, SA won by 6 wickets - a win many thought was improbable given the fact that SA had to chase down 414 to win.

It was a great batting performance, and credit to the SA batsmen. However (and I'm going against the grain here, being South African), it was entirely predictable, and I was not surprised at the win, given the Australian bowling impotence at the moment.

As is typical of South Africa, we are currently over-reacting dramatically to the result. "It's the greatest Test match ever played" were the words of one analyst in SA. "South Africa's greatest moment in history" were the words of another.

Truth is, when you look at the performances, you realise that in five days of cricket, Australia managed to take 14 wickets - 11 of them went to one bowler (Mitchell Johnson), and five of those came in about 20 minutes on day two. That means that other that this brilliant performance, the Aussie bowlers managed to take 3 wickets between them.

They were completely impotent, as they were in India recently, where, in four matches, they took only 59 wickets (remember that 80 would be required to win), and conceded 2,877 runs. That's 49 runs per wicket, which is abysmal - the opposition thus averages 490 given ten wickets (and that's not including the fact that India would have declared on some occasions, and includes tail-enders - the average of the top 6 batsmen is in the mid-50's).

So, before we celebrate South Africa's "remarkable" performance, let's bear in mind that many of the world's best batsmen would be lining up to play this current Aussie bowling line-up - they could improve their batting averages somewhat.

Swimming vs athletics debate

The debate continues: Some of your comments on swimming and athletics world records

Yesterday's and Monday's posts have certainly inspired some really great comments. Thank you to all of you who have thrown your opinion into the 'ring' and added to the debate on the athletics and swimming world records.

The limit to world records: Yet another predictive model

Speaking of world records, a very interesting study was announced today - it is a (yet another) model that looks at the limits to human athletic performance. This is about the fourth one this year, some have said we've almost arrived at the human limit, others have somehow suggested that man should run 100m in 6 seconds!

This particular study predicts, among other things, that the Men's 100m world record will one day hit a limit at 9.48 seconds, and that the marathon record could improve by 4 minutes 23 seconds.

It also suggests that the WOMEN's 100m world record could drop as low as 10.19 seconds. Now, I'm open enough to give the first few predictions a chance, but when I consider that final prediction, that women will run a full 0.30 seconds FASTER than a record which has stood for 20 years and is seriously suspect with regards to doping, then I lose a great deal of confidence in the validity of the predictions.

I haven't had the time to look through the study and its predictions in great detail, but I am aware of it, and I will certainly post in more detail on it during the next few days, perhaps early next week. My first reaction is that it's another case of "can't see the wood for the trees", much like the ridiculous statement by Prof Peter Weyand that humans should run 100m in 6 seconds because Cheetahs can (the same Prof got involved with cheetahs of a different kind when he lent his "expert" opinion to the defence of Oscar Pistorius)...!

The debate on athletics world records

The debate on world records is appropriate, given our last few posts, and so I'll keep the theme alive next week when I look at that latest round of predictions. For today, however, because many people don't read the comments to the posts (they either receive the post by email or just read once and don't return often), I thought it would be an interesting change to actually post some of the comments, in the name of facilitating a bit of "two-way" conversation (as much as is possible through a post-comment format!). And, I have to confess, it gives me an easy post on a lazy Friday afternoon!

So here are some the excellent posts and comments we've received, with my brief comments in maroon. Thanks again!

From Scott:

That strength in swimming is important should be obvious when looking at an elite swimmer’s body. The ability to move efficiency through the water is, by expert consensus, even more important. A case in point would be Janet Evans, all forty odd kilograms of her when she raced, and the long standing records she set. Another example would be Michael Phelps’ extraordinary kick which comes about because the extreme hyper flexibility in his ankles and knees are unmatched by his peers (Mark Spitz, incidentally, enjoyed hyper flexible knees).

My personal theoretical model of efficiency has efficiency playing a relatively minor role in the lower power output ranges (I’m thinking here of a higher power to displacement ratio along the lines of gymnasts) but growing steadily as power output increases (and power/displacement drops). At some point, however, perhaps at the point where water resistance starts creating turbulence and the related drag, a significant drop in the benefits realized from additional power is seen and efficiency jumps to become the overwhelming dominant factor in determining ultimate speed. Admittedly my only justification for this rests on the fact that doping has proven far more efficient for women compared to men, and the fact our closely related genetic cousins the great apes, far more powerful than we could ever be, can’t swim at all. It may well be weak but it is a model that parallels some of the facts, including why strength doping seemingly has a lesser impact on swimming than athletics (at least for males).

This all leads to the statements I’d like to make (again just my own opinion):

1. I don’t think pool technology has advanced in any significant manner since 2004 Athens;
2. Inge de Bruijn’s records are considered by many to be a product of doping;
3. The new swimsuits are acknowledged by virtually every expert not under contract as a Speedo “consultant” to be the cause of the recent avalanche of world records;
4. The current debate is whether the new swimsuits are, in fact, devices and therefore illegal under pre-existing rules (not unlike IAAF’s banning of “stored energy” running shoes);
5. It has been submitted by many the one thing which can indicate a device is at play is seeing certain individuals benefit more from the item in question than others (i.e. a tool which compensates for a specific deficiency). Increasingly elite coaches are identifying the impact of the new suits is not evenly spread as certain swimmers have clearly gained an advantage, and that those swimmers can be identified by body type and known weaknesses; and
6. If this is true (and this opinion is growing by leaps and bounds amongst the swimming community) then any record set using these suits would be illegal under the rules existing at the time and therefore would be struck from the record books.

One can see why this controversy is getting very close to the boiling point.

From mcgrathe: A sobering look at the records in women's athletics

I especially got drawn in by the question of the credibility of the athletics records. Clearly (in my opinion) Dibaba should be the record holder over 5 and 10K on the track, but the 10K record is so far fetched, nobody even thinks about it anymore. It's difficult to know what to do in cases such as this though. Can you just decide to throw out all the dodgy records in the sport? Unfortunately, in Women's track & field, there wouldn't be much left.
Having a trawl through the records, it looks very very bad.
100m - FloJo - dodgy record
200m - FloJo - dodgy record
400m - Marita Koch - 1980s eastern bloc & well documented
800m - Jarmila Kratochvilova - always in the shadow of Marita Koch - enough said..
1500 - Qu Yunxia - 1993 turtle blood performance set in Beijing...
5000m - Dibaba - probably wouldn't have got near the record except that up to the mid '90s the 3K was the championship event and Wang Junxia set that in Beijing as well
10000m - Wang Junxia, 5 days before her 3K record and 42s faster than the old record. Still 23s faster than anyone else ever.
S'Chase - Gulnara Samitova. Similar to the 5K, new enough to probably be clean
100H - Yordanka Donkova, 1980s eastern bloc
400H - Yulia Pechonkina - could this be a clean record?
Shot - Natalya Livovskaya, 1980s eastern bloc - 4 furthest throws ever?
Discus - Gabriele Reinsch, 1980s eastern bloc
Javelin - Barbora Spotakova - same as 5K and S'chase as a new javelin was introduced in '99. The old record was Petra Felke (E Germany in the '80s)
Hammer - Tatyana Lysenko - her furthest ever throw doesn't count because she was caught on drugs.

Maybe this is why so much is made of Isinbayeva in the Pole Vault - it is a long time since a woman has come along capable of delivering WR or near WR performances on a regular basis at Grand Prix meetings.

It's an impossible problem to fix though. Even if you wipe all records older than say 15 years, you still end up with a few dodgy records. The 2nd fastest time over 100m belongs to Marion Jones for example. None of the top 10 shot putters are believable. Yet it would be great if records were returned to where athletes truly believe they have a shot at breaking them. At the moment, only a handful of women can have any notion about getting close to a WR in any event.

And a final one from Derek, providing an interesting (and certainly very valid) counterpoint to the swimming debate.

I think swimming is enjoying much more popularity today, because of the suits. People who never cared about the sport before ( like me) are now paying attention (like me) and people who never have watched Olympic swimming in the past (like me) are all of a sudden became very interested in watching the sport (like me). The way I see it, is that comparing athletics records to swimming records is a little like comparing apples to oranges. When a world record is broken in a sport, it is good for the sport, because it brings more media attention, and possibly opens the “pool” of perspective athletes. It’s impressive when a world record in athletics falls, because we know, like you’ve mentioned, that many are tainted. This is also one of the reasons why, in many cases we automatically (and blindly) suspect that the person who broke the record is doping. The human logic, correct or incorrect, thinks that, if the previous record was set with dope, then the athlete who broke it must also be doping.

On the other hand, in swimming, it’s a slightly different story. We know that the records are broken because of “the suit”, assuming that doping isn’t a factor of course, and as we discussed, maybe the playing field isn’t too level at the moment because of the price of the suit and sponsor contracts. My argument is that in the case of swimming, we are talking about technology. The price of technology always falls with time. What was once too expensive for small nations will be completely accessible before the next Olympics. Sponsorship shouldn’t be a problem, because they (companies besides Speedo) will try harder to develop something that will give it competition. I may have the names mixed up, but I understand Arena came out with a suit called the LZR, but it couldn’t match the Speedo suit. They were under pressure to come out with a suit quickly. They didn’t have time to develop to their capability because they were losing sales. I wouldn’t be surprised that they were unaware that Speedo was developing their suit. Now that the Olympics are over, they have more time to do research and come out with a better suit that will (hopefully) give some competition to Speedo.

Another reason why I think the swim suit is good is because no one can deny that it is good that the drug influenced records from the ‘80’s are gone. I would much rather have “swim suit” induced records than a drug induced record! That being said, I’m waiting for a huge break through in shoes so that we can cleanse the athletics record books!

That being said, I think FINA needs to take a better look at their rules so that something like this doesn’t happen again. I don’t think they should take ALL of the blame though; it’s pretty hard to guess the future. I am aware that they had the chance to do something about it when they met back in the spring I thing It was.

On a different subject, you said “…Usain Bolt in Beijing, and the east African runners (whether these are drug-assisted is another story entirely!)” I would sure like to hear your opinion on this subject!

As for that final request, well, let's leave that one for a rainy day! We did discuss Usain Bolt's performance in the context of doping at the time, you can read that article here (it got some hostile debate going - here's to opening that up again!). As for the east Africans, I may be naive, but I know that most of them train in areas without electricity, and without electricity, you don't have fridges and technology to store drugs, and so I suspect (without proof, entirely based on the people I know within Kenya and Ethiopia who are involved with their best athletes) that they are clean. But that debate is for another time!

Ross