Swimming across the world is at an important crossroad. The sport could be irreparably changed. Now could be the time to either stand up for preserving the activity as a pure sport, or let outside commercial interests dictate its development largely for a profit motive.

Swimsuit manufacturers have developed very expensive suits that are reported to be performance-enhancing. They are supposed to significantly alter performance and, if so, they should no longer be classed as costumes but rather as equipment. Once swimming races were decided by the abilities of swimmers alone. Now races could be decided by swimming abilities and equipment. The coach-swimmer relationship will no longer be the sole determinant of competitive success. It is possible that gold medals could go to the swimmer with the best performance-enhancing suit rather than the best ability and training.

The following are alleged regarding full bodysuits currently being used in competitive swimming.

1. Bodysuits are not designed solely for modesty and thus, are not exclusively covered by FINA's Costumes rule GR 6.
2. Bodysuits are advertised by either or both Speedo and Adidas to be performance (speed) enhancing (by as much as 3% according to Speedo). Whether or not the bodysuits do enhance performance is immaterial, it is the intent of the devices that brings them into conflict with FINA rule SW 10.7.
3. Bodysuits are not costumes, but equipment (see Adidas' name "Equipment Bodysuit").
4. Bodysuits are not to be protected by arguments focusing on the semantics of whether they are "devices," "equipment," or costumes but are to be judged by what they are constructed to do, that is, alter performance.
5. The current endorsement of bodysuits by FINA for use in competitive swimming events contravenes its own rule, SW 10.7.

The absence of definitive, objectively verified research on the effects of wearing a fitted bodysuit for swimming has been promoted as being "troublesome."

One of the allegations proffered above is:

FINA rule SW 10.7 states ". . . that MAY aid his speed, buoyancy or endurance . . ." The important word here is "may." This implies that only the intent of the device/equipment/costume is of concern. The fact that the bodysuit manufacturers have publicly espoused the performance-enhancing quality of their products should be sufficient to make them unacceptable under this rule since, at worst, they may improve performance (which in swimming is measured by speed).

Section II

Much has been written lately about the Speedo "Fastskin" swimsuit. The company claims it produces a three-percent performance improvement.

So that Speedo can have a "clear conscience", it has pledged that these suits will be made available to all Olympic competitors and competitors in national championships (read Australia) where Olympic selections will take place. This is to make competitions "fair" since all swimmers would have access to the suits: the "playing field would be level." The suits that will be provided will be "generic" models and not tailored to individuals as is required of or provided for top swimmers targeted/contracted by Speedo. At first glance, this might seem a reasonable offer and no doubt will be embraced by the FINA Bureau given its past decisions.

Preliminary independent research reports have shown the following:

1. Specially fitted "Fastskin" suits do enhance swimming performances as the manufacturer claims.
2. Non-fitted "Fastskin" suits, the type that will be provided for all swimmers at the major events, actually slow swimmers' performances.

Consequently, the gap between fitted "Fastskin" swimmers, and "non-Fastskin" or "ill-fitting Fastskin" swimmers will widen further. Swimmers, other than the favored few who will wear tailored "Fastskin" suits, will be disadvantaged still further. The generosity of the Speedo company could be viewed as insincere.

If FINA persists with its ill-conceived support for this performance-enhancing piece of equipment, one that has a greater potency than the effect of any performance-enhancing drug, then there is only one option:

That way, chance would have a much greater probability of evening out the performance-enhancing factors surrounding this unfortunate development in the sport.

A better alternative would be to ban the suits all together, as should have been done in the first place.

Swimmers are starting to realize the disparity between those with and without fitted suits as the following piece from a newspaper article attests [Week of March 27, 2000].

[To fully understand this update it is necessary that sections III through VII of this submission be read first.]

The Australian Olympic Committee and the Australian Swimming Team have contracts with Speedo that requires swimmers to wear Speedo swimsuits as part of their uniforms for the 2000 Olympic Games. That poses a dilemma for Ian Thorpe, the swimmer with the highest profile in world swimming.

Late last year, Ian Thorpe signed a contract with Adidas to wear its "long-john" swimsuit, called the "Equipment Bodysuit." While these suits are still considered uniforms/swimsuits, Thorpe is obligated to wear Speedo gear in the next Olympics. This poses a problem for Adidas and its prized contracted athlete. It would be a great marketing coup if Thorpe could wear the Adidas suit in the Games where he is predicted to enjoy outstanding success. However, Speedo has the inside contractual lane with the Australian Olympic Committee, which insists that Thorpe must adhere to their obligation to their sponsor.

In recent days, Ian Thorpe and his agent have met with Australian Olympic Committee officials to justify using the Adidas suit in the Olympic Games. Their ploy has been to declare the suit not a swimsuit or part of a uniform at all! They want it declared "technical equipment," much the same as shoes are equipment for track and field athletes. If it is deemed equipment, then it does not come under the AOC uniform contract, and thus, Thorpe could wear the Adidas suit.

Why would Thorpe want to push for such a change in definitions? The current joke in Australian swimming circles is that "Ian Thorpe has 250,000 good reasons to want such a change."

In a presentation to the AOC, Thorpe maintained that the Adidas suit reduces drag in the pool and has helped him to world-best times [Dixon, C. (February 25, 2000). Biochemist to support Thorpe bodysuit case. The Daily Telegraph, p. 13.]. This can be construed as an admission that he has not achieved his recent performances based on talent and hard training alone, but also because of the use of an artificial aid (equipment) -- the bodysuit!

A compromise has been reached with the Australian Olympic Committee, which still wants Thorpe to use Speedo's "long-john" suit. Thorpe will "try out" Speedo's range of swimsuits. Speedo's marketing director, Tim Lees, admits it is possible that Thorpe will opt for the rival brand and if that is the case, Speedo will accept it. There are at least "250,000 good reasons why Thorpe will prefer the Adidas suit!"

The broader implication for swimming from this action is that the swimming world and manufacturers consider these suits equipment that enhance performance. FINA's allowing the suits to be used in competitions has opened the door for the use of equipment to enhance racing performances. In the past, performance-enhancing equipment, such as fins, paddles, and hand webbing, have been banned because they improve propulsion. However, since either a reduction in resistance or an increase in propulsion improves swimming performances, it does not seem logical to allow one form of assistance and not the other. What if the next generation of bodysuits includes covered hands and feet with stitching lines and extra fabric possibly increasing the surface area of each appendage, and thus, acting like small paddles or fins? What if a swimmer's streamline is improved through "profile distortion," a procedure where a tight suit is used to remove undesirable body asperities to facilitate fluid flow around the swimmer's shape? The line between resistance reduction and propulsion enhancement will be blurred.

Section III

It appears that swimming truly is entering a new age where big money and a manufacturer's influence and equipment, will determine the outcomes of swimming competitions. The world governing body, FINA, has directly fostered this eventuality. It now seems reasonable to assert that future swimming performances should not be attributable solely to a swimmer's talent, but to a swimmer and his/her technical support group and equipment manufacturer!

[It should be noted that this writer has indicated elsewhere that there is a technical flaw in the Adidas "Equipment Bodysuit" that does not allow it to have its maximum affect upon performance. As well, there still is no objectively verified publication that supports the performance-enhancement claims for these suits.]

From a Speedo advertisement in Australian Swimming and Fitness (May/June, 1999, p. 53)

August 31, 1999 -- Adidas Announces Release Of The Body Suit

From the Swimming Times (September, 1999) -- Adidas claimed in its advertisement "Adidas revolutionizes swimming."

Finally, Adidas stated:

Both Adidas and Speedo advertise their bodysuits as customized performance-enhancers that give a swimmer a competitive edge. There are some who have been involved with the sport for a very many years that say "THAT IS WRONG." No costume should give one swimmer a competitive advantage over another. If that is allowed to occur, it will not be long before races are won by the swimmer who has sufficient money to buy the most enhancing suit available.

The world governing body FINA has missed this point completely in allowing such equipment to be used.

Is there really a problem with these suits/costumes? It comes down to a relatively simple question: Do they or don't they enhance performance?

If the costumes enhance performance, they are in violation of the FINA equipment rule (SW 10.7). Adidas has openly recognized the suits as equipment. The rule prevents a swimmer from wearing flippers or webbed gloves because of the unfair advantage, performance enhancement, they offer. Both manufacturers, Adidas and Speedo, claim their body suits enhance performance. Therefore, by letting them be used in competitions, FINA violates its own rule and one of the most lasting concepts of fair swimming.

On the other hand, if the suits do not enhance performance, then the manufacturers are guilty of false advertising and FINA is right. But if they are not performance enhancing why would one pay over $400.00 for a costume? It would be saner to purchase a much cheaper "normal" costume.

If the suits are performance enhancing, FINA is in the wrong. All those swimmers who do not enjoy the unfair advantage of these suits should gather together and file a class action lawsuit against FINA for misrepresenting the sport by not applying its rules in a fair manner.

If the suits are not performance enhancing, then the manufacturers are at fault. They are engaging in false advertising. Those swimmers who have purchased or intend to purchase such a suit should gather and file a class action lawsuit against the manufacturers for false advertising. The weight of regulatory agencies that monitor this sort of thing would also support such an action.

Several individuals and organizations (FINA is one) have pleaded that these suits are purely "technological advancements" and therefore, should be allowed. There are several types of technological advancements, all being different.

Items such as lane lines, swimming rules, and pool constructions affect all competitors equally and therefore, do not favor any individual. Any universally, fair advancement such as these, keeps the "playing field" level with performances alone still determining the best swimmer. The one drawback of these advancements is that better times are now produced than those that were possible in the past. When 1500-m races were swum with lane lines that consisted of a wire/nylon cord with a cork every three feet apart, constant swimmer-generated waves and turbulence was a problem that slowed performances. Now with the triple-stack large-baffle lane lines, that form of resistance is removed. So much of modern day improvements in swimming can be attributed in part to technological advances, but at least all today's performers enjoy those advancements. On the other hand, if only a few swimmers are privileged to wear performance-enhancing suits, then swimming races will not be competitively fair. To analogize universal technical and rule changes with these new restricted-availability suits is invalid. Allowing bodysuits to be used by a few is competitively unfair.

A second type of advancement is equipment improvement. Often, an analogy to cycling or rowing is proposed. However, those are "conveyance" sports where the final performance result depends on the mechanical transformation of human energy into forward movement in or on a device. Without their machines, those sports would not exist. Swimming does not need machines (equipment) to be conducted successfully. Proposing that equipment items, disguised by the label of costumes, are acceptable as technological advancements similar to those that occur in "machine/conveyance sports" is spurious logic. It would seem to be a false analogy to compare swimming with, for instance, cycling, to support the cause of the "swimwear" manufacturers.

The third type of advancement is that which has occurred with goggles. Some propose that the new swimsuit changes are analogous to the advancement produced by the introduction of goggles. This is also a spurious comparison. Goggles were introduced to alleviate the various forms of eye discomfort and maladies. They have changed little over the years and above all are not performance-enhancing. A better analogy is to equate the new swimsuits with flippers and hand paddles, equipment devices that enhance performance. Those pieces of equipment have been banned from competition. The incongruity of allowing the Speedo and Adidas suits, with their Teflon-coated special-fabric surfaces designed to reduce drag, muscular compression to enhance physiological function, and rubber projections in specific areas to stream water flow, while not allowing paddles and flippers, is nothing short of ridiculous. These suits are performance-enhancing equipment and are in the same class as paddles and flippers. They are not neutral innovations like goggles.

Adidas has claimed its suits offer muscle compression, which enhances muscular function. This physiological benefit is commonly recognized in sports medicine. The future development of these suits will be such that compression will be tailored into a suit's structure to maximize physiological benefits, particularly where large muscle groups are involved. The wearing of apparel/equipment designed to unnaturally alter physiological function to the benefit of the athlete is competitively unfair.

Another factor is these are exclusive advancements and are not universally available to all competitive swimmers. These suits need to be specially tailored for each individual. It is reasonable to anticipate a "special suit" clad swimmer winning a gold medal in Sydney by the smallest of margins over a conventionally clad swimmer -- meaning that the best swimmer did not win the event. Once that occurs, the meaningfulness of swimming competitions and performances will no longer be "pure."

The use of performance-enhancing equipment is contrary to the rules of most member Federations and FINA itself [Rule SW 10.7 No swimmer shall be permitted to use or wear any device that may aid his speed, buoyancy or endurance during a competition (such as webbed gloves, flippers, fins, etc.). Goggles may be worn.].

To understand why FINA has allowed the entry of performance-enhancing equipment, one only needs to

It is not likely that many coaches who are "advisory" (read paid) by Adidas and Speedo will speak out about this change in the sport's direction. Nevertheless, the mass of worldwide coaches, swimmers, and officials should immediately and noticeably express their resentment of the corrupting intrusion of Speedo and Adidas in the sport. Anyone who has invested in the sport with his or her own time and/or effort should protest.

Clearly, the manufacturers of these pieces of equipment have violated an implied ethic about the sport. They have intruded upon the honorable and traditional concept of competitive swimming as being human ability against human ability. For their own greed and profit, this has been altered by their development of supposedly performance-enhancing equipment. There is some parallel equality between performance-enhancing drugs and performance-enhancing equipment, both alter the intrinsic and natural abilities to perform. FINA has endorsed this situation.

The basic question remains, should swimming races be contests between persons or the best-equipped persons? If one opts for the latter, then no longer can anyone claim to be the world's best swimmer. It will have to be the world's best swimmer wearing "brand X" performance-enhancing swimsuit. The implication of this is that a world-champion might not be the world's best swimmer.

A new classification of records might be justified if this new circumstance continues. Add to long- and short-course records those that are "equipment-assisted."

The FINA rule for costumes only covers moral aspects of propriety and modesty. However, the new performance-enhancing swimsuits are mislabeled. They are equipment designed to reduce drag and to assist a swimmer. They are not costumes.

Leaving the determination of the qualities of these equipment items to the manufacturers themselves, the response of FINA, is a perilous and naive decision. Independent research to assess the effects of this form of equipment needs to be conducted. The research protocol is simple. Replicate the investigations that assessed the affects of shaving on performance. Professor David Costill's laboratory at Ball State University is an appropriate place to start doing these investigations. It has the protocol, the expertise, the ethical objectivity, and the equipment and setting to do this work. There are other laboratories that could do similar work. Whether these suits produce flotation effects (underwater weighing while being worn seems the logical test for it would also assess the amount of trapped air) and physiological advantages, either by improving muscle performance or reducing energy expenditure, are obvious research questions.

Section IV

From Dr. Brian Browne of San Francisco (October 14, 1999), former Australian Surfbelt Champion and 50-year member of Coogee Surf Life-saving Club

• We know the suits make one go faster.
• It changes the speed equation significantly.
• We were not born with these suits.
• They are not intended for modesty.
• They are in the same category as fins or pull buoys.
• They increase buoyancy.
• They reduce drag.

From Forbes Carlile (October 13, 1999), swimming legend, activist, and benefactor:

The idea of future swimmers being dressed in various "swim suit equipment" designed to:

• aid physiologically by "compressing the muscles" (as stated officially by Adidas),
• grossly changing the interface between the skin and water; the reason for rubber projections on the backside of Speedo suits, and
• improving swimmers' speeds by these means, must surely appall coaches.

I urge consideration of this matter by attending to Brent Rushall's suggested FINA legislation that follows. It would ensure an "even playing field." I hope that it will be examined closely by those WSCA [World Swimming Coaches Association] Directors at Valley Forge this weekend.

I suggest that WSCA, despite the commercial attachments to the swim suit companies of some swimmers, coaches, and federations, resolve to signify to FINA and the media, their abhorrence at the recent FINA decision to allow neck to knee (and beyond) swimming equipment for purposes other than "modesty". Such suits will be used throughout the sport, down to young school swimmers unless a stand is taken NOW.

From Charlile Yourd (October 15, 1999), Bloomington, Illinois

1. the suits are artificial aids to performance,
2. USAS already has a rule prohibiting use of such aids, and
3. as we enter the new commercial era of swimming, governing bodies must act with courage and leadership to maintain the traditional ethics of the sport despite commercial ties.

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

It is FINA policy that the wearing of costumes will be such that any effects that could be construed as enhancing an individual's performance beyond that which resides in native talents will be minimized and equalized across all competitors.

This policy leads to the following rules that shall govern sanctioned swimming competitions.

These rules are proposed to minimize technical developments that: i) could influence the outcome of competitive swimming races, and/or ii) could increase the cost of participation.

As much as possible FINA approved apparel will be standardized so that competitions are fairly determined by performers' talents alone and required costumes will be freely available to all those who might wish to enjoy the sport.

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

[Team Leader, Canadian Ski Jumping Team -- 1994 Olympic Games]

In the 1970s in the sport of ski jumping, the advent of different forms of materials and shapes of jumping suits produced advantages for competitors depending upon the suit worn. The outcomes of competitions were decided largely by the suits/fabrics used by athletes. These "technological advances" overrode the natural capacities of athletes. The situation came to a head in the late 1970s when officials and athletes said "enough." Rules were passed that required the materials of jumping suits to be of a certain permeability so that some air could pass through the weave. That rule reduced the "parachute" effect. Another rule was also created to restrict the shape so that an increased "flying surface" was not possible.

Since the Lake Placid Olympic Games in 1980, in all Nordic events that involve ski jumping, suits to be used in competitions are tested before the competition. A machine measures resistance to air being blown through the fabric. The permeability has to be more than a certain amount. The cut of the suit is also inspected so that no extra surface area will be gained for any athlete over that which is beyond their natural shape. When these inspections are passed, a suit is then certified for that competition by having a metal stud inserted in the left sleeve.

Those rules have taken the effects of the jumping suits out of the competition. Ski-jumping events are again determined by an athlete's ability, not by any technical assistance. The effects of any suits are neutral, standardized, and equal across all competitors.

Swimming would do well to copy this precedent.

Swimming costumes could be made of fabrics that meet criteria for permeability and flotation and shapes that do not alter the natural function of the body. It is widely publicized that Adidas has a suit that increases the efficiency of a swimmer's muscular function above that of a natural state. If true, that intrusion would give one swimmer a distinct advantage over another and would therefore, bias results in an unfair manner.

Swimming races must be fair and decided on athletes' merits. It should never be said that one athlete was better because of the costume that was worn.

This document purports to demonstrate the following:

1. Bodysuits are not designed solely for modesty and thus, are not exclusively covered by FINA's Costumes rule GR 6.
2. Bodysuits are intended by both Speedo and Adidas to be performance (speed) enhancing.
3. Bodysuits are not costumes, but equipment.
4. Bodysuits are not to be protected by semantics but are to be judged by what they are constructed to do, that is, alter performance.
5. The current endorsement of bodysuits by FINA for use in competitive swimming events contravenes rule SW 10.7.

Return to Table of Contents for The Bodysuit Problem.