In deference to the import of correct English word usage, Professor Richard McLaren has decreed the new bodysuits to be "legal." FINA's questionable conduct and actions have been legitimized. This is a sorry commentary on the standard of Canadian jurisprudence.

The Australian Olympic Committee had asked CAS to rule on the legality of the suits after concerns they may breach a FINA rule which bans any device that may aid a swimmer's speed, buoyancy, and/or endurance during a competition.

CAS member McLaren, a Canadian barrister, ruled that FINA had not acted in contradiction of its own rules. FINA determined that the swimsuits were not a device or technical equipment and did not evaluate them as such. FINA's approval of the swimsuits has been validly granted.

Australian Olympic Committee President, John Coates, reacted to the CAS decision by stating the ruling did not address the key issue of whether the body suits were "devices that may aid a swimmer's speed, buoyancy, or endurance".

"Indeed, Professor McLaren has expressely stated that, in the circumstances of the advisory opinion, it is not for CAS to offer such an opinion," Coates said. "There is consequently no greater certainty now than in March as to whether swimmers may legitimately wear the body suits during competition."

Coates said that the AOC would postpone naming the Australian swimming team from May 20, the final day of the Olympic trials, to May 22 to allow for the possibility of challenges to the legality of the suits.

Coates faxed a letter to Australian Swimming president Terry Gathercole today warning the issue was unresolved.

"The very situation the AOC sought to forestall by its request may come to pass, that namely a swimmer challenging swimming performances and results by fellow swimmers who wear the body suits.
It is forseeable that this situation of protest and dispute may arise as early as the nomination trial commencing May 13.
This is additional to the potential protests and disputes during the Olympics.
These consequences are real and substantial."

Apparently, the CAS arbitrator bought FINA's "line" that the suits are not devices or equipment. If they are not, they do not come under rule SW 10.7 and so that rule was not considered. Consequently, since they do not violate the modesty import of the costume rule, they are legal. However, FINA tested these new suits for buoyancy and the only place in the FINA Rule book where buoyancy is mentioned is in SW 10.7. Thus, because of FINA's own actions, the suits should have been considered under the equipment/device rule by CAS. That this was not done is a pity, for swimming is no better off today than it was before the AOC requested the CAS to render such a decision.

The floodgates are open. It would seem logical that anything that is a contiguous extension of these suits would be legal. So webbed hands of the same material as that of the arms, and foot socks (that might resemble concealed flippers) are quite feasible.

Welcome to the world of assisted swimming where devices and equipment, sorry, call that swimsuits, will have a large effect on the outcome of competitive swimming races. A new age is upon you! Get your cheque books out as the sport has become very expensive. FINA and the swimsuit manufacturers are laughing their ways to their respective banks.

Return to Table of Contents for The Bodysuit Problem.