The decision by various international swimming regulators to accept body suits for competition is
regrettable, and should be reversed for several reasons which arise from a consideration of why we
swim and why we compete.
Most people who swim regularly do not compete. They swim for the fun, fitness and the sensual
pleasure of being weightless in the water. This applies as much to club swimmers as to 'leisure'
swimmers. Young children do not join swimming clubs to race, they learn the competitive spirit
later, from their coaches and sometimes their parents. And yet the whole ethos of clubs is to push
young swimmers in to competitions. Indeed the term 'Swimming Club' is a misnomer in many cases,
because they are in fact racing clubs, with little credit given to members who just want to swim.
This is not to denigrate competition, just to put it in perspective. For those who like to compete -
fine, do so, but ask yourself what you are doing. There is a natural competitiveness in some people
which has led to competitions in virtually every walk of life from fishing to flower arranging.
However, at the basis of all is the attempt to prove who is the best at the particular activity.
Where equipment is necessary to the activity the competition becomes a split thing, such as in motor
racing where there is a drivers' championship and a constructors championship. The drivers compete
in driving skill, and the engineers in car building. However in many sports which need equipment, to
try to return the competition to the players, limits are set on the equipment to make for a 'level
playing field'
. For example in sailing, most races are class races where boats are essentially the same and it is
sailing skill that wins the day. In golf, all sets of clubs are more or less the same so no-one
comments much on the winners irons or woods, they talk about the golfers.
In swimming, very little equipment is actually necessary. A cap may be needed to control hair in the
water, goggles to protect the eyes, earplugs and a nose clip for those who are vulnerable, and a
minimal costume to respect society's sensibilities. That is the only function of the costume - it is
not meant to improve performance, just not to hamper it. So far costumes have aimed to minimise
their own drag in the water and thereby keep the performance of the swimmer dependent on their
strength and technique. Even those techniques (strokes) were made as near equal as possible.
Body suits are a fundamental departure in philosophy, in that they aim not just to minimise the
costume's own drag in the water, but to reduce friction with the water below that of the swimmer's
skin. In effect, they start to make the result depend on equipment as well as the swimmer. If they
are proved to work they will doubtless become de-rigour for top competitions, and then by imitation,
their use will work its down the scale to club, and even school level. When the point is reached
where everyone is wearing them the 'playing field' will be 'level' again, but at a huge cost to all
and no competitive advantage gained, except where those who can not afford the cost drop out of the
sport. The only winners in the process will be the costume manufactures who drive this trend for
obvious commercial reasons.
Even if using the body suits allows the reduction of records, what is the point of that? The records
will not be comparable with those set not using the suits. In effect it would be like comparing
Michael Schumaker's record with that of Fangio - utterly pointless because they had different
equipment.
If one allows body suits, an escalation of equipment use and sophistication is inevitable in a world
obsessed with everything always having to get bigger, better, faster. A sports meet without a new
record is now condemned as boring. A gold medal without a new record is not enough to the moguls
with the money and media influence who control the top of sport nowadays. In this never ending
search for a new record, can we expect to see the use of fins, webbed gloves, webs under the arms,
snorkels, pointed helmets and so on? And what will it all prove? All too often scientists and
engineers do things because they can, without ever stopping to think whether they should.
Going back to the basics of why we swim, body suits have no place. They have to be worn
uncomfortably tight to work, and thereby remove any pleasure from the water. They are horrendously
expensive, liable to damage and difficult to look after.
Very sensibly, the British Long Distance Swimming Association and Channel Swimming Association have
always resisted pressure to allow wet suits, flippers and other equipment. A dab of grease on the
bits that rub, and otherwise being at one with the elements is an essential part of the open
water/long distance sport, whether it is competitive, or you just want to stay the course. The
sprint sport should be equally strong minded.
Those who run our sport at the top are largely self appointed. They act as if it is their divine
right to tell the swimming public what they must accept. However, when they are wrong we should tell
them so. It time to reclaim our sport for the mass who do it for enjoyment, and have no financial
motives. What happens at the Olympics today will happen at the Club tomorrow by sheer wannabe
copycating of the weak minded, fuelled by advertising images which make us ashamed if we don't have
all the gear they tell us we should have. Join with me in telling the ASA, FINA and anyone else who
might listen that bodysuits are unnecessary, undesirable and for the good of the wider sport should
be banned.