High-Tech Swimming: Is It Cheating?
February 2, 2010 by Kathy McManus
If clothes make the man, as Mark Twain said, can they also make the man a cheater?
According to a report in The Wall Street Journal, high-tech swimwear—those super-propellant, shoulder-to-ankle bodysuits favored by competitive swimmers—has been responsible in part for setting almost 200 new world records in the last two years.
Less porous and much more buoyant than old-fashioned spandex, the polyurethane and neoprene speed suits may have turned many swimmers into winners they wouldn’t otherwise be. But reducing drag has produced a rub. “You don’t set records anymore unless you’re wearing a floating suit,” complained a competitor who shuns the high-tech assist. “It’s obviously cheating.”
The International Swimming Federation—the sport’s ruling body—agreed to ban the bodysuits starting in January 2010. But for the 50,000 competing members of the U.S. Masters Swimming organization, the suits are still in use and making waves. One Masters official likened the use of speed suits to the home run advantage of a baseball player on steroids.
The sports community is divided. “Swimming at its heart is a non-tech sport. It is your body and the water,” said one opponent of high-tech. “I’m not sure how these suits are any different than strapping a motorized propeller to yourself…” Countered another, “Tennis players and golfers use the latest technology in equipment. Why not swimmers?” And there was this rationale: “If all the swimmers are clad in these hi-tech suits, it is not cheating.”
But an Olympic medal-winning swimmer from Australia welcomed the international ban on speed suits, along with a seeming return to personal responsibility in the sport, saying “…we should be back to the normal way of swimming and knowing where you stand…and how fast you can swim on any given day.”
Tell us what you think: Are high-tech speed suits unfair? If a swimmer wears one, is he/she cheating?
Find More ///
- in Science & Technology, Sports
- in Blog
- about cheating, swimming
Related ///
Dancing For a Chance
Internationally known dancer Alvaro Restrepo returned to his native Colombia to help slum-dwelling children discover their potential and change their lives.
Europe Deems 2014 the Year Against Food Waste
Should we take waste stats more seriously?
Prodigy
A talented teen must decide between a future as a rich athlete or a happy musician.
The Wolf Man
Field biologist Doug Smith studies Yellowstone’s restored predators. “Nature without wolves is not nature,” he says.
Responsibility and the Arts: Lidia Bastianich
The renowned chef reflects on food and family.
Is Yoga Bad for You?
A new debate has taken hold over yoga’s health benefits, or lack thereof.
125 Comments
What do you think? Leave a comment
February 12, 2010 by KALEB CALDWELL
Reply
November 24, 2011 by Taz
and you would what...cork the basketball, grease the players, put springs in the players shoes? What's your point?
Reply
February 13, 2010 by Mimmi
Reply
February 22, 2010 by Rusty shackelfurd
Reply
May 6, 2010 by raveli
I agree with you. Everybody should use the same technology but no more.
September 13, 2011 by mal
But not everyone can afford the high tech suit, and there will never be equality on a given day. Someone will always have special access.
Using high tech suits will eventually make it like paddle boarding. You lay in the water and swing your arms and kick your feet.
Don;t send them back to ancient Greece, but make it a swimming race.
September 24, 2011 by zlego
what about eye wear or speedos how about naked you sound so stupid
February 8, 2012 by Brad
Why is everything about affording it. I am sick of the have-nots, screaming unfair when they don't have the money to be like others. MAKE MORE MONEY> We have become a society that requires the providers to "help" the financially under privileged get what they want, instead .....everyone should strive for self improvement. We have to stop using financial access be the reason something is unfair......if this technology works, let everyone use it. Why do runners were tight fitting clothes? TO GO FASTER....... isn't that the goal in any race?
October 19, 2011 by Julian
What about the spiked running shows used in Track and Field. when it comes to SPRINTING where nano seconds MATTER, you might as well ban the high end speed shoes too and force everyone to wear the same footwear. This is just a ridiculous proposition. Its part of the game.
Reply
February 14, 2010 by Cassandra Ley
Reply
February 15, 2010 by ISABELLA
Reply
March 18, 2011 by Phill
teah im 50 years
Reply
February 20, 2010 by alexbarger
Reply
February 22, 2010 by Kurt
Reply
September 26, 2011 by Paul Randall
The point is that swimming unlike skiing, golf or tennis does not require "equipment".
Reply
October 9, 2011 by Crispy
Technically running doesn't either. Funny how you don't see anyone complaining about runners wearing shoes though...
February 24, 2010 by The Who
Reply
September 3, 2011 by Bigdon22
That is the type thinking that has this world in the shape it is in, " if everyone cheats its not cheating"
Reply
November 5, 2011 by Swim dad
Not to be condescending but you might go to the dictionary for a definition of cheating. Calling someone a cheater for playing within the rules adds nothing to a subject worthy of honest debate.
March 8, 2010 by Katie Longenette
Reply
March 26, 2010 by Tech suits are fine
Reply
September 22, 2011 by Eric Storm
So... you're saying the suit does, exactly what some drugs do.
And... exactly HOW is that "not" cheating?
November 5, 2011 by Swim dad
Because it's allowed and drugs are not? Absence of crical thinking here.
November 23, 2011 by Frizzo
"Absence of critical thinking".... you are truly an idiot Swim Dad. The whole article is about banning the suits and then they, like steroids, would not be allowed.
December 8, 2011 by Brian
Steroids are banned because of the harmful side effects. Drugs and clothes are different, swimsuits don't cause cancer, acne, organ failure or roid ragd.
May 3, 2010 by Roy Gellings
super cool!!!:)
Reply
May 3, 2010 by Riley Preston
I think that the new suits are really cool and are making history i just dont understand what people have against them if the golfers get new equipment then we should too! Ha and im still in highschool and im a freshman!!!! >:\
Reply
July 5, 2010 by Rebecca Kinworthy
If the rules allow athletes to wear technical suits, then technical suits aren't cheating. FINA simply failed to imagine the technological advances and were therefore unable to lead-turn the rules governing suits. What led to the controversy were college teams that were stacking (wearing two) floaty racing suits and swimming crazy fast - and no hard and fast rules on materials. Now that everyone has pulled back and gotten everything under control, I believe that technology can be reintroduced with a little less lawlessness. Technology is not bad for the sport. Swimmers still train. Technique is still important. Races are still 90% mental. No suit ever has or will change that...
Reply
November 4, 2011 by jack@abc.com
This pretty much sums it up. The technology got ahead of the rules. It sounds to me like this one is pretty much of a no-brainer. Either allow the suits, or don't. To save everyone's money and not force people who don't have the money to poney up to be competitive, just ban the suits. It's an easy rule to make and easy to enforce (unlike say performance enhancing drugs). Ban them, and leave them banned.
Btw, cork-filled bats in baseball are also banned because of the clear-cut competitive advantage they provide. These suits fall into the same category.
Reply
July 18, 2010 by Kristan
I used to be a competitive swimmer in high school about 20 years ago (yikes!) I swam in a Public school district where the schools, parents and sports teams had a lot of money. The swimmers that competed and won in this arena had started swimming at expensive, private, competitive clubs at a very young age, year-round. I didn't have this advantage and only learned the "competitive way to swim" in my freshman year of high school (I started off barely being able to freestyle one length of the pool!). Still, because I loved the sport, practiced over the summer months on my own, and because of probable genetic athletic ability, I ended up being a Captain of my high school swim team my senior year. Low-Tech ways (back then) to reduce drag, and improve times, were achieved by swimming in the center (premium) lanes of the pool that were "faster", because they receive less "wake" from the other lanes. The best swimmers always got these lanes, based on their previous track record. I do believe this is still true in professional swimming and the Olympics! Also, we wore higher quality suits for competitions than for practice. We wore streamlined goggles, and tightly fitting caps. We made sure our legs, arms, and underarms were shaved during important meets, and applied "Motion Lotion". The better swimmers, usually that had more money, had better training facilities, lessons, "special" suits, goggles and caps. I never, ever, considered this cheating. I see these high-tech suits as just another evolution of the sport. Everyone is always looking for a way to go faster, and if the tools are available, I don't see anything wrong with utilizing them (short of a motor, steroids or oxygen tank). If having the money to buy better technology to succeed at your sport or profession is cheating, then "cheating" is widespread in a world much larger than professional swimming!
Reply
December 5, 2011 by Anamouse
So what would be the downside if they simply bared all those high tech things, from goggles to fancy suits and motion lotion, from all competitive events?
Wouldn't the fastest swimmers still win?
Why let money and technology play any part in such a simple sport?
Oh and Motion Lotion... That's hardly legal, you can't even have baby oil on you.
Reply
1 2 3 4 5 … 9 »
Tell us what you think.
Let the world know what you think, but please do so responsibly. Comments are moderated and we will not post personal attacks, obscene language or inappropriate material, comments with links, or comments from people under the age of 18. If you have a question, check out our Comment Submission Guidelines.