Click here to go back to issues list

Australian swimmers and bodysuits: should they be worn in competition?

SCROLL DOWN to read ALL the sections, including arguments for and against


The issue
In May, 2000, just prior to the trials for Australia's Olympic swimming team there was controversy surrounding the wearing of bodysuits by some of the swimmers.
It was suggested that swimmers who did not wear the suits could later appeal against the performances of swimmers who did.
Underlying this was concern that the current endorsement of the suits by the International Amateur Swimming Association (FINA) and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) may be withdrawn.
Similar concerns hang over whether the suits should be worn at the Olympics in September, 2000.

What they said ...
'Swimming is not about those with the best scientists racing each other'
Australian swimming champion Kieren Perkins

'The suit makes me feel better, it makes me feel like I'm going through the water faster. The psychological boost is amazing'
Australian swimming champion, Grant Hackett


Echo Issue Outline 2000 / 20
Copyright © Echo Education Services
First published in The Echo news digest and newspaper sources index.

Issue outline by J M McInerney

Background
These bodysuits have been produced by a number of companies, most notably Speedo and Adidas. (Adidas has been reported as using the suits as part of its bid to enter the swimwear market, which is currently Speedo's speciality.)
The suits are composed primarily of Lycra, but come in a variety of weaves, each intended to have special properties which reduce drag in the water and support swimmers' muscles.
The suits come in a variety of styles. The most discussed are those that cover the swimmer from neck to ankles, with sleeves that encase the swimmer's arms to the wrist.
Other variations are simply long-legged trunks, or full bodysuits without either the long sleeves or the long legs.
The wearing of the full bodysuit with both long legs and long arms has been approved by FINA. The Australian Olympic Committee has had reservations about FINA's stance and referred the matter to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. CAS endorse FINA's ruling, however, there remain concerns about the basis on which it did so.
This debate has also occurred in other countries. Notably the United States, where the concern does not appear to have been about whether the suits are a breach of FINA regulations.
In the United States the main concern appears to have been an equity one. Authorities were worried that suits would not be available for all swimmers by the time of the United States' trials for inclusion in the Olympic team. Because of this worry, no swimmer was allowed to wear the suits at the American trials. However, the American team plans to wear the suits at the Olympics, by which time they will be available to all swimmers.

Internet links

A good place to start is with a subsection of the Swimming.about.com Internet site. This site has a detailed article dealing with what it refers to as the 'Y2K swimsuit'
The article, titled The Y2K swimsuit, was originally posted on January 1, 2000. It was updated on February 20, 2000. It gives a valuable overview of the development of swimming costumes and a useful treatment of the two main advantages that the new suits are said to confer. It can be found at http://swimming.about.com/recreation/swimming/library/weekly/aa010100a.htm
This subsite also has valuable links to other sites dealing with the issue.
Two of these links are detailed here.

Swimming.about.com provides a link to a Sydney Morning Herald article detailing Don Talbot's reservations about the new suits. The Sydney Morning Herald article is titled Talbot presses suit for all or none and was originally published on August 2, 1999. It can be found at
http://www.smh.com.au/news/9908/02/text/sport6.html

Swimming.about.com also has a link to an article titled A serious threat to the very nature of competitive swimming or not? It is written by Brent S. Rushall, Ph.D.,R.Psy. and includes an update dated March 29, 2000, giving a detailed critique of the effect of the suits from Australian Olympic gold medal winning long distance swimmer, Kieren Perkins.
The article can be found at http://www%2drohan.sdsu.edu/dept/coachsci/swimming/swimsuit.htm

On August 4, 1999, the Sydney Morning Herald, carried an article outlining FINA's intention to review the use of the bodysuits. The item can be found at http://www.smh.com.au/news/9908/04/sport/sport5.html
The article is titled, Back to the briefs as FINA ties up 'long johns'

CNN Sports Illustrated site has a collection of informal comments from United States swimming enthusiasts. Most appear to be in favour of the suits as long as they are available to all competitors.
These views can be found at http://207.25.71.143/your_turn/news/2000/04/07/react_bodysuit/

The ABC's 7.30 Report presented a report on the 'fastskin' suit on April 19, 2000. The report was prepared by Sean Murphy. It is titled Fastskin fastalk: hype or help and can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/news/olympics/features/fastskin.htm
It gives a good overview of the issue and presents a range of opinion both for and against the use of the suits.

Worldsport.com published a report on June 25 titled, United States rules out bodysuits. The report was written by Rowena Carr-Allinson. It explains why the US swimming board of directors has decided that the United States Olympic swimming trials will go ahead without the use of the new 'Sharkskin' body suits.
The article can be found at http://www.worldsport.com/ws/article/0,2196,0_0_0_28474_29674_1_43,00.html

The Canadian on-line sports news site SLAM has also carried an article on US Swimming's decision not to allow American swimmers to use the bodysuit during the Olympic trials in August.
The article is titled Bodysuits banned for U.S. trials was published on June 22, 2000, and can be found at http://www.slam.ca/SlamSwimming/jun22_bod.html

On June 23, 2000, the Sydney Morning Herald carried a report attributing Dutch swimmer Inge de Bruijn's recent string of record-breaking swims to her exercise regime and the new bodysuit.
The article is titled Coach says suit makes for de Bruijn's records.
It can be found at http://smh.com.au/olympics/swimming/20000613/A64636-2000Jun13.html

On April 17, 2000, the Sydney 2000 Olympics Internet site published an article titled Swimming: Australian hopefuls don high-tech suits.
The report indicates that Australian swimmers taking part in Olympic trials would be able to use the new full-length bodysuits. It also indicates that these will be made available to all competitors.
The article can be found at http://www.olympics.com/eng/news/article/index.html?/eng/news/article/BLOG-4JGEGM.html

Arguments against the use of the bodysuits
There are five major arguments offered against the use of the bodysuits at the Sydney Olympics.
1. The bodysuits may prove to be illegal.
The concern here is that despite the suits having been approved for use by FINA, they could later be declared illegal.
Swimmers are not permitted to use performance-enhancing equipment, including buoyancy devices.
Under FINA's rules 'devices that may aid a swimmer's speed, buoyancy or endurance' are prohibited.
Age commentator Alan Attwood has asked, 'What is a high-tech bodysuit if not a device to aid speed?'
If, after the Olympic Games, further challenges led to the suits being classified as buoyancy or speed-enhancing devices then any record set by a swimmer wearing them could be regarded as assisted and declared null and void.
There is also the possibility that any swimmer who won an event wearing one of these suits might have the legitimacy of the win questioned.
Concern has also been expressed that the costumes officially approved by FINA have been the full-length body suits. The question being asked is whether shorter varieties of the suit, worn by some swimmers, are also legitimate.

2. The suits could lead to accusations of unfair treatment among swimmers
It has been claimed that the suits are only effective if they are made to measure for each swimmer who wears them. Some critics of the suits have said that a suit which is not properly fitted actually impairs a swimmer's performance.
It has also been claimed that there will not be time before the Olympics for every swimmer who might want to wear a suit to be personally fitted.
This has led to concern that swimmers without suits or swimmers without custom-made suits might claim that they have been discriminated against. They might claim that the medals won by swimmers in tailor-made suits were the result of an unfair advantage. They might also decide to sue the various swimming and Olympic authorities who approved the use of the suits.
It has been suggested that the fear of being sued could reduce the quality of some swimmers' performances.
Australia's national swimming coach Don Talbot has said, 'Our swimmers need to get up there without the threat of being sued.'

3. The bodysuits could make it more difficult for the Australian swimmers to work together as a team.
It has been claimed that if some swimmers believe they are at a disadvantage to others this could led to ill feeling within the Australian swimming team.
If such ill feeling exists it could interfere with training, reduce psychological readiness to swim well and make it harder for swimmers to work together in team events.
Australia's national swimming coach Don Talbot has further said, 'They are creating enough negative publicity to ensure that none of our swimmers can possibly get up at the trials feeling good about themsleves.'

4. The bodysuits may alter the nature of swimming.
There is concern that swimming performances will become dependent on technological developments rather than the swimmers' training and ability.
Even if all swimmers have equal access to equally well-fitted suits, the concern is that the sport will be damaged because the focus will shift from the efforts of the swimmers to the nature of their costumes or other technological advances.
It has been noted that there is now a lot of attention on the claims of rival bodysuit manufacturers Speedo and Adidas.
Australian swimming champion Kieren Perkins has claimed, 'Swimming is not about those with the best scientists racing each other.'

5. The suits might reduce spectators' pleasure.
It has been claimed that as most of the suits cover swimmers from neck to ankles, the spectators' pleasure in looking at attractive, well-muscled bodies will be largely taken away.

Arguments in favour of the use of bodysuits
There are five major arguments offered in favour of the use of bodysuits at the Sydney Olympics.
1. Bodysuits are claimed to assist swimmers perform at their best.
Numerous claims have been made for the suits. Among these are that they decrease drag and that their compression action increases muscle efficiency.
Speedo have claimed that the suits can improve performance by as much as three per cent. Those who wear the suits do not appear to believe that the advantage they offer is as great as that, however, the suits have been claimed to offer a feeling of speed and thus a psychological advantage to some swimmers.
Grant Hackett has said, 'The suit makes me feel better, it makes me feel like I'm going through the water faster. The psychological boost is amazing.'

2. Bodysuits are said to offer no illegal advantage to swimmers.
FINA has ruled in favour of the suits.
It has been claimed that the suits do not increase buoyancy and that they are not endurance-enhancing. It is therefore claimed that they do not contravene FINA's regulations prohibiting devices which aid buoyancy and endurance.
Though there has been continuing concern as to why FINA has not regarded the suits as a speed-enhancing device a review of FINA's decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport(CAS) found that 'an approval of the swimsuits has been validly granted.'

3. Bodysuits will not, it has been claimed, offer one swimmer an unfair advantage over another.
It has been claimed that bodysuits will be available for all swimmers by the time of the Olympic Games.
It has been argued that the decision as to whether they wish to wear a bodysuit can, therefore, be made freely by each swimmer. Questions of cost or availability will not be a factor.
It has been noted that some swimmers, such as Russian champion Aleksandr Popov, have decided that the suits are not for them and will compete at the Olympics wearing their usual swimming trunks or bathers.
It has further been claimed that those swimmers who decide to wear the suits will not be disadvantaged if their costumes have not been custom-made for them. Those who make this claim argue that though the suits have to fit snugly and comfortably they do not have to be specifically made for each swimmer who wears one.

4. Technological advances, it has been argued, are a feature of all sports, not merely swimming.
For example, it has been argued that there have not been protests about the technological advances in track and field events, including the introduction of running light-weight spikes, synthetic track surfaces and a range of clothing designed to increase speed and give greater freedom of movement.
Similarly there have not been protests about developments in the construction and design of tennis racquets, golf clubs or racing cycles.
It has also been noted that even in swimming there have been no protests about pool designs which reduce the wash off ropes and walls.

5. Spectators will find the swimming events attractive and exciting, regardless of the costume worn by the swimmers.
It has been noted that the primary satisfaction of watching any Olympic competition is the quality of the performances, not the physical appearance of the competitors.
It has also been noted that the costumes are themsleves quite attractive and that many swimmers look very well in them.

Further implications
There now seems little doubt that all or at least most swimmers competing at the Sydney Olympics will be wearing a one or other variation of the new bodysuits. Both Australia and the United States, two of the principal swimming nations in the world, have indicated that the suits will be available for all members of their team.
The expectation is that they will be available for all members of all teams who might wish to wear them.
Thus, challenges on the basis of unequal access to the bodysuits are unlikely as any swimmer who does not wear one, such as Russia's Aleksandr Popov, will have made the deliberate decision not to because he or she does not believe that a bodysuit offers any advantage.
There is, however, the continuing possibility that the suits might be found to breach FINA's regulations which prohibit the use of buoyancy or speed-enhancing devices.
If many records fall and if the suits seem, on the basis of results and performances, to offer an advantage to those who wear them, then FINA may well be required to reconsider the legality of the bodysuits.
If FINA is forced to reconsider the suits then three options appear possible. Either the suits will again be approved or they will, on reconsideration, be banned as buoyancy or speed-enhancing devices, or FINA will alter it regulations to specifically allow for the devices, even if they are found to enhance speed.

Newspaper sources

The Age
8/4/00 page 4 news item by Jacquelin Magnay, 'Bodysuit swimmers may face legal fight'
5/5/00 page 17 comment by Alan Attwood, 'Advance Australia fair?

The Australian
8/4/00 page 3 news item by John Lehmann & Margot Denney, 'Maker hid bodysuit of evidence: Games boss'
15/4/00 page 27 analysis by Chip Le Grand, 'Costume drama'
3/5/00 page 1 news item by Nicole Jeffery, 'Swimming suits risk drag through courts'
3/5/00 page 20 news item by Nicole Jeffery, 'Suit issue hampers golden ambitions'
15/5/00 page 4 news item by Matt Price, 'Suit rivals in swim-or-sink battle'
16/5/00 page 5 news item by Matt Price, 'Ripples as pool cool follows suit'
17/5/00 page 5 news item by Fiona Harari, 'Suits take the perve out of the pool'


Analysis of a news report

The article being analysed is one from the sports page of The Australian, page 20. It was published on May 3, 2000 and is titled, 'Suit issue hampers golden ambitions'
The article was written by Nicole Jeffery.

Reminder: News reports are meant to be a straight reporting of events - the who, what, when, where and why of the news. Their principal purpose is to pass on information. Most language devices within them are likely to be attention-grabbing devices. Some reports however, adopt a stance or a position on a particular issue being reported. Readers should, therefore, be on the lookout for language devices which may be intended to persuade or influence the readers' point or view.

The headline
'Suit issue hampers golden ambitions' appears intended to attract reader attention. It does not suggest a position on the use of bodysuits, per se, instead it suggests that the debate about the suits is impeding swimmers' efforts to win gold medals.
The headline assumes a fair degree of previous knowledge on the part of the reader. Most obviously it assumes that the reader already knows what the 'suit issue' is. A headline referring to the 'bodysuit issue' would have been more informative. 'Golden ambitions' is a fairly indirect way to refer to the quest for gold medals. The headline does not even make it apparent that the article will deal with Australia's Olympic swimming team.
The intention may be to pique the reader's interest by supplying relatively little information, however, there is the risk that the headline will be sufficiently obscure not to attract reader attention.

Lead paragraph
The opening paragraph is a paraphrasing of Australian swimming coach Don Talbot's concern that the dispute involving bodysuits not interfere with the best interests of the Australian swimming team.
This is again apparently intended to attract reader attention by focusing on an aspect of the issue likely to concern the public, however, it does not fulfil the usual lead paragraph requirement of supplying an overview of most salient facts (the who, what, when, where and why formula). Again, as with the headline, the article assumes readers are already familiar with the issue.

Paragraph two
The second paragraph indicates that legal challenges to the bodysuit are still possible because a recent ruling from the Court of Arbitration for Sport (referred to only as `a court') has not been sufficiently clear.
There are attempts here to add urgency to the issue as the reader is told the 'nation's swimmers' are only 'eleven days out from their Olympic trials'. The description of the swimmers as 'the nation's' is an encouragement to the reader to identify with them. It is an appeal to sporting patriotism.
We are told the swimmers have been 'thrust' a sharp, almost violent verb, 'into a legal minefield'. The legal minefield clich‚ is an attempt to add an element of at least legal danger to the issue.

Paragraph three
John Coates, the president of the Australian Olympic Committee, is then paraphrased, warning that Australian swimmers could still take legal action against the use of the suits, approved for the trials starting on May 13. John Coates is the second prominent swimming spokesperson ( the first was Don Talbot) to be cited. This appears an attempt to give substance to the issue.

Paragraphs five and six
These are a paraphrasing of and then two direct quotes from Don Talbot. The direct quotes are particularly dramatic. One warns that adverse publicity surrounding the suits could reduce the swimmers' psychological readiness to swim. The other warns that the 'threat of being sued' could have the same effect.

Paragraphs seven and eight
These paragraphs revisit John Coates' claim that legal action could still be taken against the suits despite the CAS ruling. This, seven paragraphs in, appears to be the core of the article.
John Coates has stated on behalf of the Australian Olympic Committee that there will be a delay of two days after the completion of the Australian Olympic swimming trials before the team is announced. This is to allow for challenges against selection based by those who had not worn the suits.

Paragraphs nine to twenty
These twelve paragraphs all present a more reassuring view. Both FINA and Australian swimming are reported to have announced that they do not believe the bodysuits are likely to cause challenges.
The CAS ruling validating FINA's ruling in favour of the suits is quoted.
Chris Fydler, an Australian swimmer who has opposed the suits is quoted at some length claiming he would not mount a challenge and stating that he is now wearing a bodysuit.
Australian Swimming's president, Terry Gathercole is also directly quoted endorsing the FINA ruling, while Rob Woodhouse, who manages a number of prominent Australian swimmers who wear the suits has been quoted claiming that nothing currently being said by the Australian Olympic Committee would prevent Australian swimmers wearing the suits.

Effect of the order of presentation
The overall impact of paragraphs nine to twenty, which constitute exactly half the article, is to suggest that there is little serious likelihood of a legal challenge resulting from the wearing of the suits at the Australian trials.
However, the order of presentation used in this article appears to have deliberately emphasised the possibility of a challenge.
Looked at overall, only the OAC has any formal reservations about the wearing of the suits, and their reservations amount to allowing two days for possible challenges to the trial results.
CAS, FINA Australian Swimming and a number of prominent individuals appear to believe that there is little likelihood of challenges, but because their views are presented well into the article, the emphasis falls on the risk of a challenge.
The article appears to have deliberately stressed the most sensational possibility - the 'legal minefield' created by the possibility of challenges.
Interestingly, the article actually seems to be promoting the 'negative publicity' which it has quoted Don Talbot regretting.
This is not quite a beat-up as the AOC does appear concerned about the possibility of appeals, however, it is an example of the media placing a dramatic spin on a development

Paragraphs twenty-two to twenty-four
The article ends as it began, with John Coates expressing regret that the CAS ruling was not more conclusive. He accuses CAS of not having delivered a ruling based on whether the suits actually aid buoyancy, which should make them illegal under FINA regulations.
Instead he claims that CAS has contented itself with a legal judgement which simply says that FINA has approved the suits.
Thus the article begins and ends by stressing the possibility of further legal challenges.