The debate is over. Suits that enhance, rather than maximise, performance, have no place in the pool, while the suits approvals process needs a complete overhaul and bringing into the 21st Century with a professional framework fit for a great world sport. There are a few who still wish to deny that the suits are propping up their work. Understandable among swimmers who work very hard and feel that their efforts are being diminished. Their efforts are being undermined not by the news and views being aired on this subject but by the suits themselves, which significantly reduce the impact and quality of records, best times and measures of speed and progress. Those coaches who still cling to their props cannot be so readily forgiven. They are in denial and refuse to see what is blindingly obvious: suits work in different ways for different people and have change the nature of the sport. Great news for coaches who are not terribly good at their job. Bad news for everyone who relied on natural talent, hard and smart work with coaches.

With that, here, to go alongside our SwimNews 2008 review, is my wish for 2009: 

To banish the threat of a doping suit. There are still those who think that such a thing belongs to the realms of science fiction. Fabric constructions that can interact with the body are already science fact, not fiction. Dozens of patents now exist for products designed for medical and therapeutic use that cite specifically "swim race suit" as an application for the technology. That means, quite simply and quite bluntly, that suit makers could soon be handing out free suits to swimmers knowing that those garments will "talk" to the central nervous systems of those swimmers. Everyone happy with that? It would be impossible for FINA to measure and monitor that interaction in the way that it tests for doping; impossible therefore to write a working rule. Everyone happy with that?

This from a sports scientist close to the development of technologies that would deliver the first doping suit to the sport. "There is a wide open opportunity for design of a completely new industry in the direction that FINA has opened up for swimsuit technology. Lots of money is out there, it is only a matter of time before the sport has completely and permanently changed into a totally different sport. Swimming is rare ... it relies on the direct interaction of the human nervous system and the environment. This can all be done with conventional textiles and materials that are readily available in the industry and are already being used in suits that FINA has already approved. It would be impossible to describe limitations in engineering in a rule document that would prevent the suit from activating the nervous system."

FINA, LEN, federations around the world, coaches, swimmers, parents and officials should disbelieve the above at their peril. A sport that still had no answer to State Plan 14:25 in the 1970s and 1980s and officially denied systematic doping practices at the time - and continued to do so even when Stasi documents were reigning down from the heavens like tears for the victims of both sides of the fallen Wall - cannot afford to make the same mistake again. The continued presence of the name Dr Lothe Kipke on the FINA honorees list is a monument to bygone shame (not bygone to the likes of Shirley Babashoff on one side of the world or Rica Reinisch and her health problems on the other side of the world, of course).

 Let there be no place for a monument of shame this time round. We all know what the problem is, we all know where it is leading swimming, we all know that that must be avoided at all costs. There are legions of swimmers out there whose careers have been wrecked by what has unfolded this year. Celebrate Beijing and much else, by all means - but recognise the darkness where it exists. The issues on the list submitted by European coaches in Rijeka are paramount. They not only need discussion. They need solutions and here's some food for thought:

 1. Timing Matters To Save Rome From The Circus

Should the sport be minded to cut out some or all of the technology to have reared its head since February 2008 in public and since summer 2007 on the list of FINA approvals, the long-term solution rests in a new framework for all suit issues and rules to be agreed at Congress in Rome, effective 60 days thereafter. But what to do about Rome? How to avoid a circus? How to avoid the distortions of Rijeka? The answer rests in by-laws. FINA's Bureau meets in March and there is nothing but will to stop it from adopting a by-law to govern events in Rome without  that affecting the approval status already granted for the four-year cycle ending next northern summer. I checked with a very senior legal source who believes that there is no impediment to FINA deciding that "no suits approved for use after March 2007 shall be worn at the World Championships in Rome 2009, pending an inquiry and scientific reports into suit technology and an overhaul of the approvals process that is of critical importance to the future direction of the sport". Should any suit maker be silly enough to make that an issue of legal challenge, such a move would run a strong risk of failure in the face of CAS.

At first glance, suit makers who have ploughed money into a response to the LZR, not to mention Speedo, with its investment in the LZR, will balk at the above. But all the core players in the sport have suits from Melbourne 2007 still running off their production lines. And no-one had a problem with suits in Melbourne 2007. At a deeper glance, the core suit makers must realise that a proper framework for the future will take a many months in the planning - and deserves to be given proper time for consideration and the writing and consideration of scientific reports. Meanwhile, Rome must not be visited by the plague of Rijeka, where wearing two and three suits was common practice and where wetsuit lookalikes were being handed out by the cart-load by a company on an ambush marketing mission that is contributing much to destroying relationships based on commercial and financial support and long-term trust, faith and investment in the sport of swimming. Rome 2009 does not need to recall Rome 1994. Instead it can be like Perth 1991: a huge breath of fresh air after many seasons of bad news - a place where genuine swimming and coaching success can be celebrated.

A moratorium on all post-February 2008 releases for Rome 2009 would provide relief for the sport and give those who govern the sport time to truly consider their next move. 

That next move may include the following Christmas and New Year food for thought:

• one suit rule
  
• cut out any construction  of suits with  neoprene or plastics or materials that cannot be classified as fabrics in the traditional sense of that word
  
• suit constructions to be homogenous (no use of two of three constructions in one suit)
  
• fabric cover of the body to be reduced from full body suit
  
• include an obligation of suit makers to sign a legally binding Statement of Compliance  with a new code aimed at returning to a world in which suit innovation and design is aimed at maximising performance not enhancing it.
  
• suit checks: post-race - obligatory for all medallists; spot checks for all athletes; powers given to referee to ask for a suit to be handed in for independent laboratory testing to check that compliance is being observed (and please don't tell me that's intrusive in a sport where a stranger can knock at your door at 4am and say "pee in this bottle and do it in front of me")
  

The argument of some that financial rewards would be lost to the sport in a world without fast-suits is a red herring. Speedo handed out 3,000 suits in Bejing - cost-free. Speedo boasts healthy sales of the LZR. But surely not to the public? This is not a suit to wear at the local baths on your family Sunday outing with the kids; this is not a suit to wear down at the beach (Speedo, Arena, adidas etc all make excellent and more suitable numbers for that market); this is a suit for the elite end of the business and if at the elite end of the business you have to hand out suits free in order to comply with a rule that says that "all suits must be available to all", where is the profit coming from that wasn't already there before the LZR came along? Is it purely based on inflated retail prices for a suit that has a short shelf life? Where are the funds coming from to feed FINA coffers and bolster prize money flowing to swimmers? Inflated prices may be the answer to that. The junior ranks are no longer an answer - bodysuits are now  banned in many regions of the world for swimmers under 18, 15, 14, 12 etc, depending on where you look.

An interesting moment will arrive when the Commonwealth youth meet, for example, and the rules of all nations clash to the advantage of some and disadvantage of others - unless the Commonwealth body creates its own suit instead of following the FINA rule book. Not a healthy or happy trend. Colleges, too, have issues. Can Speedo really afford to give 60% discounts to college teams in the US to keep its fast suit in the sport? Will it then extend that offer to impoverished swimmers in developed nations (the developing nations issue is largely irrelevant because it tends to be only the wealthier elements of those societies who make it to the race pool in the first place - that's not said to aggravate - it is fact). 

In all of this innovation in suits and suit design must not be lost. 

And so to the new players. The wetsuit-lookalike johnny-come-lately suits cover every part of the arms, legs and torso, or at least torso and legs. That cut needs cutting out. Those who continue to look at other sports and ask why swimming should stem the tide of technology when others have not need to reach for a deeper understanding of their sport. Swimming is rare, almost unique. The tennis racket, the golf club, the engine, the spoiler, the stick, the conventional shoe, and so on, all have one thing in common: they are external to the human. They can be manipulated, of course, to work with the human in different ways.

Fencing cheats figured out a way to trigger points without achieving contact, spring technologies can be loaded into shoes, and so on. The modern swim bodysuit already alters the natural position of a human in water, already reduces drag, already "improves" on human skin by delivering efficiencies more in tune with the skins of dolphins and the likes. In 2008 we have seen those factors take a significant tangible, measurable leap. Some scientists believe that the Speedo LZR could already, if not by design then by default, be going beyond what the label tells us in terms of body response. The next generation of suits will almost certainly be able to do that. The current generation of wetsuit lookalikes use neoprene and constructions designed to aid buoyancy, provide cooling for going that extra mile. They have no place in a pool. If they are not buoyant, then I'm the king of diplomacy and principal advocate of official doublespeak.

One particular suit, without a body in it, takes more than 2kg of weight before it leaves the surface of the pool on the way to the pool floor. Experts estimate that at 90kg, a swimmer may not benefit from that level of buoyancy. The majority of world-class swimmers fall well inside that weight level.

I have friends who work in the City of London and in the academic world of business. The arguments of financial viability for a non-profit-making organisation such as FINA simply do not add up. TV and broadcast revenues and cities that organise and host world championships and other events foot the bulk of FINA's costs. Suit makers contribute. Would Rome or RAI turn around and say "it's all off" if FINA told them tomorrow that the bodysuit is banned and it may be a while before world records fall quite as they have fallen in the pool this year? I cannot believe the answer would be anything other than "absolutely not - there's much more to this that world records".

Take Atlanta 1996: three global standards fell in Olympic finals at the Georgia Tech pool. Beyond the aberration of a certain Irish woman's amazing gains, the meet was fantastic. Full of thrills and spills. It was where Popov did the double-double in a close call with Hall, where Loader lit up the pool with an unexpected double, where Perkins backed up, where Pankratov flew to two golds, Deburghgraeve gave us a Belgian victory, where Czene and Sievinen and Dolan and Namesnik did battle, where Egerszegi joined Fraser in the exclusive club of triple champions, where Penny Heyns inspired a born-again nation, where Susie O'Neill emerged as a golden girl fit to make headlines across all Olympic sports. If anyone in the sport thinks that those days were boring and lacking in excitement, I'm here to tell them that they don't know their art from their high-elbow.

The people who will tell you that swimming needs a constant stream of world records are the same people who cite tennis and golf as examples to follow. There are no time records in tennis or golf (beyond speed and length footnotes) that dominate the sport. Those sports are about gladiatorial confrontation. They are about winning the day. Swimming is at its best when the very best gather together and join in battle. Was the recordless 100m final between Bernard, Sullivan, Cielo and Lezak a boring affair in Beijing? Of course it wasn't. And it would have been every bit as thrilling if all had worn the Speedo, Arena and so on models of 2007. The names on the blocks may well, of course, have been different - not because of the swimmers but because of the suits. That should not be the case.

In this battle for the soul of the sport, FINA has pledged to set right in 2009 the wrongs of 2008. It must be given time to find the right path in a complex world. A bylaw for Rome offers a compromise that many could and would have to live with until the long-term future of swimming is decided in an atmosphere of calm and trust and faith in process and the people who will ultimately cast the decisive vote: FINA.