An Australian suit maker is threatening to sue Australia Swimming and NSW Swimming and calls for IOC to ban the use of neoprene in suits

In a letter to Jacques Rogge, President of the IOC, lawyers representing YingFa Australia this week call for neoprene to be barred from Olympic waters and  competitive swimming and give warning of legal action to come "if Australia Swimming and NSW Swimming continue on with a ban on swimmers using neck to ankle (female) or waist to ankle (male) "lycra" costumes" such as those made by YingFa.

The letter touches on the problem inherent in the myriad new rules and regulations imposed by domestic federations around the world in the search for a way to rid the sport of suits that aid speed, buoyancy and endurance, in the face of the spirit of FINA Rule SW10.7. Banning all bodysuits, argues YingFa, is unfair when the body suit it makes is made of materials that have been in use for many a long year and cut in the shape of a suit that has been around for 10 years. 

The letter to Rogge notes that neoprene was invented in 1930 and is a registered trademark of DuPont. It recalls that FINA banned suits that used neoprene in  the 1980s after swimmers coached by Australian Lawrie Lawrence wore Lowdon suits and floated to times they hadn't seen before. 

YingFa's lawyers claim that neoprene "floats" because of the air spaces contained in the material and is "the reason why so many records were broken at the last Olympics. This is the reason why swimmers use three suits and would obtain substantial benefits (flotation)." The letter also questions the use of materials in suits that "have a toxic effect on human blood, kidneys and the reproductive system".

Underlying YingFa's position is a legal exchange with Speedo over the use of a cut of suit that adidas was first to bring to the market, back in 1998, before Speedo responded a little over a year later. The letter to Rogge calls for any "flotation" device to be barred and for the full body lycra suits to be restricted to open water events. 

YingFa is an example of a suit maker that feels itself to have been a victim of events in 2008. The numbers of victims swimming in the pool is one of the aspects of the suit debate that has often been overlooked in the focus on the winners and world-record setters. SwimNews highlighted the other side of the coin on several occasions and today Down Under, Nicole Jeffery of The Australian highlights the case of Felicity Galvez: she could not find an LZR to fit her in time for trials, was the only woman in the 200m 'fly final not to wear the new Speedo, wore a model that was new just a year before - and found herself locked out of the Dolphins shoal. Only a need for 4x200m freestyle relay reserves got her a trip to China. Within a month of trials, she raced at world s/c titles in Manchester and won two gold medals on 'fly, both in world-record time.

"My final had seven other girls in the LZR and me racing in the Fastskin (a suit designed for the 2000 Olympics),'' Galvez recalled of her trials swim in the 200m 'fly. "At the time I tried not to think about (being at a disadvantage). But subconsciously it was there.'' She clocked 2:07.67, a fantastic effort. But teenager Samantha Hamill, in an LZR, swam out of her new skin, beating Galvez by 0.06sec. "I touched the wall in the final and saw I was third and it all hit me,'' Galvez told Jeffery. "I was not going to the Olympics. It was reality but I couldn't believe it.'' At the time, all focus at the trials and in th Aussie media was on how wonderful the new suit was. No-one dared say a word against it - at a time when the likes of Sullivan and Rice, among others, were adding their names to the world-record books for the first time. 

Jeffery now concludes: "The level playing field that was the foundation of her sport had gone. Now it is FINA's responsibility to ensure no elite swimmer stands on the blocks believing a suit will decide the race."

It is what SwimNews has written on many, many occasions since this article back on the eve of those world championships in Manchester. Criticism of the stand we took was, at first, widespread, and focussed on the idea that somehow we were attacking swimmers who had worked hard and deserved their rewards. That view was as skewed as the result sheet. Without ever wishing to knock a single effort of any swimmer who swam in what they were allowed at the time - and, in some cases, benefitted beyond the level (finishing place) that they might otherwise have been expected to achieve - it is to the many, many athletes such as Galvez, Maitre and many more, that we dedicate the avalanche of hours and energy that those keen to conserve the nature of swimming as we have known it and human interaction with water as we have known it have devoted over the past year. 

 And so to our last two last articles - a Q&A with Milt Nelms , and where to look for a valid flotation test - before the meeting in Lausanne decides which side of a debate (one void of grey areas) the guardians of swimming will come down on. To some extent, the decision is already made: FINA is committed to doing what is best for the sport of swimming. Anything less would be unthinkable.