Connect with Us:
Leveaux Edges Bernard Again On Cusp Of Critical Week
Mar 28, 2009 - Craig Lord
Amaury Leveaux, Olympic silver medallist and one of the most improved swimmers in the world in 2008, got in a second victorv over Olympic 100m free champion Alain Bernard at the Strasbourg International in France: the gap yesterday over 100m was 0.07sec, the gap tonight over 50m was 0.08sec, 22.12 to 22.20.
Those times are a far cry from their best times - 21.38 and 21.49 set Leveaux and Bernard respectively in 2008 - but then French trials are a few weeks away and there's the big rest and so forth to look forward to. In third place in Strasbourg was Belgian Yoris Grandjean, on 22.55.
Leveaux's time is the 10th-best in the world so far this year and it came an hour after he had won the 50m 'fly in 23.83. Pre-selected over 50m free for the world championships in Rome in July, Leveaux must still qualify for the 100m free and 50m 'fly at French trials next month. Bernard, pre-selected for the 100m in Rome must fight for his place in the 50m - and so far he is second-best Frenchman this season, behind Fred Bousquet, who has never been faster and is now faster than Bernard's best ever, on 21.44, the world's No1 time so far this year.
All of which reminds us, on the cusp of an important week for the future of swimming, to take stock of what the burning issue is:
The 2009 top 10 to date - plus the all-time performance ranking of the Russian Sprint Tsar's best performance, the world record of 21.64, in relation to what follows below:
21.64 Alex Popov RUS; No 21 all-time performance
Here's how the top 10 at this time in 2007 and up to the launch of the LZR in 2008 looked and in those years after the big meet of the year (worlds and Olympics) ...
2007 - pre world championships:
21.64 Popov WR No1 all-time performance
2007 post Melbourne 2007:
21.64 Popov WR No1 all-time performance
2008 - up to LZR launch
21.64 Popov WR No1 all-time performance
2008 - after Beijing
21.64 Popov No 19 all-time performance
Comment: Well, a bit of a change would be underplaying it a little, perhaps. Biggest revolution in sprint swimming the sport has ever seen by a huge margin would be closer to the mark. Next week, a FINA committee will decide on the basis of things like 1mm thickness and 1 Newton (100gr) whether the suits of 2008 remain in the water for Rome 2009. When the list of survivors - and speculation has it that there will be many - is revealed we will know a little more about whether Prof Jan-Anders Manson and "independent" process arrived at those first-phase limitations (whether they were set with or without suits having been thoroughly tested remains an open question - and a hugely significant one) for suit makers for reason of "science" or for reason of knowing what FINA wanted ti keep in the water and what it wanted to get rid of.
Science is only as good as the question posed and the parameters set for testing a theory. The practice of 2008 in the pool was for a set of suits to radically alter the all-time world rankings 300 deep - not an opinion, a fact. Any testing of suits would have needed to know precisely what properties the 2008 suits had that led to a break with history, that led to the arrival of performance-enhancing equipment of a truly significant kind.
I have heard it said that the introduction of independent tests and the parameters we know of so far will leave no room for criticism of suits. If the suits of 2008 that were responsible for the unarguable facts listed above in the world rankings (and bear in mind that the top 10 is the tip of an iceberg of evidence) remain in the water, this summer - and even more so after the January 1, 2010 introduction of a set of rules that will go further than the guidelines for the March 31 round of testing - then the entire process that FINA has engaged in will have been worthless.
At a time when certain wetsuit lookalike makers and Speedo send out messages to the world to say "fear not, our suits will pass with flying colours" (interesting that they should know, since the testing parameters of an independent process have never been published), some believe that round one of FINA's Dubai Charter will change very little. We will not have to wait long now. Meanwhile, many questions hang heavy in the air about the nature of the tests that will determine the March 31 outcome.
At the February 20 meeting in Lausanne of FINA, suit makers and representatives from the worlds of coaching and swimmers, Prof Manson revealed how he would get to the crux of the matter on suits. In response, Alex Popov asked what tests would be carried out on human bodies in water. None, was the reply. Russians scientists are among scientists from several nations who have worthy tests in place on swimmers moving through water. You can bet that that evidence will not remain hidden for long - and if FINA and Prof Manson allow 2008 to spill into 2009 and then 2010, the suits crisis, far from being a thing of the past, will become an even bigger crisis. March 31 and what follows a few weeks later as FINA let it be known what has and what has not been allowed to stay in the race pool will be the first indication of whether FINA has indeed been true to its word and intends to take swimming back to its status as a sport that relies on man vs man, not suit vs suit.
Beyond the personal tales of the many victims of suit year, one of the biggest tragedies of 2008 was that critics from the world of athletics, and some other sports, poured cold water on the eight-gold-medal-winning performance of Michael Phelps. They did so because, they argued, swimming has "too many events" [a daft notion in my opinion but particularly ludicrous in the context of the truly extraordinary nature of what Phelps and coach Bob Bowman achieved], and because of "that suit". The journey of Phelps up to February 2008 tells us that this man was destined to achieve what he achieved whatever FINA did or did not allow on the skin (and though that first sub 1:43 200 free in full body device doubtless owed something to the suit, it is fairly safe to say that victory would have been his regardless of equipment).
To say that Phelps did what he did because of a suit is, to my mind, a travesty of the truth. I have heard it said that by removing the LZR from the race pool, FINA would be helping those critics of Phelps to score a point. In fact, the bigger point that would be scored against FINA and Phelps in IOC circles would be to allow the suit to survive - because the crisis would continue and the world would know that swimming, from February 2008 - in time for that magnificent effort in Beijing - had become a permanent equipment-base sport, one that could never claim proud ownership of the greatest Olympic performance ever because history has too many examples of greats who were not helped in any significant way at all (indeed some were hindered) by what they wore. No comparison possible.
A big week for FINA and Prof Manson. A very big week for the sport of swimming and whether it decides to be an equipment-based sport no longer as worthwhile following too closely as it once was, a sport no longer interested in how performance is arrived at in terms of unadulterated endeavor of athlete - nature, nurture and coaching - no longer interested in making sure that all swimmers enter the water wearing a suit that does not provide greater advantage to some than others, a sport no longer interested in ruling out a future in which the cost of suits would soar well beyond the high level already seen if performance-enhancing devices are given the thumbs up - just as long as records fall and the show goes on.
