March 31 has come and gone and we welcome April Fool's day with hope in our hearts. Suit makers have by now submitted their apparel and performance-enhancing devices for approval or rejection by FINA as phase one of the international federation's Dubai Charter kicks in. Here is what we know and what we don't yet know:
What we know:
- that those tests are based on a set of procedures and parameters that have yet to be published
- that some suit makers continue to send out propaganda saying that their fast suit will survive (and how would they know that if the tests are yet to be conducted and if the parameters of testing are yet to be published?)
- that suit makers who have suits rejected within 15 days will get a chance - provided that rejection can be quantified - to alter suits and resubmit for approval
- that FINA has made a promise: " ... FINA wishes to recall that the main and core principle is that swimming is a sport essentially based on the physical performance of the athlete. This is the fundament which FINA has and will continue to preserve as its main objective and priority. FINA brings together athletes from around the world to compete on equal conditions and thereby decides the winner by the athlete who is physically the best."
- that for FINA to honour its word, the suits of 2008 that shot performance off the chart of expectation - as penned at Melbourne 2007 by those who had no inkling of what was already being tested in the water out of competition and away from the public eye - must go, if not now (and that would make for a sad summer), then certainly by January 1, 2010.
- that talk of there being no science to prove anything is not strictly true, given the biggest aquatic labs that opened in Manchester in April of 2008 and Beijing in July of 2008 (among other moments).
- that empirical evidence is to be found in abundance: rigorous scientific process usually follows as a response to the kind of empirical evidence we all witnessed in 2008 (and whether the right questions are being asked and the right tests are being conducted remains to be seen)
- that a significant part of the empirical evidence stems from "scientific proof" that performance enhancement exists, as advertised widely and aggressively by suit makers, some of which tell us (and we have no reason to doubt it) that they spent "millions" on research and engaged some of the "world's leading" scientists, some of the most reputable scientists in their field. Suit makers are either lying or are correctly stating the results of scientific studies and backing that up with reference to world-class scientists (no grey areas there).
- that far and wide and deep are the statements of swimmers and coaches who have enthusiastically endorsed suits because they enhance performance (and that goes for swimmers with no contract and nothing to gain but a free suit).
- hardly a single international level athlete, coach, or swimming federation chose to use pre-2008 swimwear in favor of post-February 2008 suits when it counted most - and those who did paid a price.
- that the Dubai Charter cites a 1mm thickness and a 1 Newton (100gr) limit the worth of which is meaningless until we see whether those factors contribute to returning performance to the swimmer and coach and removes it from the hands of suit makers and commercial enterprises
- that some suit makers have been forced to go with the fast flow or lose their market, just as swimmers and coaches opposed to the suits have been forced to don the devil in order to remain competitive - and that FINA must answer to those who feel they are losing while winning.
- that FINA lost control of the sport in 2008 as nations across the world decided to impose a varying set of suit rules, from age-groupers to seniors, in the face of a FINA rule book that had had its spirit broken and allowed an anarchic free-for-all on suits by year-end
- that the buck stops with FINA - but ultimately no-one running or competing in swimming can wash their hands of responsibility: the swimming community, domestic federations, coaches, swimmers, school and college authorities and so on can determine the direction the sport takes (I have heard it said "I just swim"...yes, but would you do so if I told you that the governing body had authorised the use of a suit that releases steroids into your body? Along a spectrum of choice there comes a moment when all must say yes or no).
- that swimming and FINA faces a choice: apparel or performance-enhancing devices that skew the result
- that between 2000 and 2007 there is no statistical evidence, regardless of what suit makers may have claimed, that suits were responsible for a seismic shift in the nature of the sport: the tradition has long been one of progress (steady or Beamonesque) on the clock by outstanding individuals who lead the way to a pool that ultimately serves as a dam for the wider shoal, which raises its game, realigns its sights and catches up stroke by stroke - until the moment comes when another one or few outstanding individuals move on again. (that was NOT the pattern of tidal-wave 2008)
- that events of 2008 devalued coaching, talent, effort and commitment
- that the records and best times set in 2008 and into 2009 have been dependent on devices that will make evaluation of swimming performance and the perceived worth of performance ever more dependent on the aggressiveness of suit makers to go the next stroke towards producing a human sailfish (that's the one that relies on flying not just swimming for its speed) and fattening up their bottom line.
What we do not yet know but promise to find out if the need arises:
- the parameters and methodology of the testing process
- that the list of approved suits will tell us if a particular brand of suit is approved in current or 2008 model form with no changes or whether a suit has been passed after alterations have been made (this point is critical for officials who must judge and swimmers who have suits in their collections that have brand and name X on them but are not necessarily the same as the new model brand and name X approved by FINA).
- that, given that the approval process that led to the 2008 generation of suits making it into the race pool, we cannot yet be certain that the 2009 testing process, independent but clearly guided by FINA, will be any different. We hope and pray that there is a big difference, for without one, nothing will have been achieved
- that the $1,000 (and more) suit is coming to a pool near you, along with truly undesirable properties, if FINA does not stem the 2008 tide (we don't know it but I'd put money on it happening before London 2012 if the market allows for it, if the market can get away with it)
- that Rule SW10.7 will become a battle ground. FINA says that the "device" rule does not apply to suits. That only makes sense for a time when suits were not devices. Now we know that they are. So, if FINA solves the problem with its Dubai Charter and the approvals guidelines that carry the weight of the general rules (GR) of FINA, then suits will indeed no longer be devices. But if the problem remains, then rule SW10.7 is entirely relevant to the war that threatens to spill out of the pool into political consequence.
And with that, I leave you with some food for thought until we know what may come of the Dubai Charter, at least for the summer ahead.
Swimming, like all good sport, is interesting in the wider world (and indeed within its own community) not simply because of a result sheet but because of the story that accompanies the result sheet: what makes X better than others, what sets X apart, how X's early life played a part in his success, what X did that was special, different, trend-setting, what inspired X, who worked with X, why we should we regard X as extraordinary along a thread that links X to his sport's historic thread, one that graces swimming with lore and meaning. All of that is possible if we can say that X was in a race where everyone in the water had an equal chance in all regards beyond what nature and good fortune deliver. But what if one of the lines of the story is: he won because his suit was better than that worn by the previous world-record holder in the lane beside him?What if the reporter is justified in writing that swimmer G wore a suit that meant she could work less, cut out core training, fatten up to get a bigger benefit, negate the effects of heavy thighs and a shape that would once not have been quite as conducive to performanc (those are the views of many, many swimmers, coaches and sports scientists, according to my mailbox)?
What if it is fair to say that G wore a suit not available to P (lack of availability does not simply mean you can't buy it, it means that if P's federation earns its money from suit maker A and cannot get or does not want a deal with suit maker B but suit maker B puts a suit on G's back that enhances performance well beyond anything else available to P, then P is at a disadvantage that owes nothing to nature and everything to contract and commerce)?
A sports editor once said to me: "The trouble with swimming is that there are no personalities [I disagreed ... hard to deliver a personality when all stories must be told in 300 words] and nothing to tell us why someone ought to be regarded as special ... most people don't understand what [a time] on freestyle over a particular distance means. They can't relate to it. What they can relate to is a story that tells us what sets a man apart from his peers and the greats that went before him."
Ah, the thread of history. It is to be found in all sports. Yes, things change, and few object to that. But rare is the case where you cannot compare the timed performance of a retired world record holder who holds the best time ever at the start of the year with the tidal wave of efforts that get past that great within six months. And the reason that you cannot compare overlapping generations is nothing to do with training, coaching, sports science and so forth. It is to do with the suit. Take Pieter van den Hoogenband: you might say that his peak years were 1999 to 2004, while that stunning 47.84 stood as the world record for almost eight years. But then Hoogie - who worked hard and smart with coach Jacco Verhaeren until he waved goodbye at the Watercube - was faster than ever in Beijing 2008 ... and finished fourth in his last solo appearance in an Olympic final. The tragedy rests not in honourable defeat - his effort was heroic - but in the nature of the final he swam in: there was no way of telling which swimmers placed where in what time as a result of their suit. The question "how would that race have ended had they not been wearing performance-enhancing devices" was left hanging in the air.
All we knew was that the past had been blown to smithereens - not by the trendsetting of an extraordinary individual (Kahanamoku, Weissmuller, Rose, Schollander, Meyer, Matthes, Gould, Spitz, Goodell, Salnikov, Gross, Meagher, Evans, Darnyi, Egerszegi, Perkins, Popov, Van Almsick, Heyns, Thorpe, Van den Hoogenband, Klochkova, Hackett, Phelps, among others) or by the momentum of duelling rivals (Biondi-Jager; Thorpe-Hackett etc etc) but by a tidal wave of progress that flooded the world rankings 300 deep like never before and had one common denominator: the suit.
The clock ticks. FINA sets the rules - but all federations, swimmers and coaches deserve the sport that they get ... to a point. FINA has taken the sport to the brink of a tipping point beyond which a revolution simmers. The international federation has promised to step back from the brink. They will be judged not on their words but their deeds - and how those translate to the water. Will this self-declared non-profit-making organisation save the sport - or float it out of existence on a tide of suit-making profits?
