Editorial. The Vice-President of the Italian swim federation (FIN), Giovanni Rosaia, has written to all members of the FINA Bureau pleading the case for men to wear full suits above the waist from January 1, 2010. His argument is: equality of the sexes. His weapon:  [FINA rule] C4: Discrimination.

Signore Rosaia includes a point-by-point counter-strike to the views aired by us here. But he fires from a toy gun, his bullets mere bubbles of air, his logic unlikely to withstand the wind of a perfectly still day.

The equality of which Signore Rosaia (with federation sponsor Jaked in mind perhaps, though the official cites only his "passion" for swimming), and the federations of Australia and Britain, with Speedo in mind, speak is a false equality. Great that women should swim the same distances and strokes and win the same prize money as men, and have equally good changing facilities and so on and so forth. But women cannot swim topless and men do not need to swim in a suit cut purely to reflect her anatomy.

There is good reason why Ryan Lochte does not race Steph Rice over 400m medley. There was a good reason why FINA decided that Libby Trickett (now Lenton) could not count her 52.99sec effort in April 2007 as a world record when racing in a lane next to Michael Phelps. Men are men and women are women. There are some "discriminations" that nature makes, and the world is a better, more populated place for it. In swimming, as in most sports, men race men and women race women and any difference in their anatomy ought to be taken into account so as NOT to discriminate against a sex. 

Telling the Bureau and all those who agreed with its suits decisions that they are wrong - on the basis of gender discrimination and sex - Signore Rosaia says that allowing women to wear material from waist to shoulder straps, while forbidding men to do so, offends reason.

He cites Rule C4 - Discrimination:

"FINA shall not allow any discrimination against national Federations or individuals (competitors, officials, judges, delegates, etc.) on the grounds of race, sex, religion, or political affiliations."

Of course, FINA is doing no such thing. The international federation has simply followed the laws of nature:  men are men and women are women. He reminds the Bureau of the definition of "discriminate": to treat differently. As in the way that the US male synchro swimmer Bill May and others like him are discriminated against; in the way that water polo men are discriminated against; in the way that male divers are discriminated against; in the way that male officials are discriminated against ... and on an on?

 The Italian official states: "Reducing the “body covering surface” more for male gender than female gender will lead to what we can call a different,  and more difficult adaptation  in swimming  for males , due to new rules adopted." He misses a very significant and fundamental point: men and women do not compete against each other. Indeed the rules forbid such competition. Like for like, level playing field to level playing field. It can undoubtedly be argued that the conditions that will apply on suits from January 1, 2010,  will be fair more fair and more even than anything we have seen in the race pool for the past two years, man Vs man, woman Vs woman, both battles having involved a high degree of suit Vs suit in 2008 and 2009.

Signore Rosaia continues: "Male gender will have more difficulties to adapt their way of swimming, their sensation and sensibility in water. The “technical shock” will be different, and easier for female gender." Even if that were true - and it is, of course, a vast overstatement (pure nonsense, some may say), the complainant misses the same point once again: men race men and women race women, the strokes and distances are the same and the prize money is the same. The difference is purely one that reflects the natural difference in the sexes and common international standards of modesty. No-one is discriminated against.

The Italian looks back over "nine years" in which suit conditions for men and women were the same. Nine years?! Fabulous. So, Schollander, Wenden, Spitz, Montgomery, Salnikov, Gross, Baumann, Darnyi, Biondi, Jager, Morales, Barrowman, Popov, Perkins, Pankratov and all their contemporaries over 30 years must have lived through truly dreadful times of overt discrimination. It must have been awful for them. Imagine, no chance to cover their chests with material! They must have been devastated and surely there was a fair murmur of protest by those men down the years? Well, actually, no, not a single word of complaint, as far as I can see. The issue was never raised. 

The Italian says that the past nine years has to be treated differently because the constitution specifically set out not to discriminate between sexes when it came to suits. Nonsense. I see no such specific reference anywhere.

He then breaks down his own argument by indicating that you cannot consider the issue of discrimination across time in the context of changing values, moral values and so forth. He dismisses the case of male synchro swimmers as irrelevant because FINA never allowed male synchro. He dismisses having equal conditions for men and women in water polo on the basis that they never have had equality. 

He appears to overlook the fact that his argument applied to swimming for  much of the first 100 years of FINA governance. On the  basis of his argument, he must surely consider one of the inexplicable wonders of the world to be that women got the vote. After all, there was a time when they were forbidden - but then the world grew up.

Signore Rosaia insists that: "This is our Constitution, and I think every decision must fit the Constitution". And yet, there he is denying that the same foundations of his version of fairness do not apply to any of the other sports in the FINA family of five Olympic disciplines. The truth is, the new suit rules are perfectly within the bounds of reasonable interpretation and understanding of the Constitution of FINA.

To make his point, the Italian indicates that if men can only wear shorts, then women should wear bikinis if modesty is the purpose of more material. The body above the waist does not need to be covered. He gives no consideration to the views of women who would hate to wear a "bra"-style top to a suit for a race dive, would hate the uncomfortable nature of such a garment for racing in water and the high potential for embarrasment of the kind a fair few suffered this summer past when their Jaked01s ripped up the backside at the start of races.

The Italian's letter then gets into a tangled web of trying to justify one form of discrimination over another. The difference in the Olympic programme for men and women is not discrimination, he holds (but suits that cover breasts and do not need to cover chests are...).

Signore Rosaia's web gets all the more tangled when he raises the issue of deciding meet winners on points, regardless of sex, because, he indicates, the conditions of racing will not be the same for men and women. Some news for the correspondent from Italy: points are set for men according to the speed of men, and for women according to the speed of women. His argument is illogical.

Signore Rosaia states: "No one is able to describe a case of an "Insignificant Discrimination”." Quite, just ask Bill May. FINA is not persuaded - and should not be on suits either.

And then, our Italian expert, notes:  "Last, but not least, the Opinion Leader Mr. Lord statements, that more than all the rest, shows how no legal and logical  reason exist to discriminate male gender on ground of “body coverage surface” (sic).  

I will not take up every point, for much is covered above, but here are some things worth noting:

Italy expects someone (perhaps Jaked or the federation it sponsors) to make a challenge at the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Go ahead: but before spending too much money, best look back at precedent from 2000, within Signore Rosaia's nine-year limit.  Back then, CAS ruled that FINA had every right to set its own rules on suits. There is nothing in the constitution of FINA than prevents men being treated as men and women being treated as women.

Signore Rosaia states: "It's not political correctness we are discussing of. It's a different body coverage based only on sex." Well, yes, indeed, glad you got the point: men are men and women are women: their nature dictates that a different suit ought to be worn at a time when the international federation has accepted that suits, material and coverage, enhance performance and that that in itself breaks FINA rules. Natural then to allow coverage that is simply fit for purpose: to swim and to preserve modesty.

Signore Rosaia claims that "Of course male[s] are offended". I await the vast list of world-class male swimmers who wish to mount a campaign to say that they feel discriminated against because women can cover their breasts. I am resigned to waiting a while.

Signore Rosaia quotes from SwimNews - "will lady officials have to stop wearing skirts; or perhaps the men must come over all Scottish?" - and says that he appreciates "the English sense of humour". Make that British at the very least: I have Scottish and Irish ancestry and would not wish my ancestors to be discriminated against.

The V-P of the Italian Fed concludes by offering a "no comment" to another view from SwimNews: "We all know why there is a move to have men wear what women wear in the race pool: suit makers want more fabric in their suits because the suits will then cost more; and officials want more fabric because they may wish to use a sponsor's name across the chest. Nothing to do with equality. Everything to do with money. And if those are the real arguments, they should be placed in the open and discussed for what they are."

I will now add the following to those thoughts. FINA should start another debate at the earliest date possible: declaration of interest. Signor Rosaia is a member of a federation that has a financial interest in representing the interests of Jaked, a suit maker affected in measure by decisions taken by 168 nations at Congress, the FINA Technical Swimming Committee and ultimately the FINA Bureau in Rome in July. 

I have no idea what Signore Rosaia's connections to any suit maker may be, but my questions to Italy (and for those interested, we raised the issue of stakeholdings in Jaked back on the eve of racing in Rome) are the same as they are to any federation in the world and any serving official in the world: do you have a direct financial interest in a suit maker, as a federation or an individual?; does anyone connected to your federation, from president downwards (including any in a position to set policy and rise to FINA office) have a financial stake in a suit maker? 

If the answer to those questions is ever "yes", then such interests should be declared in all cases and especially when officials engage in writing to all members of the FINA Bureau beyond the public domain. We are happy to bring Signore Rosaia's views to the public domain, so that healthy debate on a wider scale may take place.