Status of the Sport
Suit makers have voted (not for the first time) not for what is best for swimming but for what is best for the money they can make from swimmers and parents: after months of the world of men's swimming having settled down into a time when a suit is a suit and not a way of compensating for lack of fitness or form, those who make apparel have voted to have men cover their breasts.
Hold on, I hear you say: men have no breasts. Precisely. But at a meeting with FINA in Lausanne at the weekend, suit makers rejected the notion of fairness and were to be found insisting that men cover their torsos. Why? Money. There is no other reason. None whatsoever. It comes down to this: how can we charge men as much as women: by covering their upper body - unnecessarily and against the will of Congress and against the spirit of a rule that forbids suits designed to enhance performance.
As one source put it: "Luckily, their vote counts for very little". Especially when President of FINA Julio Maglione has made a pledge, on a banner of integrity, that the will of Congress in Rome 2009 shall prevail throughout his presidency. To remind those suit makers who seem to have forgotten: last year, Congress voted for men to be men and for suits to cover modesty, with a little nod to the sensibilities of boys who don't like to show their thighs. Congress also voted for women to be women - and cover their breasts, for modesty's sake, and not so that performance might be enhanced by greater material cover that can be engineered to do just that, textile or beyond textile.
The argument that women then have an unfair advantage over men is groundless: the genders do not compete. And those who love to search the realms of world sport in support of arguments as to why swimming should behave in a way that suits their pockets, other sports offer little comfort on this one. Take tennis: men don't wear skirts or bras, but that's ok, we all understand why.
The issue will come up at the 2011 Congress meeting in 2011 should a federation propose that it does. Suit makers should not find it too hard to find a gullible federation conscious of its pocket to drive any agenda a suit makers wishes to drive, as we saw in 2008 and 2009. But should they do so, they will be arguing against the will of the President of FINA and the whole of Congress in 2009. The next Congress at which President Maglione's pledge would pass is 2013, the city yet to be decided after Dubai's withdrawal from hosting the world long-course championships that year in the midst of a financial crisis.
Meanwhile, swimmers have moved on and they and coaches have settled into a new regime and new conditions well. But not suit makers and not politicians - they are keeping the debate alive. And they do so at their peril. Swimmers and coaches take many, many years to get ready for one or two exceptional moments in a lifetime. Their efforts are consistent, their discipline constant in the face of many a test, many a challenge to their resolve. The least suit makers could do is allow a period of calm, a time leading up to London 2012 in which there is no uncertainty on apparel that must no longer enhance speed, buoyancy or endurance and take the shine away from the athlete.
One senior source put it this way: "Do we want to continue the present rule or do we want to cover the male upper body? And return to more expensive swimsuits for men? The greed of the industry apparently never lets up."
Of course, the suit makers argue that men should be wearing the same suit as the women on equality grounds. That is illogical and insulting. Men are different to women (and long may that last) and in the sport of swimming, for that very reason, they swim apart. Or will FINA say: testosterone - not the same in the two genders, perhaps it is time to even things up, Dr Kipke-style.
It will do no such thing, of course, and neither should it budge on suits at a time when the sole motive of suit makers is to make money. Suit makers, as they were in Rome last year, should be told to think again and try a little harder when it comes to engaging customers who keep them afloat.
And perhaps they would like to keep in mind the view of some very senior IOC folk too, people who asked in 2009: where are the amazing physiques we used to see in your glorious sport? Gone - under a blanket of bling and dollars. Swimming decided to do better - and FINA should stick to its guns, while ensuring that any Bureau member with any direct affiliation or financial interest in a suit maker should not only declare that interest openly but should not have a vote when the issue is discussed.
