FINA Has More Work To Do

While the recent vote of the FINA Congress regarding the use of equipment in competition for swimmers marks the beginning of changes in the sport, there is still plenty of work to be done to allow for a balanced and fair future in the sport of all involved when it comes to this issue. This circumstance has been developing for decades as manufacturers have sought a marketing edge with athletes, coaches and federations eager to seek advantage over their rivals and overtake accomplishments of their predecessors. Another poorly worded set of rules with little understanding of how we reached this point and little thought to the future of the sport, will lead us right back to a similar situation…sooner than later. Definition of TextileAre we going back to an old “standard” or forward with an unbiased definition? If a definition of textile is broken down to the type and percentages of fabrics to be used, the weave structure, the construction of the suit, or a specific permeability factor, it should not in any way be based on any one manufacturer’s previous suit model. Nor should it be based on any design which a manufacturer has patents pending anywhere in the world. To choose either path would be the result of laziness or poor calculation. Neither of which should be considered acceptable by anyone in the sport at this point. The definition of textile needs to be a standard that all manufacturers will be allowed to access without fear of patent infringement or the need to pay royalties to another manufacturer to participate in the sport. Anyone with even the slightest understanding of markets will understand why athletes and coaches will suffer going forward if one manufacturer is allowed that kind of rule over the sport.Profile or cut of the suitWhile we as a company are ready to compete in the marketplace with any cut of suit that is allowed, no one within the sport should want to see changes in the future that are forced by those outside of the sport. It has been over two decades since the introduction of the “paper suit” that kicked this process off and caused manufacturers, coaches and athletes to push to expand the use of compression while in competition. That cat will not be put back in the bag regardless of fabrics or material used on the suit. Based on the hand wringing by some coaches and those in the media who have claimed that the new suits created a “new sport”, we are clearly going to have two sports in the water at every meet under the vote passed by the FINA congress. Event one will have compression in the core and upper legs which will have specific advantages for specific body types in specific events. Event two will have compression in the upper legs that will provide specific advantages for specific body types in specific events. That will be two different sports if those same coaches and media commentators are to be consistent. We live in highly litigious societies. How long until an athlete or their representative claims that it is unfair for male and female athletes in the same sport to be forced to use different equipment in competition? If they were to be successful in their claims, it would happen at a time leading to a championship season of some type, leaving the sport lurching to deal with “availability” at the last minute….again.Some additional rules are needed that pertain to this issue:National Federations or their employees cannot be allowed to participate in the development or marketing of products to be used in competition by athletes. No exceptions.Coaches and athletes (including those with “former” in their relationship to the sport) who are directly funded in anyway by a manufacturer of equipment used by athletes in competition, should not be involved in the decision making process for the legality of that equipment. No matter their stature in the sport. Athletes need to be able to recognize sponsorship relationships for entities other than suit manufacturers while in competition. (This can be done regardless of the cut or fabrics of suits used and should not be limited to caps) The notion that most athletes who choose to continue their careers in this sport in to adult hood are limited to what suit manufacturers or National Federations will give them borders on immoral. There are plenty of examples where international and national governing bodies of “individual sports” can generate sufficient income to grow their sport, while allowing individual athletes to pursue their own income potential while in competition. In fact it enhances the ability of all involved to grow their sport financially and in participation. Swimming would be no different. It’s time to change the logo rules within FINA and the National Federations that are preventing a free market for athletes to grow financially. Otherwise we will likely see splinter swim entities at a time when it would be detrimental to the sport as a whole.If only one suit is allowed (as it should be), then only one swim cap should be allowed. On the surface this is a minor detail, but consistency is the key to the success of any sporting rules. The use of multiple caps has an obvious benefit. With the suits being cut back and compression lost, any advantage will be sought by those looking for an edge. One suit, one cap. It’s not that difficult.One final note: Anyone claiming “purist” status on this issue must look well before the mid 1980’s for their ground to stand on. While the mounting broken records and leaps in improved times can obviously be noted in this era, the reality is that athletes and their coaches in the 1980’s sought and employed suit technology that was better than their predecessors whose records they were breaking during their run in the sport. Same for those who coached and competed in the 1990’s. And it was no different for those who competed from 2000 to the beginning of 2008. If asterisks are to be placed on records, they should show up with anything accomplished since the start of this entire process almost 25 years ago. The notion that "my tech suit is/was OK, but your tech suit is cheating" is childlike at best.

Posted by Kelvin Koch
www.RocketScienceSportsSwim.blogspot.com