Swimming Blogs - David Guthrie
« older | newer »
Technology and Rules
June 16, 2009
technological History
As the growing swim suit controversy so clearly illustrates, one of the most complex and challenging issues that FINA faces is how to absorb and regulate new technologies. The last thing that any sport wants to do is stifle its own evolution. A frozen sport is a dead sport—irrelevant, soon abandoned and forgotten. Each sport has a responsibility to manage its own evolution under a coherent structure. As humans, we are programmed to explore frontiers and advance our means and abilities. In a very real way, that is what competition and records are all about: measuring progress.
It is tempting to only recognize the human part of swimming's evolution and attribute the progression of times solely to the hard work and talent of individuals. But when someone declares that swimming is about the swimmers and not the suits, besides giving the suits far more credit than they deserve, they are forgetting that performance is also shaped by anti-wave lane lines, wave-eating gutters, strategic pool depths and geometries, lighting, starting blocks, air quality, temperature, goggles, and a host of other variables that affect "human" performance in a very direct way. No two pools are identical, and state-of-the-art pools in no way resemble the facilities of, say, the 1960's.
Obviously, swimming enjoys a robust tradition of embracing technological innovation. Luddites notwithstanding, no one would seriously advocate a return to the antiquated technological standards of the last century. This brief inventory of technological innovations, which together radically alter the attainable level of performance, does not even include the myriad other real and shifting influences like changing stroke rules, economic advantage, diet, training methods, and cultural biases. Yet when one more step is made in a 100 year long history of material evolution, the reaction is hysteria.
the Rule Makers
Swimming is facing a crisis—one of its own making. At the moment, the real threat to the integrity of the sport is not the introduction of new suit technologies: it is in the chaotic vocal response of its internal critics and the inability of its leadership to manage its own evolution. The rule making process is obviously corrupt and unduly influenced by the dominant manufacturer. What could be a greater threat to the integrity of the sport than that? Watching the sport self-destruct over an issue like the suits at the precise moment when swimming is getting worldwide exposure reminds one of an autoimmune system gone awry and attacking itself. What is lacking in the regulation process is a sound, philosophical basis for defining rules that deal with new technologies, in other words, the future.
The Rules Committee may not be prepared to truly appreciate and understand the underlying issues they are facing. Without an established, clear but flexible philosophical structure, the members of the Rules Committee are ill-equipped to deal with the nuance and complexity of the issues they are charged with legislating. Right now, FINA is reacting as issues and problems arise. This method of management can only respond to the tiny visible portion of the iceberg, while the enormous underlying issues—the real source of the problems—remain unaddressed and unresolved. As the past year so clearly demonstrates, an ad hoc, shoot-from-the-hip approach to rule-making is disastrous. Traveling further down that path with the same murky strategy could leave a permanent stain on the sport's legacy. By the time the mess is cleaned up, the record book will be a meaningless collection of asterisks. In order to right the ship and prevent future conflict, FINA needs to invest some energy in creating a constitution, a set of principles that offer guidance when this and future generations face difficult decisions.
Archive
Official Bloggers
