Swimmers at the Olympic Games in Beijing have been breaking world records left and right. Some explanations for the faster times include pool conditions, improved training, better nutrition... and the new swimsuits. But if technology has such a strong hand in deciding who wins, is there really a level playing field in sport? And don't athletes have a right to compete with each other based solely on their own abilities? 
Tech triumph
The Speedo LZR Racer is designed to reduce the drag created by water flowing over the body. Swimmers claim it makes their bodies move faster. But this efficiency comes with a price - 550 dollars for a suit that can only be worn a half dozen times. Canadian Olympic swimmer Brent Hayden told our correspondent:
"It seems to be working, a lot of world records have been broken, every sport has been able to advance the technology, and I think swimming has found its new thing."
Good for the rich
Hayden said most swimmers in the Olympics will opt for the new suit if they can. And the results have proven him right - most of the medals won and world records broken have been
Dutch swimmer Pieter van den Hoogenband in his Speedo LZR Racer
Photo: ANP
|
by swimmers wearing the LZR. But what about those swimmers who can't afford the suit? David Mawande is a Kenyan swimmer and hopes to qualify for the next games in London. He's unable to afford the LZR, as it costs 31 times what he pays for his current swimsuit. He thinks the advantage is unsportsmanlike:
"It is definitely not a level playing field. If you look at the swimmers who are contracted to wear the suit, it's like most of them come from America and Australia, which are the swimming powerhouses. Definitely they are going to win the races if they use the LZR and it's not going to be a fair playing field at the Olympics. So it will be a war of wealth instead of talent, which is what sports is all about in my opinion."
Ethical quandary
So is there a right to a level playing field, and have athletes lost that right when it becomes a race to buy the best equipment? Greg Dale, sports ethicist from Duke University in the United States, thinks the advantage of the suit is problematic:
"I'm all for technology and the advancement of equipment and things like that, but I think the Olympic idea is to allow people to test their bodies against other athletes. It shouldn't be, in my mind, about who has the best equipment. It should be who trains the best."
The Speedo LZR Racer swimming suit
|
For Dale, the suit 'changes the vessel' in which the swimmer moves through the water. It is not an improvement in the ability of the athlete to race, but rather a change in the physical space around the swimmer. This, he says, is unfair.
An unfair world
Julian Savulescu of Oxford University in the UK disagrees. He believes sport and technology have always gone hand-in-hand to achieve better results. As for the perceived inequality of the playing field based on the price of technology, Savulescu thinks it's no more or less unfair as anything else in the world:
"You can't really compete in most of the events in the Olympics unless you have very sophisticated training facilities, and expensive technology ... That's just the way the world is. I don't think that's anymore unfair than people getting access to better computers, or education, or health care. Some people equate fairness with complete equality, but I personally don't."
Other sports, like cycling, have used technology to change the shape of the athlete. Swimming may now be coming into a new phase. While the debate about whether athletes have a right to a level playing field may continue, one thing is certain: new world records are far more exciting for the sport than slower, fairer, swimsuits.
Tags:
Beijing,
Julian Savulescu,
olympics,
rights,
Speedo LZR Racer,
sport,
technology
Carlos Borjal,
24-08-2008
- USA
I believe that if Michael Phelps was butt naked and wearing nothing but a smile, he would still had won his events.
BF in SF,
19-08-2008
- USA
The majority of olympic-class athletes are both intellectually and athletically competent and do not see intellect and athletic skill as being mutually exclusive. Anti-intellectualism is more prevalent among business people marketing products to be sold to olympic athletes. If the price of equipment is inaccessible to athletes from economically disadvantaged conditions, perhaps the market should be opened to competition so that the same equipment can be produced at lower cost and sold for a lower price to athletes needing it.
Vera Gottlieb,
18-08-2008
- Germany
Why not dare question the IOC in Lausanne as to what it is doing with the millions it takes in profits after each Olympic games. This money could very well be put to use by helping financially strapped athletes participate and not depend on commercial sponsors. A case of 'no beautiful teeth', no help???
Evert C. Weidner,
18-08-2008
- USA
Considering "a level playing field" may indeed be an intellectual question with some validity, however, judging by watching the Olympics, most if not all had similar suits, including some winners who did not. Perhaps the field may be, in actuality, more level than people think. Using in competition highly paid professionals, such as in basketball, and tennis for instance, is an other matter, and a slap in the face of true Olympic athleticism.
David Berridge,
18-08-2008
- Canada
During the 1900 Games in Paris, the American team comprised nearly exclusively of athletes from Penn State University, loaned and gave athletic gear to athletes from countries not as well organized to go to the Olympics as they. This precedent should be taken into account and a new fund developed to help athletes from lesser well off countries have the opportunity and access to newer means of enhancing athletic performance. This fund could be supported by transactional companies who not only pay handsomely to sponsor the Games, but to profit from them as well. It is therefore only in the vested interests of these companies to do what they can to provide the closest and most exciting competition that is possible for a global audience to follow. After all, professional sports in Europe and North America have revenue sharing agreements from television revenues and the like to promote and enhance "parity" in their respective leagues, so why not with national Olympic teams?!!
Peter Seidman,
17-08-2008
- usa
I am a swimmer--was competitive, then masters, now for health. The physical difference among competitors--including those with identical training regimes--are wide enough. If technology is allowed to interact with the inherently physiological, then EVERYONE must be given the identical advantage. All runners run on the same track, swimmers in the same pool, rowers in same rivers, wrestlers and gymnasts on the same mats, soccer-softball-baseball players on the same field etc. Therefore, given the Olympics have left behind the idea of amateur, that big bucks are involved, companies should be required to donate their technologies to any Olympian for the duration of their competition. For example, if Speedo LZRs are allowed, then Speedo is required to give every swimmer going to the Olympics all the LZRs s/he needs until s/he is eliminated or wins. Same with cycle wheels, bullets, arrows, oars, shells, sails, poles, disks, shot puts, shoes etc. Each competitor once qualified for the Olympics requests what s/he needs, the manufacturer complies. Sometime soon biotic enhancement of the competitor will occur--at what point is s/he no longer "human". Does it matter? Will 'it' still be allowed to compete? As male? As female? In its own "gender" category. Peter
Gene Rosendahl,
17-08-2008
- USA
While individual dedication to practice and preparation are important, being born with some special capability that allows one to excel over an associate hardly seems any fairer than using drugs to enhance lesser skills. Those born of mothers who, during pregnancy, were eating animals treated with growth hormones often have advantages. Is that any worse than those taking growth hormones after birth? This controversy sounds like the amateur-pro discussion of prior years. Practice, coaching, and other prep is an expensive matter and should not be reserved for societies and families who have wealth to tune athletes when cheaper means are available to all. The health issue is a definite concern, but it doesn't seem like the IOC/sports community should be the policing agent.
Rosetta Ross,
17-08-2008
- USA
The issue of a level playing field is relevant only if the Olympics are a competition and celebration of all nations. If it is a competition only for those nations whose athletes have corporate relationships that help them "pay" for access to participation at the level of some current competitions, then levelling the playing field is moot. If the Olympics are a symbol of international cooperation in addition to being a competition, then open access is important. When global corporations that market across the globe intervene in ways that determine which nations have access, the idea of nations cooperating is overridden. This type of intervention results in a loss, to the international community. Ultimately, it may be useful to ask if the idea of an international community is important. If it is important, it also is useful to ask if the idea of an international community is exclusive.
Mikey,
17-08-2008
- Oregon, USA
I've thought about this while watching the Olympics and I don't think the new swimsuits should be allowed. The competition is for the swimmers to race against each other, not for them to gain advantages through their technology. Some other people in this forum are comparing the situation to other sports, but the difference is that in those sports the new technology and equipment is a requirement of the sport. You can't show up to Olympic archery with a hand-made wooden children's bow. Either the Olympics should provide all Olympic swimmers with the latest in swimwear technology at every Olympics or they should make regulations about which swimwear is allowed and ban the new ugly LZR swimsuits.
Just because life isn't fair doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive to make it fairer, even if it's an unattainable goal. The Olympics as a worldwide sports competition is already somewhat of a joke because it's totally and utterly dominated by the wealthier countries who have populations that can afford training and equipment and practice facilities. Thus the games are dominated by European-descended and East Asian people. However, just because it's unfair doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make it fairer. It's about striving for what is right, not giving up and giving in to some cynical worldview.
Vera Gottlieb,
17-08-2008
- Germany
So what is the difference between doping and modern technology? It is cheating, no matter what.
