When you've got chemicals going on...

Watching the Olympics a few weeks ago, I saw a special segment about why so many world records in swimming were being broken (something like eight or nine out of every ten events had a new world record set in the Olympics this year). Apparently, it has a lot to do with a fairly recent type of ridiculous-looking, full-body swimsuit called the Speedo Lazr, which enhances a swimmer’s movement through the water (I’m not even going to pretend I know how).Apparently, nobody except me thinks the use of this swimsuit is cheating.But, the use of “performance-enhancing drugs” is considered cheating.I know that there are other considerations with doping, such as potential medical side effects. However, if that was the real concern with doping, you’d think they’d call them “potentially harmful drugs,” as opposed to “performance-enhancing drugs.” And, the first response when an athlete is found to be doping isn’t, “Wow, that guy could have seriously harmed himself”; rather, it’s, “That guy was cheating!”So, clearly, doping is considered "cheating."So, why is it acceptable to enhance one’s athletic performance with equipment, and not with chemicals?Personally, I think it’s somehow related to the reasons why it’s acceptable to use machines to milk cows more efficiently, and to even process the milk, but not acceptable to genetically modify the cattle. The first scenario is just a sensible use of technology, while the second is an inexcusable, risky and suspicious attempt to play God. Biology (biochemistry) is being targeted, while other sciences are given a free pass without a second thought.For the record, I do not support doping. Rather, I am against both performance-enhancing drugs and performance-enhancing equipment.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I have read that another contributing factor may have been that the pool was a meter deeper and two lanes wider (spare lanes on the outside) than most others.This reduces interference between the swimmer and pressure waves of his own creation off the bottom of the pool apparently.As to the issue you raise. I think you have an interesting but difficult to resolve point.It has risen when a lower leg amputee (paraolympian) wants to run in the regular races. There is an argument that the new carbon fibre blades used as a prosthesis may be a "cheat" if he runs with "able-bodied" athletes.Myself, I would roughly come down in favor of the current situation because:
1) I can see, easily, what the swimmer is using in the case of the suit.
2) I don't think the rules will be changed to ban all suits (darn! ). In which case, where do you decide that one suit is a "cheat" and one suit isn't?
3)Perhaps I am finally fed up with the Olympics after being a big fan all my life. I think the IOC is too corrupt to allow myself to support what they run. So now I don't care what they wear. (though if my implied suggestion in point 2 was adopted I might be a fan of some of the races.)

quote:

---

So, why is it acceptable to enhance one’s athletic performance with equipment, and not with chemicals?

---

I think you're giving short shrift to the point of athletes harming themselves. Unless I'm mistaken, there are also sanctions for illegal drug use, marijuana, coke, etc, and clearly those things don't enhance performance. But, I could be wrong about this.In any event, I think another consideration is the desire not only to prevent athletes from harming themselves, but also wanting to avoid younger kids emulating that activity.Now, that having been said, you certainly do have a point, that certain performance enhancements are prohibited and others are allowed. At bottom, I think the final answer can only be that these are the things they choose to allow and those are the things that they don't. A line needs to be drawn somewhere, and this is where they drew it. It may seem arbitrary, but that's just because it is. But take note, the line isn't drawn between equipment enhancements and non-equipment enhancements. Certain equipment enhancements aren't allowed either. A swimmer isn't allowed to wear flippers on his feet, or webbed gloves, or use a snorkel. Any of these things would also be a competitive advantage but they are prohibited. It's all a matter of what they choose to allow and what they don't.These are just my uneducated thoughts as a sideline observer. If someone in on the process has actual information about how and why these decisions are made, I'd be curious to hear it.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

That same deal happens in other sports - I don't think they'd be pole vaulting 20 feet with wooden poles like the event started out using.Nosy has it about right, I think: you can see the suit or the pole, but not the steroids. So mechanical aids are more acceptable than chemical ones.

The reason is the same in many sports. Equipment must also be approved and specified. Once it it approved, it is approved for all so it theoretically has an equalizing affect. Prior records without the equipment technology may be broken, but that is just the result of continuing technological advances.Drugs however have different effects on different people. Performance enhancing drugs are not necessarily an equalizer. they may give some people more of an advantage due to their genetic makeup. Ther is no way to assure equalization.Also drugs have side effects. Those also vary for the individual. Speedos don't have any side effects that I know of. Neither do golf clubs. But some have made me feel the psychological desire to bend them around a tree.

Hi, Ned. Oh yeah. I forgot about that one. They said that too. That's a good point too. I've always thought that sports equipment was meant for protection (football pads), comfort (basketball shoes) and facilitation of the game (hockey sticks).But, I guess, no matter what kind of swimsuit they wore, it would make them more streamlined. And, if you restrict suits, you'd also have to restrict caps, and, inevitably, haircuts.But, there's still a bit of a bad taste in my mouth when you think that Michael Phelps' new world records don't really prove anything about how he really matches up against Mark Spitz. So, the whole concept of a "world record" seems pointless.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

This general reply has to do with why I don't agree with equipment upgrades in sports as well as chemical (ie drugs) either. I'm a big fan of tennis, especially prior to the introduction of oversize and non-wood racquets. Allowing exotic materials and larger sweet spots of the oversized racquets has caused tennis to become less interesting as it reduced the skill level needed to compete and forces everyone to use the new equipment or lose to lesser players. I also race model sailboats (East Coast 12 Meters a one design class, The East Coast 12-Meter R/C Sailboat) where we have strict regulations about the hull, rudders, sails, mast size, etc so that it's more a contest of sailing skill and not of who's got the most money to spend on new technology/equipment. I didn't watch even one minute of this years Olympics as it's long since past thats it represented what it was intended to.Edited by kjsimons, : No reason given.

Hi, AlphaOmegakid. See, that's the thing, though: there isn't a standardized set of equipment used in swimming, so there's leeway to allow new suits into the sport. I agree that there should be a strict standardization in the playing field and the equipment, but most sports simply don't have that.To me, sporting has always been about testing and showcasing the abilities of the human body. But, the increase in world records in swimming has nothing to do with the abilities of the human body anymore: the trend reflects the technology more than the athleticism, which makes the keeping of world records (the comparison of the new holders to the previous holders) a bit dishonest.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Is every olympic swimmer using these swimsuits? If not, then that seems like nothing more than full-blown cheating. But if all swimmers wear them, then it doesn't seem so bad.I have to agree with several repliers on this thread; new equipment doesn't mean cheating, even if it enhances your preformance; The first football players didn't have access to hard helmets, padding, and the excess nutrition/medicine that modern football players (for the latter that all modern people) do (Compare the size of the average football lineman from the start of the sport to now, and the size of the average man from that same time period (19th century) to now, and you'll notice a considerable difference.)Likewise early boxers didn't have the thick padded gloves they do today (in the first olympics they had either a string or strings (I cant remember which) that were wrapped around their fists, offering little protection for their knuckles. Latter they had gloves that wrapped around the thick of their hand and had padding for their knuckles at the base of their fingers.I just wonder when we will begin to see atheletes that are discovered to have been genetically altered/enhanced before they were born to excel at sports. I believe that such a scenario has been called "Sports Armageddon".

---

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

Hi, Ludo. They are now. I guess you're right: I don't really have a problem with advancing sports technology being used. But, what I do have a problem with is the keeping of world records that reflect the trend of technological development more than the trend of physical performances. That really cheapens what former great athletes did in the past. Again, true.But I still maintain that there is a difference between increasing protective equipment, and increasing performance-enhancing equipment. Pads and boxing gloves and mouthpieces are to prevent injury, and that is an acceptible and laudible use of sports technology.But, the Speedo Lazr supposedly enhances a swimmer's performance. And, the Olympics have allowed this increase in technology to be used to illegitimately compare modern athletes, who have this technology, to past athletes, who did not have this technology. This is inherently misleading and dishonest, and it really cheapens the performance of former athletes for the sake of making the sport more attractive to the masses.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

You may have noticed that not all people are using the suits or are using a variation of it (some of the men were only using half-suits, not the full body suit) and are still competing well. The technology is available to all so I'm not sure if "cheating" is the appropriate word. It certainly changes things, but that's different.Along these lines, though: Does LASIK count as "cheating"? It can give you vision better than 20/20 when done carefully. In running, it's known that training at low altitude and resting at high altitude will increase the number of red blood cells you have in your bloodstream. It's part of the reason that African runners do so well: Their geography of their country allows them to go down the mountain to run and sleep at the top.Not all runners have this geographical advantage and technology has come to the rescue with the development of barometric chambers, nitrogren and oxygen breathers, etc. that simulate altitude differences.The World Anti-Doping Agency has decided not to ban such chambers but has declared them to violate "the spirit of the sport."I think there is something to be said about "external" enhancements and "internal" enhancements. Obviously, nutrition is an "internal" enhancement. We're biological creatures, we need to eat. Our bodies process those chemicals to produce our bodies and allow us to perform. But, I do see a difference in enhancements to performance that come from external applications to the body rather than internal ones.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

That answer troubles me; if some swimmers had this suit and others didn't then whatever swim contests had such unfair advantages should not be considered legit. Makes you wonder what else cheaters are up to in sports... I see what you mean. I remember something about Sammy Sosa being found with a specialized bat that increased its wielder's power, making for more spectacular home runs. It dampened his reputation, perhaps leaving a sense of scrutiny over his earlier achievements. Good point. I cant dissargee or argue with that.

---

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

Bluejay writes:

quote:

---

And, the Olympics have allowed this increase in technology to be used to illegitimately compare modern athletes, who have this technology, to past athletes, who did not have this technology.

---

I don't see this happening at all. Everybody understands that modern athletes are not competing in the same conditions that generations past are.By this logic, track needs to get rid of the rubberized course and go back to running on dirt. Them ashes they used to use when the Olympics first started were "enhancement," too. All the ice sports need to go back outside and onto the frozen lake. That new vault they use in gymnastics needs to go away and be replaced by the old horse (that has seriously injured many). Archery needs to go back to the old bows because those composites are just "not right."Nobody is confused that the current world and Olympic records are untainted by modern technology. The feat of Phelps and what makes him the "better" swimmer compared to Spitz isn't that he was wearing a suit. Everybody else was wearing it, too. It's that Phelps beat everybody else eight times while Spitz beat everybody else only seven. If Spitz had been born today and was trained with modern equipment, does anybody seriously doubt he would have given Phelps a run for his money?

quote:

---

This is inherently misleading and dishonest

---

Only if one is naive and thinks that a raw number has any meaning.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Hi, Rrhain. I disagree. Naturally, you personally are intelligent enough to understand this. But, I highly doubt that this is common across the world.The current world record system still compares modern swimmers to past swimmers. In reality, the world record isn't comparing equal quantities, so it's misleading to those people who missed the five-minute segment about the new pools and the new suits. I guess this isn't really just for comfort, is it? So, yeah, maybe they should, unless the purpose of the track is to prevent shin splints and stuff. I agree with that. That was pretty gross. I don't know anything about the differences here, but I'm sure there are some. I did distinguish between equipment that changes for medical reasons and equipment that changes for performance enhancement. This one depends. If the sport is meant to showcase aim and strength, then I think a composite bow is sort of cheating (maybe you're right that "cheating" isn't the right word for this phenomenon). But, if the only point is aim, and strength is supposed to be a non-factor, then composite bows should be used. Maybe it would be good to have two divisions in archery. A lot of them train in Utah.-----I guess I agree that there would be a lot of hassle involved with trying to maintain a completely level field in sports (unless we took Nosy's naturalistic approach ), and I guess I don't expect that there is much that can be done about this. Still, it seems inappropriate to remove someone's world record because of technological advancements.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.