Technology has come a long way in the past few decades. The advancement in technology can really be seen within sporting events today. It can be seen not only within the equipment used within the sports, but also within the racing “uniforms” of the athletes. Although this has led to quite spectacular performances amongst athletes, it also has led to a lot of controversy.
One major sport that has really been in the controversy about technology interfering with sport performance is swimming. Having been a swimmer for six years and having been around a swimming family for many more, I have been involved with the controversy for quite some time. Swimsuits have been changing for decades. Not only has the style of the competition suit changed, but the material that the suits have been made from has also changed dramatically. In February of 2008, the newest Speedo suit was revealed, the Fastskin LZR Racer (Laser Racer). NASA actually took a role in helping to develop this suit. The LZR is made from a very lightweight, powerful, and water-repellent material. The seams of the suit are welded to prevent hardly any drag in the water. The suit literally “clings” to the body of the swimmer. In just two months after its reveal, 35 world records were set by swimmers wearing the suit! Although this may seem dandy and all, it isn’t that great when you consider that the suit is ONLY worth $500.
The first issue that arises is, is it fair for athletes to use this suit when not everyone can afford it? Although the answer should be no, it seems like that will never be the answer. If an athlete can’t afford it, then so be it. This unfortunately is what sports have come down to, the wealthy get the advantage. The biggest issue that arose with this suit was during the time of the Olympic Trials in the United States. The issue was amongst the different swim companies that sponsored the swimmers. The whole goal of a company sponsoring an athlete is to help promote that company’s products. The problem with the LZR Racer was that it only was a Speedo product. Athletes that were sponsored by Nike, TYR, Arena, etc., wanted to wear this new suit that was causing world records left and right. No company had created a suit even close to the suit that Speedo had just created. My cousin, Whitney, is a pro-swimmer with Nike. Although she loves representing this company, she felt like wearing one of their suits at the Olympic Trials would hurt her chance of qualifying for the games (along with all the other Nike Pro Swimmers). The new developed Nike suit, the Nike Swift, just wasn’t anything like that of Speedo’s. When one becomes pro with a company, he or she is only allowed to wear clothing of that company and no others. It is part of the contract that they sign. Much controversy was brought up over the swimsuit issue. Many meetings were held around the nation to try and solve the problem. Many people tried to get the suit banned from the trials so athletes could have an equal chance of qualifying. In the end, the suit was not banned. It turned out that some companies, like Nike, agreed to letting their athletes wear the suit at Trials. They figured it would be better for the company to have one of their athletes make the games even if it meant wearing another company’s product. However, there were some companies, like TYR, that did not let their athletes wear the LZR Racer. They felt it was important for their athletes to wear and promote their own company’s suit.
Not only was it an issue at the Olympic Trials here in the United States, but it also was an issue worldwide at the Olympics in Beijing. Each country is sponsored by a certain swim company. The United States is sponsored by Speedo, so of course the athletes of the U.S. wore the LZR Racer at the Olympic Games. However, there were countries, like Germany, that were sponsored by a different brand like Adidas. Not only did these specific athletes feel like they were at a disadvantage, but people worldwide felt they were. Before the Olympic Games, 48 world records were set, 44 of them in the LZR Racer suit. No wonder non-speedo athletes were worried and upset! There were some countries, like Japan, that actually decided to allow their athletes to wear the Speedo LZR Racer, even if they were sponsored by a different company. Although this could have led to the loss of support by their country’s sponsor, they felt it was worth the risk considering how much success the Speedo suit had already had. While many people tried to ban the suit at the Olympics, in the end nothing was changed. The suit was allowed to be worn at the games.
Is it really the athlete’s true performance, or is it the suit that is resulting in so much success? Should the suit be allowed to be worn even if everyone else in the competition is not allowed to wear it? These are the questions and issues that have been arising day in and day out. When will there be a final answer?!
Picture of USA swimsuit worn at the Beijing Olympics:
4 comments:
You raise many interesting points about the integrity of sports when new technology advances cause an athletes performance to increase.
There is always going to be natural competition between sellers of the same product--like Nike and Speedo. When one company creates a new product, what does the other company do? They turn around and create virtually the same product with one or two slight variations. It is an ongoing cycle that will probably never end. I do no think that athletes should be punished--for example, not being able to wear the superior suit in the Olympics--just because their company has failed to come up with something better. I think that it is up to the competing companies to design something better, but until then athletes should have the option of wearing the Speedo swimsuit.
The biggest concern that I have with athletic equipment getting more and more advanced is how can you compare results from 100, even 50, years ago to results today. It is impossible to compare the results of athletes from back then to athletes today because the technology has so strongly influenced the performance of today's athletes. Yes, it natural for technology to increase as civilization gets more advanced and yes it makes sense that this technology is passed on to the sporting world, but it makes comparisons of past and present athletes nearly impossible.
Let's take Michael Phelps for example. There is no denying that he is a phenomenal swimmer and the best swimmer that there CURRENTLY in the world, at least according to the Olympic results. It is impossible to say, however, that he is the best swimmer of all-time. If athletes from 100 years ago had access to the same technology that athletes have today, there is no saying whether or not Michael Phelps results would be better than the others.
You bring up an interesting point when you mention that athletics has evolved into a matter of wealth. The wealthier you are, the better equipment you can afford, the better your chances of succeeding. It's becoming increasingly rare to hear of rags-to-riches stories of athletes. No longer do we hear stories of inner-city kids winning championships. I think this is disheartening and a detriment to the athletic world.
I think it would be interesting to see what would happen if today's athletes were stripped of all their highly technologically advanced equipment and forced to compete at the same level as athletes of generations past. Would today's record holders still be the best? Or do they rely too much on man-made tools instead of skill for their success?
Well, there you go. Did Phelps win those medals, or did the suit?
Egrace, I think what you say is true for many Olympic sports. There are still a few, though, where a relatively poor person can still afford to compete. The person has to be in just the right situation, though. The employer must be willing to give the time off, etc. Then again, I know a Paralympic athlete who's poor as dirt but still manages to get on the bike every day and train.
For other sports, though, forget it. College is usually the springboard, and only certain colleges have elite programs for specific sports. We emphasize rags-to-riches stories as part of our national American Dream narrative, but the typical story--the one that never ends up as a sit-com/dram--is one of failed attempts to change class. Yah, not a very optimistic type of story, but much more historically accurate. Poverty levels in the U.S. have remained fairly steady for the last 40 years, but as long as people keep trying to emerge from the dust--keep borrowing money--it doesn't matter if they fail or succeed; the important people, the wealthy, will stay wealthy.
Did I digress . . . hrmmm
All of you really bring across some interesting ideas to think about. I especially like the comment by Kayla about how it can not be said that Michael Phelps is the best swimmer of all-time since the advancement in technology wasn't available years ago. And the whole idea about rag-to-riches stories becoming rare is also a very interesting idea to ponder about. When you really think about it, you begin to realize that there really aren't that many stories anymore that fit that story line. I have to admit it's kind of depressing, but unfortunately it is true.
I just wonder if anything is ever going to change? People keep arguing that something needs to be done to help create a fair playing field among the athletes, but stories just keep emerging that talk about all the new technology that keeps being created day after day. And of course these new technologies are being portrayed in a positive manner, resulting in the public becoming obsessed with them. With the excessive support of the public, there is no chance for a decrease in technology advancement anytime soon, which means that there is no chance for competition to become fair among all athletes anytime in the near future.
Post a Comment