"Bodysuits are over rated" by Ian Thorpe

[Dan tm]

Bodysuits are over-rated
By IAN THORPE
01may00
http://sport.news.com.au

IF I win an Olympic gold medal this year, I don't believe it will be because
of a swimsuit.

I'm pleased that the Australian Olympic Committee has given me, and all
Australian swimmers, the choice of wearing my preferred suit, but it is not
going to make a major difference to my performance.
No matter what swimsuit anyone wears at our Olympic trials in two weeks, or
at the Sydney Olympics, the best swimmer will win on the day.

I'm not going to put the success I have had in the past, or may have in the
future, down to the suit because I have worked too hard to attribute all
that success to a swimsuit.

It's the same when people say I swim so fast because of the size of my feet.

That devalues my effort. It's the hard work we put into our preparation that
allows athletes to perform best on the day.

I'm surprised the swimsuit issue has become such a big deal and I think it's
happened because of a misconception.

Speedo is saying its Fastskin suit is a 3 per cent improvement on its
previous one, the Aquablade, but when that was launched in 1996, they said
it was a 22 per cent improvement. Yet swimming times did not improve by 22
per cent from 1995 to 1996 and I don't expect them to drop by 3 per cent
because of the new suits.

I think it's the visual impact that has made the new suits so controversial.
They look so different that people think they must be very different.

While I don't think the bodysuits are illegal, I thank the Australian
Olympic Committee for raising the issue of whether the suits meet the
International Swimming Federation's rules.

Under FINA rules, no swimmer may wear a device which aids speed, endurance
or flotation. FINA doesn't interpret that rule as applying to swimwear. But
the dictionary defines "device" as anything designed to achieve a purpose -
and a swimsuit has certainly been designed to achieve a purpose. That
suggests there is a legal loophole which would allow one swimmer to
challenge another.

The rule should be changed to reflect the way FINA interprets it, which is
that swimwear is not a device.

Otherwise, every swimsuit since 1938, when silk swimsuits went out, should
have been banned.

I'm not concerned that someone might challenge me for wearing a bodysuit,
because whatever swimsuit they might be wearing, will have broken that rule
as well.

While I don't think the new suits make much difference, I still want the
right to wear my preferred suit. When you are looking for that tiny bit
extra, not much is a whole lot.

I approached the AOC for permission because I wanted the opportunity to wear
the best possible suit, regardless of the team sponsor. It's the same as
track athletes choosing their running spikes and I don't think that has
destroyed the equal playing field in athletics.

I have been testing the Speedo suit for the past two weeks and I have done
it thoroughly. I wanted to make sure I gave it a fair go, because I would
never jeopardise my success at the Olympic Games, or any competition, to
please my sponsor.

I did four training sessions in it. Many of the sessions had speed work,
some had endurance work and some a combination of both. I tested efficiency
off the walls, efficiency on the turns, efficiency off the dive, total time,
heart rate - everything I could think of. I put it through the same
conditions I would test in any swimsuit.

Some times I preferred one suit, other times the other. But my thinking when
I started this was to find the swimsuit that allowed me the best athletic
performance possible and I felt it was the adidas suit. That's why I signed
with them last year. It wouldn't be the right decision for all swimmers
because the performance of the suits is going to vary a lot between
athletes, depending on technique and body type. It will come down to
personal preference.

I made my stand because when I swim, I want to do everything to permit my
best performance. I am prepared to do anything - except take drugs or food
supplements, which would artificially enhance my performance.

I don't think the swimsuit does that. It just allows me to swim naturally.

[RunnSwim]

Nice piece by Thorpe. But the most important part of his message is buried in
the middle.

>> But my thinking when
I started this was to find the swimsuit that allowed me the best athletic
performance possible and I felt it was the adidas suit. That's why I signed
with them last year.<<

Spoken like a true pitchman.

- Larry Weisenthal

[Dan tm]

Even many here saw that comment and were interested to find out more.

Dan

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Thorpe 'no mercenary'
BY NICOLE JEFFERY
02may2000
The Australian

WORLD record-holder Ian Thorpe yesterday refuted claims he had chosen an
adidas bodysuit for this month's Olympic trials and the Olympic Games for
commercial gain.

On the eve of a judgment on the legality of bodysuits, the 17-year-old
Thorpe revealed he had accepted a substantially smaller contract with adidas
than rival swimwear manufacturer Speedo had offered him because of his suit
preference.
"If it's about winning gold medals I am sure Ian will be wearing Speedo,"
Speedo marketing director Tim Lees told ABC radio recently. "If it's about
cash, maybe he will wear something else."

Thorpe announced his choice of the adidas suit on Friday, after the
Australian Olympic Committee agreed to his request to make his own decision,
rather than be compelled to wear team sponsor Speedo's product.

But he was still concerned yesterday that the public would believe his was a
commercial decision.

"Ian is not a mercenary," his manager, David Flaskas, said in Sydney
yesterday. "There was no financial benefit to him.

"We are disappointed about the comments because during our negotiations with
Speedo and adidas we always said the money was not the issue, the swimsuit
was. We would never compromise his performance."

Flaskas said they had only chosen to reveal the information about Thorpe's
financial dealings to "set the record straight".

The teenage world champion sparked the bodysuit debate in February when he
applied to the AOC for the right to choose his own suit for the Olympics.

During his deliberations on the issue, AOC president John Coates discovered
a possible discrepancy between the performance-enhancing claims of the
swimsuit manufacturers and the International Swimming Federation's (FINA)
rules which prohibit any "device" which aids speed, endurance or buoyancy.

He applied to the Court of Arbitration for Sport for an advisory opinion on
the legality of the suits under FINA rules and that opinion is due to be
announced in Lausanne today.

The ongoing debate about the legitimacy of the suits has been confusing and
distracting for swimmers preparing for the Olympic selection trials, which
start in Sydney on May 13.

Most of the leading Olympic contenders received Speedo bodysuits last month
but many are still unsure if they will wear them at the trials. Opinions are
mixed on their benefits and there is concern about the legal ramifications.

Even Speedo postergirl Susan O'Neill is expected to wear a more traditional
suit, rather than the full wrist-to-ankle version.

But her butterfly rival, fellow Olympic medallist Petria Thomas, is in
favour after breaking the Commonwealth 100m butterfly record in a full suit
last week in Canberra.

Kieren Perkins and Daniel Kowalski may join Thorpe in taking the adidas
option at the trials, although Perkins and sprinter Chris Fydler are among
those who believe the full suits should be banned.

RunnSwim <runn...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000501123745...@ng-fy1.aol.com...

[jrchr...@ppg.com]

In article <390ce848$0$27...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au>,

"Dan tm" <da...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Bodysuits are over-rated
> By IAN THORPE
> 01may00
> http://sport.news.com.au
>

>
> Under FINA rules, no swimmer may wear a device which aids speed,
endurance

> or flotation. FINA doesn't interpret that rule as applying to
swimwear. But
> the dictionary defines "device" as anything designed to achieve a
purpose -
> and a swimsuit has certainly been designed to achieve a purpose. That
> suggests there is a legal loophole which would allow one swimmer to
> challenge another.
>
> The rule should be changed to reflect the way FINA interprets it,
which is
> that swimwear is not a device.

The day FINA rules that swimwear is not a device is the day Speedo
introduces it's new full-body "swimsuit" made from 3mm neoprene.

Jim Christian
Houston

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

[John]

If Ian Thorpe is thinking that the 'Bodysuits are over rated" shouldn't
he purpose them to be banned rather than continuing wearing them
in the Australian Olympic trial.

[swim...@my-deja.com]

I just cant see your logic. If the bodysuits are indeed overrated -as
thorpe indicates-, why should they be banned ?

If they ,on the other, hand provide advantages as speedo claims (by the
way, thorpe wears Adidas suit, not the fastskin speedo), ie. 3% speed
improvements, Thorpe -of ALL swimmers in the world- would gain the
LEAST advantage, as thorpe is heavily favoured to win at least 3 golds
in the olympics with or without the suit (in 200 free he is at least a
second faster than his nearest competitors, and in 400 free, he is at
least 4 second faster, and he will be the relay member of the
unbeatable 4x200 free).

It is the swimmers who suffer the most from all these controversies
surrounding the fastskin debate, thanks to the incredibly inept FINA.