Speedo's $600 Swimsuits: Made in America, Bought by China
| Mon Aug. 11, 2008 11:25 AM PDT
By now, nearly everyone's heard about Michael Phelps's Olympic medal quest. But for those of us who have watched the swimming competitions thus far, there's one competitor you just can't ignore: those black and gray, space-age looking suits that nearly every athlete is wearing.
The wetsuit-style Speedo LZR Racer (here's a pic) is one reason world records continue to be broken in swimming. The science behind the suit includes "ultrasonically welded" seams and panels of drag-reducing fabric tested by NASA. But the main benefit of the suit is how it fits: tightly. So tightly that it acts as a sort of corset, helping swimmers maintain an aqua-dynamic form and supporting abdominal muscles when they tire at the end of the race. Since the suit was introduced in February of 2008, more than 50 world records have been broken by athletes wearing it. American swimmer Ryan Lochte, who won a bronze this week in the individual medley, said wearing the suit makes it feel like you're "swimming downhill." Even Chinese athletes cannot resist the American-made suit, though they covered the Speedo logo with duct tape.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
However, the super-suit has been seen as "tech doping" by some critics, and others say it's not fair to countries who can't afford the suit. After all, the suits (which cost around $600 each) must be thrown out after an athlete has used them 10 times, similar to the way baseballs are discarded after only a few pitches. In the US, Nike was generous enough to allow the athletes it sponsored to wear the suits gratis. But other companies, and countries, may not be as generous, or are effectively handicapped because their regulations do not allow sponsorship deals (This year Japan changed its regulations to allow use of the LZR).
There's also the issue of how much tech help is too much. The swimsuit's polyurethane layers give its users additional buoyancy. Certainly the inordinate number of world records set by those using the suit are proof that it does give competitors that extra tenth or hundredth of a second. What do you think: is the LZR unfair advantage, or just athletes using the best of what's available?
Photos courtesy Speedo.
Comments
Skinny dippin' sez: The solution is obvious..
Solution to what?
What's the problem?
Now..., nekkid swimmin' is definitely the way to go for me, but if the kids wanna' compete in $600 suits.., well.., it's their dime and their time.
To borrow from, and modify Pink Floyd:
Hey,
Preacher,
Leave those kids alone..
It's hilarious that the Chinese swimmers are covering the Speedo logo. With nearly everything we buy in the U.S. now made in China, why do they begrudge made-in-the-USA swimsuits a little free advertising?
It doesn't matter what I or anyone else think about these suits. They're allowed, and swimmers who can come up with $600 will wear them.
@ Elanor
I think it has to do w/ sponsorship rather than where it was made.
Like the article mentioned, most teams are sponsored by sports companies (like Adidas or Reebok) and so they probably restrict a competitor's logo or product.
I wonder how much that piece of duct tape slows them down... LOL.
Tech doping? Whatever. It's not dope. It's gear. Everyone buys and uses the best gear possible. Should tennis players be forced to all use old wooden rackets?
Nations with more money have all sorts of advantages at the Olympics. The swimsuits are among the least of the disparities. Who said that the Olympics were a monument to justice? They are another distraction away from the gammut of world's problems.
Most professional sports have an authorized uniform, in part, to level the playing field and ensure that no one has an unfair advantage. As such, I feel that each swimmer should wear the same kind of swimsuit. Everyone wore Speedos when I was a swimmer and a diver. As it now stands, they might as well allow fins or special goo that webs your toes and fingers. I don't see any difference in that over ultra-slick swimwear. The disadvantage is definitly on the side of the teams or individuals who can't afford this technology - you can rip one of these $600 suits just putting them on, as Rowdy Gaines stated yesterday. Perhaps they should just swim naked. I'm sure that's what the Greeks would have done in antiquity.
A $600 swimsuit that tears when you wear it ten times is bogus. This may open the flood gates for other technologies not made in the U.S.. Every country will have their own thingy that makes them go faster in the water.
Also the swimsuit broke while in competition twice for a female American swimmer. Does this piece of new tech even work consistently?
Somewhat parenthetically, "ultrasonic welding" only sounds futuristic. It basically means "rubbing together very fast until things melt and stick together." It's been a common industrial technique since the late 60's and early 70's because it is a very cheap way to attach plastics to each other, which doesn't involve fasteners or adhesives.
If a team wants to compete on an Olympic, world-class level, they have to adapt to the times.
Phelps would be sweeping the Games with or without the lzr suit.
I really wish MJ would take the time to focus on REAL problems out there in the world, instead of exploiting their "USA Sucks" agenda at every possible occasion.
If you've been watching, Michael Phelps (other swimmers, as well) has not worn this style of suit in all of his meets, many times he is wearing only pants... However, he (and the rest of the swimmers) need to hike them up a bit. What happens if they have a "wardrobe malfunction" on something broadcast to and watched by so many countries? A little more modesty please, my children are watching!
It's difficult to be impressed with people breaking records using technology as a crutch.
They're welcome to use these suits - I don't care. But in my mind, these athletes present themselves to be weaker than their predecessors who relied on nothing more than strength and endurance (except the dopers, of course).
The more high-tech athletes become, the duller their accomplishments.
What country can't afford a few $600 swimsuits? The swimmers don't have to practice in them, so how many suits does a swimmer need to get through the entire competition?
As for the suits coming apart, I'm waiting and hoping for an underwater shot of a Janet Jackson-type "wardrobe malfunction" to see if the network gets fined by the FCC.
Submitted by Mike (not verified) on Wed Aug. 13, 2008 1:59 PM PDT.
I heard elsewhere that the pool is 3 meters deep, as opposed to the last several Olympic pools that were 2 meters deep. I know there's a new suit on the market but I think the water depth has a lot more to do with the speed of the athletes, as does the fact that they're all pushing each other harder than ever.
I was a high school swimmer and there were high tech suits available eight years ago with alternating smooth and rough 1/2 inch stripes and they were available in full body suits and top hs competitors (not me!) wore them. This is just the next step. I am concerned with the bouyency claim, since that is supposed to be illegal in competition suits. I'd also be interested in knowing if Olympic pools maintain standard temperatures, since even as a hs swimmer my times were dramatically worse in the warmest pools and best in the coldest, widest and deepest ones (It's the pressure waves bouncing back, especially during flip turns, that account for the difference). Also would be interesting to see if pressurization in the Water Cube has an impact as I'm sure it would, if it is different from other pools.
So yes, I think the suit improves people but the lengths at which Phelps is finishing would not be closed if he wore an older suit.
Also I'd like to echo others who have said that Olympic teams can either put up the dough or shut up. As a hs swimmer I bought special meet suits, one just for a single meet. I'd expect Olympic people to be able to do likewise, as they swim less than half a dozen major events that would seem to now require the suit each year, so with care a $600 suit lasts a year or so with trials and such.
Most of their training (and training/natural ability is the reason these people are finishing where they are) is probably done in regular ol' suits or drag suits. Phelps tends to swim his pre-lims/trials in a pants-suit and does just fine there.
I think the depth of the pool, temperature and pressure/oxygen mix of the arena account for far more than the suit and it's a shame those rather basic considerations are being ignored in favor of a Nike PR campaign (albeit I'd wear the suits if I still swam or could afford it).
I think that pool technology is helping here, and that's being missed by the blogger. You don't blow away WR times by seconds because of your clothing. That is one FAST pool...it was designed that way. I also think that this generation has grown up with the rules changes, and they are just now taking full advantage of kinesiology and stroke mechanics (vis-a-vis those rules) to minimize their times. Suit technology is an excuse.
There's a the psych factor in thinking you have taken the best preparations. Twenty years ago we used shaving (heads and legs) and linament ("motion lotion") to the same end. Much ado about nothing.
Oscar Pistorius is not allowed to compete in the olympics. He does not have leg appendages past his knees, yet can beat many able-bodied athletes competing in the Olympics this year thanks to his prosthetics. If the Olympics barred him because his prosthetics give him an unfair advantage then I think the swimmers should not be allowed these suits.
Submitted by mike (not verified) on Wed Aug. 13, 2008 2:13 PM PDT.
Suits falling off? I've seen it happen a few times, but it was with either beginners who had never been at meet speeds in meet suits (most swimmers wear different suits for practice) or who didn't tie their suit properly. Divers, too. But not competition-level swimmers.
I can't say I would be holding my breath or covering my children's eyes over this.
Is there a similar concern over the beach volleyballers who dive into the sand while wearing shorts?
The swimsuits are one reason for world-record times, but not the only reason. The pool is deeper and has extra lanes to smooth out waves. It wasn't Speedo that designed and built the pool, it was the Chinese.
Besides, what's new about unfair advantages in sports? The main reason athletes from communist countries won so many medals during the Cold War was that they cheated. Their bios might say they were students or military officers, but everyone knew they were being paid by their governments to train full-time. They were professionals in every sense of the word, and according to his own rules Avery Brundage, the defender of "amateur athletics," should have banned them. Instead he looked the other way for the sake of TV ratings, and found some pretext for kicking out a non-communist athlete every now and then, to demonstrate that he was protecting the Olympics from decadent professional jocks.
All this crap about the suits is just that - crap. Michael Phelps - as well as some of the women swimmers havent' been using them consistently. Michael tends to put one on for the relays - so the team looks all dressed the same. But in his individual events he doesn't. He is beating his own world records - and breaking them sometimes on the same day - setting one in the heat and another one in the finals - so how did the suit make a difference there?
Some countries have these suits and some do not. But it seems that everyone is doing really well in the swimming whether they wear one or not. The pool seems to be a bigger factor - and since it was built by the Chinese - you would think that their athletes would be gaining the most ground since they would have had more time to swim in it. Not so. Michael and his other American teammates are cleaning up most of the medals in swimming - with or without the suits.
If you want to argue - go talk to people in the field and just take a good hard look at the entire Chinese gymnastics team. Then tell me you really believe those tiny, baby-faced little kids are all 16 or 17 years old. Give me a break. And in the case of these teeny-tiny gymnasts - they are all at risk of serious injury and permanent disability from the pounding and jumping/landings on open growth plates. There is a really good reason for the age restriction.
Quite frankly, I couldn't care less who wears what. It is supposed to be competitive. I think all athletes should do whatever THEY want to do to win as long as it is not harming other competitors. Let them use steroids if they want. Let them use HGH if that is their desire. If they are willing to risk their health to win, so am I. It is only unfair if they are FORCED to do something they don't want to do. Sports are not necessary to life. I think there are more important things for us to concern ourselves about. I don't have a good reason for why I stopped to comment. Just passing time.
This is a ridiculous assumption. Gear for all the other major sports costs more that the $550 state-of-the-art Speedo suit. Baseball, tennis, badminton, wrestling, cycling, track and field, table tennis -- you name it --have some technologically advanced equipment that only elite athletes, their sponsors, or their Olympic committees can afford. If the athlete has the talent and work ethic, they seem to manage getting their hands on the best equipment, coaching, etc. no matter where they are from.
See, it is not the equipment, the supplements or other methodologoies that wins event. It is the athletes. Phelps doesen't even wear the full LZR body suit in most of his races and he is shattering records left and right. Geez, is there anything that you won't throw a wet blanket on?
Anyway, nice try to bring some sort of high-and-mighy geopolitical slant to swimsuits, but your assumptions don't, ahem, hold water.
You do realize that the suit will make, at most, about a tenth of a second difference over 200 meters, and the athletes are shattering records by multiple seconds? The main reason that everyone is getting faster is advances in training and stroke techniques.
Chiming in with several who have noticed that Phelps doesn't wear one of those suits, and he's been breaking records just fine, thank you. And he was the one who established them ... again, without the suit.
Fortunately, it doesn't matter how much money you have when you can swim like that. The suit may assist sub-par swimmers with posing as elite athletes, but everyone can plainly see that they are simply a crutch. Real swimmers don't need, want or use them.
These suits should definatly not be allowed.Just the addional bouyancy gives an unfair advantage over those without it.What's next?Maybe surgically placed webs on the hands and feet.Why not fins,or even a small outboard motor.
These records are a little tarnished and do a diservice to swimmers of past.
Skinny dippin,what you say IS NOT A JOKE because it's the right thing to do but they need to use something that the Olompic community agree on
because it's a sport for the youth of the world to get together & understand each other NOT JUST TO WIN !
Hey! We have some darn good looking young men out there (yes, I'll now be called sexist)but those abs- wow!
In watching the 'uniforms' for the ladies volleyball, does the decrease in coverage allow for better movement and shots while combating sand?
Oh, and does the tightness of the gymnastics outfits with the toosh hanging out a little allow for better form and completion of difficulty? ENOUGH ALREADY!
There will always be someone who can do what you do better than how you do it. Just as you will always be able to do what you do best better than another. That's life with all its perceived injustices and its obvious inequities...
Let's just praise these young people (and some older ones) for not sitting in front of the boob tube or, the computer monitor, and getting out there and doing something!
No different than the shooting sports using more precise guns. Equipment will always evolve and get better, and as long as it's approved by the sport's governing body, it's fine.
It should also be noted - I've also read that Speedo gives these free to any Olympian swimmer who wants them, to level the playing field.
Train however you want. But in the Olympics, used only Olympic approved gear to keep the playing field level. It's only fair.
And I agree with the poster above, isn't there issues of greater importance to MoJo readers than this to put on the e-mail lists???????
Submitted by LBC (not verified) on Thu Aug. 14, 2008 10:31 AM PDT.
This controversy reminds me of one that took place back in the late sixties regarding the racing format (now long defunct) of "CAN-AM." In that particular segment of auto racing, unlike say, Grand Prix, experimentation
was its main theme - almost anything was legal. (In sprint car racing, the idea is the opposite - to standardize the vehicle so much that the driver's skill -- and only the driver's skill -- would be the thing tested, never the car itself.)
Okay - so along came Jim Hall (who had been around for awhile anyway) and his Chapperel 2J (I think it was called), which - believe it or not - used a type of vacuum cleaner(!) (rather than a large spoiler, as had been the norm up until then, since Jim McClaren had introduced it) to keep the car firmly planted on the asphalt/concrete etc. The vacuum device was placed in the small area between the bottom of the car and the tarmac.
Well, the cars kept winning races, over and over, and this made the competitors very angry. So despite Can-Am's purpose - to spur innovation, push the envelope in technology etc. etc. - the angry drivers who had started losing, pushed so hard against it that they were able to get a new regulation passed which banned the device.
The trouble was, it also killed Can-Am, since it's raison d'être had been to be unbounded in the technological
experimentation field. It lasted maybe another year or two . . . and then kaput.
Of course, in another racing format, such as the stated Sprint Car one, it would be unheard of to even think of introducting anything so "individualistic" into the actual vehicle. That would kill its purpose, just as banning something like the "vacuum cleaner" in CanAm killed it.
Since the Olympics are supposed to be (or used to be) primarily about testing the athlete rather than their equipment, well . . . why not make such innovations freely available to all the competitors, if they wanted it? The manufacturer's SHOULD be happy to provide their wares, as it should result in even more publicity.
Do I care? No.
As so many have stated, the Olympics have become just another escapist entertainment (that's assuming they haven't always been).
It doesn't mean I don't like the Olympics (or escapism), necessarily, but like everything else in life, the value of it is directly tied to the fundamental quality we put on everything else, like human rights, an environment free of dense smoke, smog and mercury emissions etc. etc. etc., and rich people and countries not acting like imperialistic snobs. (Dream on, right?)
Of course, there are so many problems, the best answer for many is to take it easy as much as possible, and not get too stressed out, as this only
destroys whatever peace and joy you are able to radiate anyway.
Submitted by Ahab (not verified) on Thu Aug. 14, 2008 2:02 PM PDT.
I'm with everyone who has pointed out that Phelps has been smoking records left and right without the suit.
Maybe, just maybe, records are falling because our training and the science behind athletics is a lot better than it used to be? No, that can't be it - must be corporations cheating.
Submitted by DR (not verified) on Thu Aug. 14, 2008 3:00 PM PDT.
Well I wonder why professional boxers are not allowed in the competition since professional basketball players are allowed to play.
The Olympics are a representation of all that society has become. That is to say a fraud.
The fact that high tech materials made by high tech companies demonstrate this.
Yeah, DR ... my wife and I were getting outraged about that, last night!
Ever since professional basketball players have been allowed to compete in what USED to be an AMATEUR-ONLY competition, it's gotten ridiculous. Professional basketball players, professional tennis players (hee hee ... the top 3 got their butts handed to them, today), what's next? Michele Kwan put off "going pro" for years because she wanted to win a gold medal so badly.
Where's the spirit of competition when the professionals are allowed to compete against the amateurs? And where will it end? When all of the athletes are full-on professionals with sponsors' labels all over their bodies?
Yes anything man made is using a tool to help you. We should go back to how it originally was at the Olympics. They were nude or next to nothing. Then it is man or woman against each other, not technology. For those that talk about basketball, that is all together another issue. It was should we let our best, like other countries that let their best, compete nothing about any technology that help them to compete. This is a good thing , you see the best any country has to offer to play. Boxing is governed by AIBA and their laws forbid pros. This is the only pro sport that is not allowed all others are.
We should go back to how it originally was at the Olympics... Boxing is governed by AIBA and their laws forbid pros.
'Boxing', in the original Olympic format would involve wrapping the hands in stiff leather, sometimes weighted with metal, and continuing with the match until one competitor was unable to continue, or dead. And if the referees didn't think there was enough action, they'd beat the boxers with poles to 'encourage' them to mix it up.
'Wrestling', or 'Pankrateon' was absolutely 'no holds barred', and the only things against the rules was biting and gouging the eyes. Broken limbs and dislocated joints were the rule, and not the exception.
Who up for seeing that?
Let's see your hands...
The way things are going, in a couple of years, decades, whatever, somebody will be breaking Phelps' record and then somebody will break their record down the line. Technological advances will continue to be made and will continue to give athletes, and everyone else, an edge they wouldn't have had otherwise. This is just inevitable.
Sucks for those who can't/won't wear them.
$600 for a swimming suit is cheap - the costly part for poorer countries is swimming pools to train athletes.
I would be surprised if even a sprinter's shoes cost less than $600. For big money, try a bow for archery, a yacht for sailing, a bike for cycling, or a horse for dressage - that is how to buy an advantage.
@ Nick: We should go back to how it originally was at the Olympics. .... Then it is man or woman against each other...
If we go back to how it originally was at the Olympics, the only way a woman could compete would be by owning a horse in one of the equestrian events.
They didn't personally take the competetive field in any event.
