Living up to my (screen) name...

jimmypippa

And of course Grame Obree's innovations were pretty low-budget compared to his competitors.

That is the sort of innovation that is also prevented.

I am an enginner.

ddraver

Coriander wrote:

Aren't bans like this about trying to keep the playing fields level for all competitors - I assumed this ban was because technology like this would be beyond the poorer countries, who struggle already to compete at the highest levels.

I think this applies to these swimsuits in particular - if they are having the 10% effeect that some peoiple claim they are then that it about the difference made by doping. If a competitior cannot afford one (they re thousands of pounds!!!!) then they are immediatly gaining an unfair advantage

I think Bike design is a lot more of a complex isue as the sport could nt exist without some level of bike (obviously) whereas you don't need anything to compete in a swim - as Attica points out

Bugly

lost_in_thought wrote:

I was watching the swimming championships yesterday, while ironing, and they were discussing the full body suits. Basically, those suits, like the speedo LZR to an extent, repel water, compress muscles and aid buoyancy. They can make you a heck of a lot faster in a sport where (like cycling) every second counts.

So they are almost certainly going to be banned.

However, they've not banned them before this weekend just passed's worlds, and records are falling left right and centre, possibly never to be beaten.

This got me thinking about the various bans in cycling - ones I (kind of) am aware of are the low-pro frames, the superman position, and I am sure there are various others.

Now, my thought was why? Why ban things that can make people go faster? It's advancement, progress, and I think it should be applauded. If everyone's got the same technology, which everyone will after time, it evens out, doesn't it?

Discuss!

So EPO blood boosting steriods are all on your ok list?

Tentacles

It seem's to me that in the context of the original post only the actual "vehicle" technology was being discussed not the use of performance enhancers.

Mind you, it's a very valid point - if you did make a technologically open race or series, why not allow the competitors to use whatever means necessary to achieve the best results. If you're looking at it purely from a "how fast can a human do this" point of view you can't discount the use of products to modify the human part.

You could probably apply the same argument that you use when justifying F1's existance - to innovate and develop components that can be applied to everyday life and improve things.

attica

Tentacles wrote:

It seem's to me that in the context of the original post only the actual "vehicle" technology was being discussed not the use of performance enhancers.

Mind you, it's a very valid point - if you did make a technologically open race or series, why not allow the competitors to use whatever means necessary to achieve the best results. If you're looking at it purely from a "how fast can a human do this" point of view you can't discount the use of products to modify the human part.

You could probably apply the same argument that you use when justifying F1's existance - to innovate and develop components that can be applied to everyday life and improve things.

Extrapolating from that theory, I can see a few things happening, both good and bad:-

Pharmaceutical enhancement would go overground, more care might be taken of the athletes using them and the number of young deaths in Procyclists in particular may well drop.

Physical enhancements might go to some serious extremes, webbed hands and feet for swimmers would be a start, then athletes would look with envious eyes at Oscar Pistorius (the doulble amputee 400m runner with the blades) and actually consider lopping off their own legs to gain an advantage, we are actually starting to be able to manufacture things that are an improvement on the human body.

Maybe athletes will be genetically engineered to have blood consistency that would be the result of doping in any "normal" person.

Even further down the line, will athlete's have technology inserted into them to help them kick a ball straight, judge a baseline shot to perfection or hole in one almost every time?

These are all things that probably will happen once the technology arrives, or have I been reading too much science fiction?

jedster

but I disagree with those who are saying it should be about the athlete, not the gear. It's still about the athlete. Irrespective of what suit they're wearing no mediocre swimmer is going to make the worlds.

LiT,

Surely the whole issue with these skin suits is that they had developed to the point that best athlete would not win if they were in the wrong suit. We accept that in motorsports (which are really competitions between whole teams of engineers/mechanics/drivers on either side) but don't want that to be true of beautifully simple athletic competition like running and swimming.

In terms of cycling, I think the intention is the same - the governing body want the winners to be determined by their athletic prowess and racing skills not the technology they ride. It strikes me that it's actually a little more complex - they want to allow enough scope for tinkering to keep bike brands interested and generating new marketing stories but not so much that a clearly better rider loses because he is on the wrong bike...

Personally I think they get the balance about right.

J

chuckcork

jedster wrote:

but I disagree with those who are saying it should be about the athlete, not the gear. It's still about the athlete. Irrespective of what suit they're wearing no mediocre swimmer is going to make the worlds.

But if the gear provides an unfair and unnatural advantage...?

You may as well start having categories of athletic event, assisted and unassisted, going that route, otherwise world records start to become meaningless.

attica

That's already been done with the hour record

There's the Athlete's hour and the less prestigious "best human effort" that boardman still holds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hour_record

Tentacles

Attica wrote:

Physical enhancements might go to some serious extremes, webbed hands and feet for swimmers would be a start, then athletes would look with envious eyes at Oscar Pistorius (the doulble amputee 400m runner with the blades) and actually consider lopping off their own legs to gain an advantage, we are actually starting to be able to manufacture things that are an improvement on the human body.

It would be like Professor Farnsworth's mutant supermen basketball team! I'd be sure to watch it

NGale

Rich158 wrote:

chuckcork wrote:

Rich158 wrote:

the latter seems to be wholly based upon the whim of some blazer clad old fart who hasn't competed for about 60 years and wants to feel important.

Most rules in sport are made by such people, are the governing bodies of any other sport any different? The FA?

Absolutely, the old farts have to justify their existence somehow, and making and enforcing arcane rules that no-one can understand seems to be the way forward.

And as for the FA, their ever changing interpretation of the off-side rule, and players being active etc seems designed to alienate anyone other than hard core footy fans. Just trying to get me head arround it has me feeling my balls are about to shrivel up and drop off as I'm obviously not a real man :shock: :roll:

actually I will for the one and only time stand up for the FA on the offside law (it's a law not a rule BTW) they haven't been the one to reinterprut the law, Fifa the international governing body are the ones to do that.

I have been away from refereeing for a year and was expecting to go back this year to yet another interprutation...but huzzah, no change this year. Only one thing has been verified and that's the jewellery rule (that is a rule because it's not in the laws of the game) and that no jewellery at all can be worn by any player (including taped up wedding rings and taped medic alert bracelets)

Nice to be able to go back in where I left off for a change.

Where I do have a go at the FA is their lack of forward thinking when it comes to women in the sport. We are still treated as second class and so far there have been no real advances in women making it up the refereeing ladder to the top levels, especially when I can name a number who are more than capable.

And it all comes down the the old blaizer brigade, the old men who still see a woman's role in football to wash the mens kit and make the half time tea. until that changes nothing will change in football

chuckcork

An article on the swimming suits that is rather topical given the way this thread has gone, showing the potential damage to the sport itself: http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/stor ... 52,00.html

symo

Attica wrote:

That's already been done with the hour record

There's the Athlete's hour and the less prestigious "best human effort" that boardman still holds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hour_record

Not less prestigious to me as it represents the best that human powered technology can produce unlike the "boring old farts scared of change" record.

L-I-T makes the most valid point that the technolgy would go nowhere without the human and as such it should allow all technology to be used. It is the arguement of luddites and those who have something to lose to spout "continuation of history".

Those that don't evolve become extinct.

attica

symo wrote:

Attica wrote:

That's already been done with the hour record

There's the Athlete's hour and the less prestigious "best human effort" that boardman still holds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hour_record

Not less prestigious to me as it represents the best that human powered technology can produce unlike the "boring old farts scared of change" record.

L-I-T makes the most valid point that the technolgy would go nowhere without the human and as such it should allow all technology to be used. It is the arguement of luddites and those who have something to lose to spout "continuation of history".

Those that don't evolve become extinct.

I agree with you on all points, it's just that the UCI seem to have managed to imbue the "Boring Old Farts Scared of Change" record with some sort of mystique, if the best human effort hadn't been killed stone dead by the UCI the development would have continued, instead Chris Boardman still holds that record and doesn't look in danger of losing it any time soon.

il_principe

NGale wrote:

And it all comes down the the old blaizer brigade, the old men who still see a woman's role in football to wash the mens kit and make the half time tea. until that changes nothing will change in football

Until that corrupt waste of space Blatter goes - nothing will change in football.

lost_in_thought

chuckcork wrote:

An article on the swimming suits that is rather topical given the way this thread has gone, showing the potential damage to the sport itself: http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/stor ... 52,00.html

Not a dreadful article... funny how the people banging on about how dreadful the new suits are are the people who held some of the WR times broken in Rome.

At least there's some balance in the reporting.

Interesting to note mention of 'full-body-suit era' - so are they plotting to get men back in trunks, and women in racer-backs? The end of an era for shorts and high-necks? They were around when I was swimming... over ten years ago...

chuckcork

lost_in_thought wrote:

Interesting to note mention of 'full-body-suit era' - so are they plotting to get men back in trunks, and women in racer-backs? The end of an era for shorts and high-necks? They were around when I was swimming... over ten years ago...

Bikinis for the ladies? :P

Bugly

always been in favor of the traditional (ancient greek) costumes :shock:

It would make the equestrian and cycling events a little uncomfortable for the athletes :? and the winter Olympics would be a little chilly

gtvlusso

Leather - s and m style.

Sometimes it chafes though :shock: