AN OPEN LETTER

14 July 2000
Dale Neuberger,  President, USA Swimming.

Fabric and the "Fastsuits"

Dear Dale,
Thank you for your rationale of why the HALF longsuits should be permitted in your trials and why presumably the USA will argue they should also be permitted at the Olympics--because , as you say " neck to knee and waist to knee suits have been worn for at least two years in competition and thus are generally available to all competitors in the trials".

Generally available? That custom fitted suits will ever be will be refuted by many—certainly by many in the international arena.

However there is a more serious flaw in your argument.

The fabric factor in this dispute is well argued by Dr Brent Rushall in the piece which follows . It is to be found on his website. With his permission it is reproduced hereunder.

The fabrics which claim to lower the skin- to- water resistance below
the natural skin to water drag have only recently, certainly within the "last two years" appeared, headed by the "fastskin" of Speedo and the "Teflon impregnated lycra" of Adidas. Both fabrics have been been shown, in addition to having the property of trapping air and aiding buoyancy, as claimed by the manufacturers  lower the natural skin/water resistance, and  alter water flow around the body. This puts latter- day fabrics into a different category to earlier fabrics. Brent Rushall points out that the style of cut of the new suits is by no means the most important issue. It is the fabric used which is the critical factor.

The reason why there were no formal protests over use of varieties of the longsuits from 1996 is that there was then no reason to believe that fabrics had been devised to lower the natural skin/water resistance. This is the crucial point.

It is not difficult to understand why the new high-tech suits are cut to cover the thighs. It is to lower resistance in this area. Why else? It is a very good reason why any variety of swimsuit, "long" or standard , should be prohibited unless the fabric used, other than nylon or lycra , has been scientifically evaluated by objective, independent investigators.

AT THE LEAST THERE SHOULD BE A MORATORIUM ON THE USE OF ALL NEW FABRICS UNTIL THE CLAIMS OF MANUFACTURERS ARE SCIENTIFICALLY EVALUATED, PERTINENT FINA RULES THOROUGHLY DISCUSSED AND APPROPRIATE RULES DECIDED ON BY A SPECIAL CONVENTION. THIS SHOULD MEAN THAT AT THE AMERICAN TRIALS, AND AT THE OLYMPICS, ONLY SUITS SHOULD BE PERMITTED WHICH ARE NOT MADE FROM THE NEW HIGH TECH FABRICS.

The fierce determination being shown by some in USA Swimming to follow the aggressive demands of the manufacturers that at least the half-suits should be used is irrational in that the important factor of likely change in natural skin/water resistance or flow of water over the thigh area of the body is apparently to be ignored.

There is a body of evidence that only custom fitted suits give optimum performance.

For the manufacturers to claim that off-the peg generic suits based on the height and weight of swimmers is grossly misleading.

Will FITTED suits, whatever the price, be available to ALL 1300 qualifiers for the U.S Trials and for all Olympic competitors?

OR
Is it claimed( illogically) that proper suit fit or high tech fabric is unimportant when used in the half long suits?

In short Dale, it is the new fabrics with their affect on drag resistance and capacity to alter water-flow which should be understood and the relevance of FINA rule SW10.7 well debated before they should be permitted to be used in serious competition.

So that this can be accomplished it must be evident that a moratorium
is the only reasonable alternative to rushing in and allowing use of equipment which will change the nature of swimming for ever.

I hope you will take these ideas for consideration by the Board of USA Swimming with whom an important decision on this matter finally lies.

Finally, it is not clear to me why the media and many others are arguing, without qualification , that it is all a "done deal" , that the full bodysuits will be worn at the Olympics. This is before the confirmation vote which FINA rules provide for being taken at the Congress in Sydney on the Bureau’s ill-considered decision of October 8^th 1999 to approve of the Speedo and Adidas suits

Yours sincerely,
Forbes Carlile

COMMUNICATION FROM BRENT RUSHALL.
The Problem with Modern Bodysuits

The bodysuit problem that has recently entered the swimming arena has been misconstrued by officialdom. As evidenced by the decision to ban full bodysuits by the US Swimming Board, there is a belief that it is the shape of the suit that needs to be controlled/limited. Nothing could be further from the truth.

It is the new generation of fabrics that causes the problem. These fabrics are designed to make a swimmer more slippery than natural skin or the "old" lycra/nylon/etc. fabrics. When the fabrics are dry (they are slow to "wet"), they also increase a swimmer's buoyancy. The greater the amount of these fabrics that cover the non-propulsive surfaces of the body, the greater will be the benefit to the swimmer. Swimmers will be more slippery and float higher; their resistance being reduced significantly.

What needs to be done to halt this technological invasion into what was a natural contest of aquatic locomotion, is to define parameters for fabrics so they. . . .

1. Do not improve on human skin's texture. Manufacturers would have to prove this through public scientific analysis for acceptance by the appropriate swimming committee (not the FINA Bureau or Executive).

2. Have an open weave that allows the fabric to wet very quickly. The fabric would have to pass impedance tests of a defined level when tested for permeability. A test similar to that performed on ski-jumping outfits would be acceptable.

3. The material would have to have a certain amount of elasticity (deformation index). The material would not be strong enough to distort a swimmer's natural shape. Its elasticity would be such that it would give before it compressed tissues to any appreciable degree.

4. Two flotation tests would need to be passed.

· When a dry suit is rolled in a ball and thrown a distance of 15 feet into a competitive swimming pool, it should sink completely below the surface within 10 seconds.

· When a dry suit is worn and subjected to an underwater weighing protocol, there will be no discernable improvement in a swimmer's natural (nude) specific gravity.

If these conditions for fabric were met, then wearing more fabric than the minimum that meets the "Modesty Rule" would only have a detrimental effect upon a swimmer's performance. Thus, the "fuller" a bodysuit, the greater would be a swimmer's resistance. There would be no benefit to covering natural skin. There would be no need to restrict the size or shape of a swimmer's suit/costume, except for modesty. Only fools would wear a bodysuit that made them more resistive.

Testing, certifying, and controlling fabrics used in suits would not be difficult. Every suit would have to be made of "certified" material and so income could still be derived through a certification fee.

The solution to the bodysuit dilemma is simple. Swimmers' suits should only be made of fabrics that do not improve upon natural human skin resistance. If this condition is met, increasing skin coverage with a bodysuit/costume would hinder rather than assist an athlete.

The message here is that the shape of a suit is a red-herring. Swimmers are still able to gain assistance, although slightly reduced, by wearing the new materials in a torso-thigh configuration. It is the fabric that is the problem. Acceptable fabrics have to be defined and determined.

Respectfully submitted,

Brent Rushall