Although I might get some stick from quick a few people about this, I agree with this. Sport should be dependent on one's own talent, skills. Given these suits do not 'aid' the athlete in performing better, but factors like drag through water, buoyancy and the likes are facets that make the sport what it is. Removing these elements would not only continue on the world record beating path (which then becomes the main motivation) but also take away the human element from the sport. Many sports have fallen prey to this, glad to know the swimming community opened their eyes fast enough to take the sport back to what it ought to be.
High technology is as much part of the Olympics as athletic form. I disagree with banning this or that. Should running shorts or shoes be banned? Maybe the athletes should go naked like in the early Olympics. An athlete's performance depends on a large team effort that includes the trainer, the sponsors, the equipment. We are not in antiquity, let the best teams win with the best training and the best technology.
Impossible for me to form a strong opinion on this. To some degree, what any athlete wears is designed to help maximize their performance in that particular sport. So, ahould we advocate that runners must all wear dress shoes, for instance?
However, getting beyond that, there is a certain appeal to the idea of the women athletes going naked. You know, "as nature intended." Then this whole question would be put to rest.
Technology does take some of the purity out of a sport, just like it does out of everything else. However, the world doesn't stand still. The running shoes of today are very, very different from those of just a few decades ago. As are competition bicycles, bob sleds, pole vault poles and on and on.
Given that we are so heavily dependent on technology for just about everything we do, sport or not, I just don't see the logic in banning a high-tech swim suit any more than I would see the logic in banning carbon fiber from a pole vault pole or modern materials from any sports equipment.
As an ex-competitive swimmer, I disagree. Technology needs to be limited for safety reasons (eg the javalin was redesigned to make it fly less far and F1 regulations are constantly being changed for that and other reasons) and needs to be appropriate (eg no motors or flippers for swimming), but after that why limit it at some arbitary point? Afterall, before lycra was invented presumably swimsuits were made of something less good?
So, you're saying that high tech swim suits should be banned because the high speed is unsafe for swimmers?
Safety is one thing. When safety isn't an issue, then we need to find some other excuse. There's PLENTY of high tech sports equipment in just about any sport you can name, to improve performance without impacting safety (sometimes athlete safety is enhanced, in fact). Are we going to ban all of it? And if not, why not?
Cycling went through a similar phase when recumbent bikes were first allowed, then banned after smashing every known record. It's really arbitrary at what point you disallow technology advances in judged sports like swimming for the Olympics.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.