The line should be drawn by the consensus of the day. I would not accept harmful steroids myself but who knows what the consensus would be in the future? May be we will have half-human half-cheetah competitors in the 100m Olympics Finals in the future lol
I've heard someone argue that there should be a 'Steroid Olympics' where, as you say, athletes can use every possible means of improving their performance.
And, similarly, there should be a 'Plastic Surgery Beauty Contest'. It seems humorous, but some of them end up being exactly that.
I guess in this case we're talking about technology, not biology. I joked about the jetpack, but doesn't that match your argument? So where would you draw the line? Maybe not where I would draw it, but I assume that you would draw the line before the jetpack.
Nike and swimmers talk all about the streamlining, but gloss over the fact that these suits capture air--they are floats! That's why I brought up the sink test. Allowing suits that add buoyancy is just lunacy.
Because we, humans, want and need to push barriers, and our brain-generated technology is part of who we are. So why not use technology we developed to push barriers, as long as everyone has access to it?
When you find this mythically pure state of humanity let me know, so that I can extract it, enhance it, bottle it and sell it back to you. We use technology because it what we do. So we find that moving through water cause drag. The natural human response is to reduce that drag. That would include better technique and technology. I tend to believe that these general bands don’t service the organization or the athletes. I would rather not see acknowledgment of current swimsuit design over shadowing. The incredible effort it takes to be an Olympic level athlete. O’well I have said enough, but claims of purity really bugs! We are the ones making this up.
I also agree. I'm not against the incorporation of advanced technology in sports in general. As Miss Mu points out below, advances in running shoes and wear in recent years have certainly benefited runners, and I see no problem with that.
For some reason, to me, the use of suits made of "water-repellent polyurethane fabrics that compress to the swimmer's body to make it more streamlined and buoyant" seems to cross a line. The suggestion that the suits aid buoyancy makes it seem to me that using them is less like actual swimming. As tb1 comments below, "why not make the suit in the shape of an inflatable boat and put a jetpack on the back while you are at it?"
@tb1- I'm with you. The idea is that if everyone has the high-tech swimwear, it's a level playing field. But if nobody has them, it's a level playing field also. And the suits are expensive, so why not just stick with the less advanced and less costly gear?
There is a school of thought that says let's give athletes every possible mean of improving their performance and as long as all athletes have access to the same tools, it's fair game. I subscribe to this school.
When someone comments here it's about their perspective not yours. And any attempt at describing yours not only doesn't make sense but would be presumptuous at best (change the topic to..oh i donno, transistors and and u might see how redic it would be). for ex, I know lots of women who'd rather see naked women rather than men, but that's because i know them, not you. As a disclaimer i'm assuming you and Bert are not in a relationship. If so, god help Bert.. :)))
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.