When Speedo introduced its full-body, drag-diminished LZR Racer swimsuit last February, it put world-class swimmers in uncharted waters. It also has taken the NCAA Men’s and Women’s Swimming and Diving Committee along for the swim.

Advances in swimsuit technology have been so sudden – and apparently so influential in performance – that the committee is still trying to determine whether regulations are necessary at the intercollegiate level.

After the suits made their initial splash right before the 2008 NCAAs, the committee disallowed them for college competition and later imposed a moratorium on suits manufactured after January 2008 – not because the suits were proven to provide a competitive edge, but because they weren’t commercially available to all competitors.

Recently, though, the committee reversed its decision, agreeing to allow all new-technology suits approved by FINA (the international governing body for swimming) to be worn in intercollegiate competition, including the 2009 NCAA championships. However, the committee will continue to monitor events as they unfold to make sure the new technology doesn’t negatively affect competitive equity.

‘Artificial aids’

The swimming committee has the authority to restrict equipment if it is proven to add buoyancy as an “artificial aid,” but studies have yet to be performed in that regard on the new suits (one did suggest that the suits lower times by about 2 percent, but none has been conducted about whether they constitute an artificial aid). The committee was able to opt for a ban and a moratorium when availability was in question, but with that part of the equation removed, the committee’s hands are essentially tied.

“The moratorium was based on the suits not being commercially available to everyone,” said committee Chair Tracy Huth, the athletics director at Oakland University. “Since then, it’s turned nearly 180 degrees and they have become available to everyone, but some of the other issues have popped up.”

When the moratorium was imposed at last year’s championships, no one thought they would see such enormous drops in time. “But when you look at what has happened with performances since these types of suits have come out – it’s one thing to see Michael Phelps do what he’s doing – but as you see how much faster the performances are getting at every level where these suits are being worn, it is fairly significant,” Huth said.

Sue Petersen Lubow, the athletics director at U.S. Merchant Marine Academy and longtime secretary-rules editor for swimming and diving, said the committee has struggled with distinguishing technology – which in and of itself is not a negative influence – and “artificial aids,” which obviously are not allowed. “We had no conclusive evidence that the suits aid in buoyancy – they may help with speed, but where do you draw the line between an artificial aid and technology?” she said.

Huth said the committee is still searching for that line. “The committee remains concerned with potentially what these suits do – do they provide a competitive advantage? No one is ready to imply that it’s only the suits, but it does make you pause. We don’t want to move forward with something that is potentially providing an aid to the competitors,” he said.

Cost factor

But until the committee can answer that question, it has to allow the suits, which in turn causes a domino effect on other issues, not the least of which is cost to the institutions that choose to purchase them. Right now they’re anywhere from $250-$550, which Petersen Lubow believes might be cost-prohibitive for emerging programs. Even for established teams accustomed to sending 10 or more competitors to nationals, that’s about $5,000 in additional costs. “And you better have some extras on hand in case they rip,” she said.

It may not even be a one-time expense. Huth noted that most coaches would opt to have their swimmers wear the new suits at the conference championships to ensure that they qualify for nationals. But the suits aren’t durable enough to last for more than one meet, particularly for competitors who swim several events.

Will such costs be a deterrent in an already economically challenged athletics environment? Petersen Lubow said most ADs will find a way to buy them.

“I’m an AD who understands swimming, and I will figure out a way to make sure my swimmers are not put at a disadvantage,” she said. “I do not want them to work all these years on their sport and then be put at a clear disadvantage. It’s one thing if they’re not good enough, but it’s another if I am putting them at a disadvantage. Part of my job is to give everything to my sports programs to enable them to be successful, and right now in the sport of swimming they need the suits.”

Huth said not too many swimmers – even in Division I – can qualify for NCAA championship competition without wearing them. At the same time, most programs won’t welcome the added expense. “Some of the costs may even be passed on to the individual swimmers, depending on the type of program,” he said.

Time standards

Complicating matters further are the time standards the committee has had to set for 2009 to account for the new technology. Huth said the differences between the 2008 and 2009 standards are significant. “Our current ‘A’ time standards aren’t far from our records,” he said. “One coach told me, ‘When you post these times on your bulletin board and the kids finally pick themselves up off the deck after collapsing, how are you going to deal with it?’”

Many swimmers won’t even worry about making the ‘A’ cut, Huth said. Most will focus on the “B” standard and then monitor their ranking throughout the year to make sure they can get into the national meet.

In the meantime, Huth and the rest of his committee will depend on research for the long run and coaches’ understanding in the short term to move ahead.

“Most coaches understand the challenges we face. The trend of new technology is not going to change, and we certainly can’t turn a blind eye to it and say we’re not going to allow any of it,” he said. “And if it’s going to be there, what are the standards we are going to set? Not many of our committee members are scientists, but there are those out there who can help us reach some conclusions about the types of materials, the thickness of the materials and things like that which can help us set some reasonable standards.”

The college community isn’t alone in this dilemma. USA Swimming also has confronted the matter, recently voting to ban the suits for youth-league participants age 12 and under. The national governing body cited costs and deterrence with proper stroke development as reasons for the ban at that level.