Shouts From The Stands: The “Fatal Flaw” of Super-Suit World Records

SwimSwam welcomes reader submissions about all topics aquatic, and if it’s well-written and well-thought, we might just post it under our “Shouts from the Stands” series. We don’t necessarily endorse the content of the Shouts from the Stands posts, and the opinions remain those of their authors. If you have thoughts to share, please send them to [email protected].

Courtesy: Arthur Salvatore

In the elite swimming world, 2026 was the year of the first, so-called, “Enhanced Games”. These games allowed the competitors to use “enhancements” which were otherwise universally banned by swimming authorities around the world.

One of the two banned enhancements was biological in nature. More specifically, the organizers contentedly emphasized that the well-known performance enhancing drugs (and chemicals) would now be acceptable in the games, even though their use is inarguably unethical and even illegal in some jurisdictions. (More importantly, the respective drugs are also undeniably dangerous to the human body, short term and, even worse, long term.)

However, due to a lack of imagination, and/or a desire to entice their potential audience with the cheap, and always reliable, attraction of swimming’s ultimate “forbidden fruit” (illegal drugs!), the organizers overlooked a golden opportunity, because they had an interesting alternative option. In fact, this alternative enhancement option even had two famous and important precedents in swimming history; both the 2008 Olympics and the 2009 World Championships.

The enhancement option, to end any unnecessary suspense, is using “super-suits,” which were, of course, banned in 2010. Super-suits are both biologically safe and, I would also argue, a much more interesting prospect to dedicated swimming fans. Yes, super-suits were already the game’s “other” enhancement. However, what if they were the ONLY enhancement in the competition?

Such a competition, assuming the world’s best swimmers, male and female, participated in it, is truly fascinating to contemplate. Many swimming fans would be justifiably excited with the possibility of witnessing the various time barriers which may be finally broken by the use of the super-suits (even if they don’t also “officially” count as “world records”). However, and to be clear, it is the continuing relationship of super-suits, and the currently recognized world records, which will now become the primary focus of this article.

I present a simple argument: The current, and continuing, recognition of any world records, which were achieved by swimmers using super-suits, is irrational and, worse, fatally flawed. Accordingly, I also argue that ALL of the super-suit times should have been expunged immediately after the super-suits were banned in 2010 (though I also firmly believe that the corresponding victories, and the associated awards and medals, are a completely different issue and must be retained).

So, exactly why do I believe there is a “fatal flaw”? I am convinced that any super-suit world record is particularly exposed, and therefore vulnerable, to an accusation of being obviously and blatantly inconsistent. Fortunately, this assertion has a simple to understand example and proof. We only have to closely consider the following hypothetical scenario and the inevitable results if it actually occurred in real life.

First, we will assume that the revised, super-suit only, version of the “Enhanced Games” actually becomes a reality, and it’s also attended by many of the finest swimmers in the world. Even better, the swimmers are fully tapered and in their best form, just like at the Olympics and the World Championships.

Next, we become highly specific. Hypothetically, before the competition begins, the super-star Canadian swimmer, Summer McIntosh, publicly announces that she, along with the assistance of her coaches, has conducted a comprehensive project of researching, and then recreating, the identical super-suit which was originally worn by the Chinese swimmer, Liu Zige, back in 2009, when Liu set the world record in the women’s 200 butterfly. Subsequently, during the actual competition, McIntosh, now wearing this identical super-suit (in her size), unsurprisingly (and definitively) smashes Liu’s long-standing, super-suit, world record.

So, in this hypothetical scenario, is there an obviously correct response, or is there a nightmare level dilemma, for the World Aquatics Congress, which officially has the ultimate jurisdiction over all of the world’s swimming records?

The Congress has, I believe, three options available to them:

Option One – Completely ignore McIntosh’s new world record, thus completely discrediting the former world record. Why and how? How would it be possible to credibly defend the old 2009 super-suit world record, after it had now been broken, under the identical conditions, as the day it was initially set? With such an arbitrary decision, World Aquatics would be the subject of not only justifiable criticism, but ridicule and contempt as well, for their shameless inconsistency.

Option Two – Accept the new world record, since it was set under the same conditions as the previous, and now broken, world record. However, this new precedent would then allow another swimmer, including McIntosh herself, to set yet another new world record, when using the same super-suit, at a later date.

Accordingly, with this second option, using a super-suit thus becomes de facto legal, now, and in the indefinite future, though only in this specific event. This unprecedented situation could only change if, and when, this specific event’s world record is eventually broken by a swimmer wearing a textile suit. However, it’s obvious that such an amazing achievement would become increasingly unlikely, if not physically impossible, to accomplish in the future.

Option Three – Create a New Rule: From the present forward, the Congress will only recognize “Textile” times and world records, because of their historical consistency. Accordingly, all the official times, including the world records, which were set by swimmers wearing (non-textile) super-suits in the past, would no longer be recognized, period.

I firmly believe that Option Three would be the only rational response by the swimming authorities. I further argue that Option Three should be the new policy, even if there never is any public pressure generated from the catalyst of some future hypothetical event, such as described above.

To Conclude – If and when Option Three actually becomes a reality, there will finally be the long-delayed justice for numerous textile swimmers. These athletes will, at last, receive the recognition, and appreciation, they deserved much earlier, for their unprecedented achievements during the entire period since the super-suits were officially banned. Sadly, all of this was unnecessary because, lamentably and most inconsistently, the official ban on the super-suits did not also include the super-suits’ associated times as well.