Technological doping

I heard about both of these two issues in the same day.

The first is about the new Speedo LZR (from The Guardian) racing suit that is apparently pretty far technologically advanced:

It's a swimsuit so revolutionary that one athlete has claimed that it makes you feel like you're "swimming downhill". And, since it was launched in February, 38 world records have been broken by swimmers wearing it. Little wonder, then, that Olympic swimming teams are now falling over themselves to ditch their sponsors in order to get Speedo's LZR Racer swimsuit in the run-up to Beijing...

The suit took nearly four years to develop and involved enlisting the help of Nasa and a technique called computational fluid dynamics, says Jason Rance, head of Speedo's Aqualab, the company's global research and development facility. He says the swimsuit can reduce drag by up to 24%.

This article in Newsweek back in April quoted the coach of the Italian team as saying the swimsuit is technological doping. My guess is that he was only upset because his team has another sponsor. My wife told me she heard a story about it somewhere on NPR (can't find the link) that told me a lot of the other suit makers have since come out with their own versions of the suit.

The second is about a new type of golf ball (from the WSJ).

But it's how the pros hit it those humbling distances, and here at USGA headquarters, in a rather nondescript building out back, is ground zero in the war to keep those distances in check. Dick Rugge, a tall, thin 60-year-old, leads the USGA's efforts to keep the technology of golf balls from ruining the finer points of the game.

It is a battle many critics say was lost long ago. Sixteen players at the Open averaged more than 300 yards off the tee this month, while in the 1990 season, the top player on the PGA Tour averaged less than 280 yards. Jack Nicklaus uses the word "ridiculous" when he talks about the ball's distances.

I think it's funny how people are afraid of technological advancement for athletics. For some reason, we want to be able to keep the games in the same place they were 30, 40, or 50 years ago, equipment-wise, even though we know full well so many others things have changed since then to make comparability impossible. Basketball is probably the most equipment consistent over the years, and everyone knows you can't compare the careers of Lebron James to Michael Jordan to Oscar Robertson. So what if we can't compare Alex Rodriguez to Willie Mays to Babe Ruth or Tiger Woods to Jack Nicklaus to Bobby Jones? Better equipment only enhances the experience for fans and lets the athletes perform the best they can. Why should we limit their ability to perform at a high level just so we can compare their accomplishments to the past?