For swimming competitions in general, or the Olympics specifically, is
the production of webbed hands through self mutilation, plastic
surgery, or other means... _officially_ not allowed?


If possible (but it is not required) I would appreciate comments on the following:
If this is officially disqualifying, how do they decide where to draw
the line as even a small increase in surface area can be an advantage
... or what if they are born like that?  If they were born like that
do they need to prove it somehow?  If so, how do they?
What is your personal opinion on the legality of this?


A strange conversation led a friend and me to this bizarre topic.  He
thinks there is no rule forbidding it and I think there probably is,
otherwise people would be crazy enough to do it.  We have a small bet
with each other on this, so I hope you can find an answer.

Oh, and I'll chip in an extra $10 if you can cite an example of an
athelete actually trying to do this in the history of competitive
swimming.

Dear snesprogrammer-ga,

This is an interesting question to research. Your question goes to the
very meaning of equality in sporting competitions. First, I think we
must consider whether the person was born with this webbing, or had it
artificially created or added later, and the intention behind that
addition.

If they are born with it, then I can see no reason why they can cannot
partake in a swimming race. Otherwise, for instance, very tall people
would be banned from Olympic basketball.

If the webbing was added later, then this would be subject to a
decision by FINA (Federation Internationale de Natation), the
international swimming federation and the sport?s governing body for
international and Olympic competitions, under their rules and
regulations.

This particular problem has not yet been encountered in swimming ?
only time will tell  - so, some of this answer is my own opinion,
based on the current rules and regulations and a recent case.

The nearest relevant rules I can find are:

"FINA Swimming Rules 2002-2005
SW 10.7 No swimmer shall be permitted to use or wear any device that
may aid his speed, buoyancy or endurance during a competition (such as
webbed gloves, flippers, fins, etc.). Goggles may be worn."
http://www.fina.org/swimrules_10.html

The operative words here are 'permitted to use' and 'wear any device'.
 The Federation would have to approve use of the device before the
race. Is a substance or object placed inside the body ?a device?? That
is a matter of interpretation by FINA. I think the main thing to
consider is intent. Plastic surgery or an artificial substance added
to the body for no other reason than to aid the person to swim faster,
is, in my opinion, a breach of this rule.  Much the same as taking a
drug. The onus would be on the swimmer to prove that the addition was
not for improving their swimming and that was merely a side-effect.

Slightly different is if the person is surgically, or as you say, by
self-mutilation, 'improved'. Such as by placing flaps of skin across
their hand creating webbing. Intent is clearly present. It may be
interpreted as a 'device'. If it is not, then I suspect FINA would
resort to Article 2 of their Bylaws which is a catch-all disciplinary
offence:

Article 2
(c) cheating including but not limited to doping, falsification or
alteration of birth certificates, documents of identification or any
other document indicating false age, false nationality or any other
false information with the purpose of obtaining unfair advantage for
an official, an athlete or a team.
http://www.fina.org/bylaws.html

Of course, placing a substance or material in your body to enhance
your performance is the definition of drug taking or doping. FINA has
extensive rules on this, but I do not think they were intended for the
topic of your question.

"Anti-Doping Rule Violations
2002-2005
DC 2 ANTI-DOPING RULE VIOLATIONS"
http://www.fina.org/dopingrules_2.html


Swimmers partaking in FINA?s competitions are subject to an annual
medical examination.
Any change in their body would be noted and no doubt referred to the Federation.

"Annual Examination
New rules 2002-2005
MED 2.1   The annual examination may include: 
MED 2.1.1 A complete history including the family history of the
competitor, the competitor's past and present medical history, the
competitor's athletic history and the menstrual history of female
competitors.
MED 2.1.2 A physical examination including height and weight. 
MED 2.1.3 Laboratory studies including haemogram, urinalysis, ECG, and
special studies for specific sports such as necessary.
MED 2.2 Contra-indications to training and competition include
orthopedic, neurological, dermatological, otorhinolaryngeal,
ophthalmic, psychiatric, and other medical or surgical
diseases/disorders. "
http://www.fina.org/medicalrules_2.html

Before a swimmer reaches the dizzy heights of Olympic competition,
they would have no doubt started as members of local swimming clubs
which would be members of the relevant national representative of
FINA. If they had been born with the webbing, then those attributes
would have been noted in their very earliest organised swimming
contests under the FINA?s rules. Probably when they were in their
teens.


You may be interested in a debate which occurred in 1999 which FINA
had to resolve: whether ?bodysuits? were a swimming costume or a
device which aided the swimmer.  Their conclusion resulted in a new
rule:

GR 6.4 Before any swimsuit of new design, construction or material is
used in competition, the manufacturer of such swimsuit must submit the
swimsuit to FINA and obtain approval of FINA.
http://www.fina.org/generalrules.html


These pages linked below set out the arguments involved in the case.
They are useful as they show the type of arguments which would be used
in this case.

"On the occasion of the FINA Bureau meeting of October 8, 1999, it
decided that 'the use of these swimsuits does not constitute a
violation of the FINA rules'."
http://www.fina.org/press_010500_no47.html
http://www.fina.org/press_00_no51.html

Swimming Science Journal
http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/dept/coachsci/swimming/bodysuit/CASsub.htm

As one critic argues:
"The floodgates are open. It would seem logical that anything that is
a contiguous extension of these suits would be legal. So webbed hands
of the same material as that of the arms, and foot socks (that might
resemble concealed flippers) are quite feasible."
http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/dept/coachsci/swimming/bodysuit/legalbs.htm


I hope this answers your question. If it does not, or the answer is
unclear, then please ask for clarification of this research before
rating the answer. I shall respond to the clarification request as
soon as I receive it.
Thank you
answerfinder


Search strategy
Variations of  "swimming"  webbed webbing FINA "plastic surgery"

---

Request for Answer Clarification by snesprogrammer-ga on 06 May 2004 08:39 PDT

> I hope this answers your question.

Oh it does, thank you for all that in depth info.
I also appreciate your take on the situation ... boiling it down to a
question of "what was the intention?" does seem like a fair way to
assess such situations.

Your work is obviously worthy of a great rating, but before I sign off
on it I was hoping you could confirm if the following summary is
essentially correct (I'm not very good with legal stuff, so I just
want to check that I understood the answer):

There is no rule specifically covering this situation so a ruling
would have to be made depending on the situation.  However since any
"surgery" clearly would have the intentions to gain an edge in
competition, it is likely that FINA (the ruling body for swimming
competitions) would referr to Article 2 part c, which prohibits
"cheating including but not limited to [some specific examples] with
the purpose of obtaining unfair advantage for an official, an athlete
or a team."

Correct?

So while no swimmer could get away with such actions because of the
general encompassing "no unfair advantage" rule, there is no
_specific_ rule against it.  So I guess I technically lost the bet, oh
well :)

Thanks for your help.  This was fun.

---

Clarification of Answer by answerfinder-ga on 06 May 2004 09:22 PDT

Almost. Try this,

There is no rule specifically covering this situation, so a ruling
would have to be made depending on the situation.  However since any
"surgery" clearly would have the intentions to gain an edge in
competition, it is likely that FINA (the ruling body for swimming
competitions) would refer to Article 2 part c, which prohibits
"cheating including but not limited to [some specific examples] with
the purpose of obtaining unfair advantage for an official, an athlete
or a team."
Or, the surgery would be treated as using a device, and therefore contrary to 
FINA Swimming Rule SW 10.7 "No swimmer shall be permitted to use or
wear any device that may aid his speed, buoyancy or endurance during a
competition (such as webbed gloves, flippers, fins, etc.). Goggles may
be worn."


We won't know the answer until someone does have surgery and FINA has
to make a decision. It will be interesting - judging by the storm over
the bodysuit costumes. You may also wish to consider how long it took
the International Sporting Community to agree on doping.
http://www.asda.org.au/media/history.htm#9

Can't you declare it a draw?

answerfinder-ga

Now I almost wish someone WOULD try it... just to see what happens ;)
Thanks again.

> Can't you declare it a draw?
Eh, it's all in fun ... besides, he owed me a dinner from the last
silly bet.  So we're even now :)

Dear snesprogrammer-ga,
Thanks for the tip.
answerfinder-ga (alias The Man from Atlantis)

If GA awarded a prize to the most interesting question and answer of
the day, I'd pin the blue ribbon on this one. Both the question and
the answer were very thought-provoking. Bravo!

I love Google Answers. :-)