We can agree (most of us, anyway) that using anabolic steroids to improve athletic performance in competition is cheating…unethical. We can agree that using surgery to give swimmers an edge by webbing their feet, or boxers a deadly punch by attaching an iron fist is wrong, and against the spirit of sport.

As for the tools of sport, governing bodies must step in when technological advances in equipment threaten to overwhelm the talent and ability distinctions between players. Professional baseball won't let a player use a metal bat; super-flight golf balls are banned from professional golf. Jet engines are banned in Formula One racing. Rocket skates would not be permitted in hockey.

But what is the ethics verdict on a swimsuit that seems to shave seconds off the times of competitive swimmers? That's the dilemma facing competitive swimming thanks to the new LZR Racer -- a full-body suit made from a seamless fabric with the hydrodynamic characteristics of seal or shark skin. Over 40 swimming records have been broken recently by swimmers wearing the suits, which raises the question: is it the swimmer, or is it the suit?

The new suits eliminate drag, long the bane of competitive swimmers, who shave, pluck, wax and oil themselves to reduce friction from the water. But the suits don't move the swimmers through the water, which is what swimming is. They are not actual tools of the sport, and should be distinguished from things like metal tennis rackets and fiberglass pole-vaulting poles. Swimsuits are primarily necessary for modesty, and so swim meets can be televised on ESPN rather than the Playboy channel. Still, the advantage conferred by the LZR Racer seems to be real, significant, and sufficient to put the times of an average swimmer on par with the very best. "You've internally transformed this suit-wearing creature into something not quite human," says College Swimming Coaches Association of America Executive Director Phil Whitten. Yeesh! A suit can do that? Some have suggested that the suit's primary benefit is psychological. It is so tight that it takes as much as 40 minutes to get into, and it compresses the muscles, making the wearer feel transformed. "When I put it on, I feel like an action hero who can fly around the world and lift cars. I feel like I'm swimming downhill," said one swimmer, who is cautioned not to try to lift that car.

This is a fairness issue, not an artificial enhancement, doping or equipment issue. Again: swimsuits do not propel swimmers. Was it unethical to let some male swimmers wax all the hair off their bodies when others did not? No. Ultimately, the organizations that control competitive swimming have three choices. Let everyone wear the suits, ban the suits, or end the controversy for good by having competitors swim in the nude. And any of them would be fair.

Apparently the records will change if the suit becomes standard dress. Fine. All of baseball's homerun records changed when the ball was made livelier in 1920, but everyone was using the same ball. In the 1960s, a pro tennis player named Roscoe Tanner was regarded as a freak because he could serve the ball at 100 mph. Today, using a composite metal racket that would have been banned in the '60's, Venus Williams can serve the ball 129 mph. But every player can buy a metal racket.

And every swimmer can get an LZR. It doesn't cause physical damage, it isn't hidden or secret, it isn't illegal, it won't turn Rush Limbaugh into Mark Spitz, it isn't a drug and it isn't magic.

And it's not cheating. Or unethical.

Comment on this article