The Polyurethane Swimsuit Era and Why It Was Banned

Few periods in sport have reshaped a record book as abruptly as the two years between early 2008 and the end of 2009 in swimming. In that time, dozens of world records fell at major meets, and a new generation of bodysuits was at the centre of the debate. In January 2010 the sport's governing body banned the suits, but many of the marks set in them stayed on the books for years afterwards, and some of them still look out of reach. This guide explains what happened, why it mattered and how to read swimming records from that window.

Before the suits

For much of the twentieth century, swimsuits were a matter of fit and comfort. By the late 1990s, manufacturers had begun to experiment with fabrics that reduced drag, including textured materials designed to mimic features of shark skin. These suits, covering the body from shoulders to ankles, were used at the 2000 Olympic Games and contributed to a visible shift in the sport. Nevertheless, the records of the period still progressed in small steps, and the rules continued to allow such suits.

The 2008 breakthrough

In February 2008, a new suit made with a bonded, panel-based construction and low-water-absorption fabric was introduced. Within weeks, swimmers wearing it were setting world records. Competitors sponsored by other brands scrambled to catch up with suits of their own. By the Beijing Olympic Games in August 2008, the vast majority of finalists were wearing suits of this type, and Michael Phelps won eight gold medals in a single Games, setting world records in seven of those events. The suits were credited by researchers with reducing drag and improving body position by compressing the torso and keeping the hips higher in the water.

The 2009 explosion

If 2008 was a breakthrough, 2009 was an avalanche. Newer suits made primarily of polyurethane, with no woven textile in many designs, were more buoyant and even less permeable. At the 2009 world championships in Rome, a large number of world records were set across the programme, many by swimmers who had not previously been regarded as record contenders. Reports at the time counted around 43 world records at that single meet. Times that had once looked like the ceiling of human performance were passed repeatedly in a single week.

It became harder to argue that the changes represented only athletic improvement. Swimmers wearing older equipment found themselves several tenths of a second slower than rivals, and some federations and coaches argued that the suits were making the sport a competition between manufacturers.

The ban

The governing body, then known as FINA and now World Aquatics, responded with new rules that took effect on 1 January 2010. Suits had to be made of textile, with no neoprene or polyurethane panels. For men, the suit could extend no higher than the waist and no lower than the knee. For women, it could not cover the neck, extend past the shoulders or go below the knee. A thickness and buoyancy limit was also set, and suits had to be approved before use. Records set in the earlier suits were not struck from the list, because they had been set legally under the rules in force at the time.

The aftermath for the record list

The result was an unusual situation in which a number of records stood for much longer than the sport's usual pace of progression would suggest. Some of them lasted well over a decade before being beaten, and in a few events the old marks were replaced only after swimmers of an exceptional generation arrived. When you look at long-standing swimming marks, it is worth asking whether they date from this window.

Swimmers also fought back at the margins. After the ban, athletes and coaches argued that some of the marks should be given a separate status or removed from the official list. The governing body did not do so, on the grounds that the rules at the time allowed the suits, and that retrospective removal would raise more questions than it solved. A group of researchers and commentators has continued to suggest that records from 2008 and 2009 be treated with a distinctive note. We do not alter official ratifications on this site, but where a mark in a ranking dates from this era we say so.

What it teaches us about records

• Equipment can matter as much as training. Records are a product of athlete, rules and technology, not athlete alone.
• Rules change records, too. A change in equipment regulation can freeze or reset the progression of an event.
• Retrospective fairness is hard. Governing bodies seldom remove records that were legal when set, even when it is clear that the conditions were unusual.

Look at our 100 m freestyle ranking and most decorated Olympic swimmers with that context in mind. And for a parallel in running, read about super shoes and the marathon.