The document centers on a dispute involving the Australian Olympic Committee (AOC) and the Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA) regarding the compliance of full-body swimsuits, such as Speedo’s Fastskin and Adidas’s full bodysuit, with FINA’s regulations. The AOC sought an advisory opinion from the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) to determine whether these suits violated FINA’s Rule SW 10.7, which prohibits devices that enhance speed, buoyancy, or endurance. The AOC’s concern stemmed from its responsibility to select swimmers for the 2000 Olympic Games, as performances achieved using these suits could be contested. The CAS President assigned Prof. Richard H. McLaren as the sole arbitrator to address key questions, including whether the suits qualified as prohibited devices and whether FINA had validly approved their use. FINA argued that the request was an improper use of CAS’s advisory jurisdiction, but the arbitrator upheld CAS’s authority, noting the AOC’s legitimate interest in clarifying the rules.
The swimsuits in question were designed with advanced technologies, such as biomimicry of shark skin to reduce drag and improve efficiency. Speedo claimed the Fastskin could enhance swimming performance by up to three percent, while Adidas asserted its suit delayed muscle fatigue. FINA had approved these suits in October 1999, provided they were available to all competitors, and classified them as costumes under General Rule GR 6 rather than prohibited devices under SW 10.7. The Bureau of FINA, responsible for interpreting and enforcing rules, concluded that the suits complied with existing regulations, though its decision lacked detailed reasoning. The AOC argued that FINA should not be the sole arbiter of rule interpretation and sought CAS oversight to ensure fairness.
The document highlights the intersection of sports governance, technology, and competitive integrity. It underscores FINA’s constitutional provisions granting CAS jurisdiction to review disputes, emphasizing that CAS decisions are final and binding. While FINA retains authority to interpret its rules, CAS ensures these interpretations adhere to principles of fairness, good faith, and procedural justice. The arbitrator found no grounds to overturn FINA’s approval of the suits, as the Bureau’s decision was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. The advisory opinion concluded that the suits did not violate FINA rules, validating performances achieved while wearing them. The document illustrates the challenges of regulating evolving sports technologies and the need for transparent, evidence-based decision-making to maintain competitive fairness. It also reaffirms the limited scope of judicial review in technical sporting matters, preserving the autonomy of international federations while ensuring accountability through external oversight.