by DrunkMummy (Thu Jul 23, 2009)
I love Rebecca Adlington. She is a fabulous swimmer with a jolly laugh, great personality, and two Olympic gold medals to her name. I hold her up to my daughter as a great role model for the wonderful things that can be achieved in sport if you work hard (and surely distance swimming training has got to be the most tedious hard work that you can do).
So to me, Rebecca Adlington epitomises all that is great about being female, sporty and successful. She makes me proud to be British, with her honest, hardworking ethic.
But recently I read that she has said she would refuse to wear one of the new performance-enhancing swimsuits made by Adidas and Jaked (which compress muscle and enhance buoyancy) claiming they are a form of ‘technological doping' - even though the ban on such suits has been dropped by the world governing body of swimming.
Hang on a minute Rebecca. The moral high ground is all very well, but I rather fancy cheering you on at the 2012 Olympics in London - don't go and blow it now! These suits have been declared legal, so why not embrace them, rather than hamper your own performance? In addition, your hi-tech all-in-one LZR Racer Speedo suit caused controversy and accusations of cheating when it was introduced a few years ago. It certainly bears no resemblance whatsoever to the saggy piece of Speedo nylon I wear to splash about in at the local pool.
It may well be that this is the crux of the matter. Adlington signed a lucrative deal with Speedo, who do not make these latest advanced swimsuits. She is unable to wear the new hi-tech gear, because of her sponsorship deal.
That seems to me to be a far greater moral dilemma.
Is Rebecca an honourable woman of integrity, who only wants to win according to her sense of 'fair play'? Is she doing the decent thing in refusing to break her deal with Speedo? Or is it just that the sponsorship cash means more to her than winning gold medals?
