WASHINGTON -- Back in the 1990s David Brooks, then an editor at
the Wall Street Journal, called me and asked me if I
would like to "gloat" on the newspaper's op-ed page. What
inspired him to encourage such ungentlemanly behavior was the
publication of a book, First in His Class, by David
Maraniss, that vindicated my claims of the prior year that Bill
Clinton was a rampant philanderer, widely recognized as such
throughout Arkansas where he had apparently maintained a harem.
The American Spectator had published two pieces based on
interviews with Arkansas state troopers that irrefragably
revealed Clinton as the kind of hound dog that would…well, that
would do what the historically minded now know he did do with a
White House intern of unhappy memory. I was lambasted for
publishing such wild charges. Michael Kinsley called me
"dishonest." Joe Klein was equally defamatory, though he had
covered Clinton in the 1992 campaign and knew all about Clinton's
libidinous proclivities as he demonstrated in his book,
Primary Colors, disingenuously authored by "Anonymous."
I told Brooks that I would not stoop to gloat, but I did write a
piece that was considered by my critics to be in shockingly bad
taste. I quoted them from the year before. One of them, Klein,
was particularly indignant. At a reception just after the
Journal's piece appeared he told me I had acted very
dishonorably. He accused me of assailing him with a "low blow."
My response was, "But, Joe, all I did was quote you." Around our
office we amusedly coined a new journalistic offense,
"Tyrrellism, blackening a person's reputation by quoting him." I
wonder if it is taught in journalism schools.
Vindication is sweet, but we must never gloat. A surprise
decision made by the governing board of world swimming, FINA,
last week has vindicated those of us who as voices in the
wilderness complained during the 2008 Olympics that the high-tech
swimming suits introduced in that Olympiad were an adulteration
of the sport that threatened to distract from the athletes. No
longer would attention fasten on the great feats of the swimmers.
Soon the sport would be entoiled with questions of swimsuit
construction, legal wrangles, corporate promotions, and other
controversies that have no legitimate place in competitive
swimming.
I devoted two
columns to the controversy. We critics of the high-tech
swimsuits were ignored or branded as Luddites opposed to
progress. Our prospects of returning the sport to the athletes
and delivering it from the brainy scientists who were designing
the high-tech adulterations of the athletes' equipage looked
grim. But now at last week's world championships in Rome we were
vindicated beyond our dreams. World champions such as Michael
Phelps complained that they were beaten not by better swimmers
but by technological innovations in their rivals' high-tech
swimsuits. A huge number of world records were broken and
attributed not to the athletes' superior performance but to which
swimsuit an athlete was wearing. In an absurdity that we critics
had warned about, it appeared that fat swimmers were getting an
advantage from the suits that better conditioned swimmers could
not get. As we predicted, technology that was irrelevant to
athleticism was diminishing the athletes.
FINA has answered to right reason and announced a ban on the
suits beginning next year. The turnaround came rapidly after our
National Collegiate Athletic Association banned the suits from
American collegiate competition, recognizing that they were a
burden to strained athletic budgets (they cost hundreds of
dollars more than the $30 or $50 textile suits that men and women
usually wear), wore out after a dozen or so races, and, as we
critics had said, were adventitious to the sport. Now a fellow
veteran of this War of the Swimsuits, Bob Groseth, is advising
the NCAA rules committee on the standards for next year's
non-tech suits. He will be executive director beginning this
autumn of the College Swimming Coaches Association of America,
and he says the standards will establish which materials can be
used in the suits (textile of some sort) and the amount of the
athletes' anatomy to be covered. The high-tech suits could sheath
the athletes from shoulders to ankles.
You will note that as with other vindications I have enjoyed over
the years I do not gloat. I shall, however, express my gratitude
and respect. The world of competitive swimming has protected the
integrity of the sport. Once again my belief that sports is often
a more honest endeavor than politics has been rewarded.
