THE reports earlier this week that Britain’s skeleton athletes are benefitting from revolutionary skinsuits was interesting for a number of reasons.

It is no secret that much of sporting success at the very highest level is down to the level of support and resources made available to the athletes, but the skinsuit revelations – and the significant benefits they reportedly give to the athletes – flagged up the question yet again of how much of elite sporting success comes down purely to money?

It has been suggested that GB’s skinsuits, which make use of improved aerodynamics, provide “massive” improvements in comparison to the usual run-of-the-mill skinsuits that are worn by most other skeleton athletes, with times expected to be cut by as much as a full second per run.

This news brings to mind thoughts of British Cycling’s secret technology which has brought significant benefits to GB riders over the past three Olympic Games and has helped propel them to the top of the medal table. 

While Britain’s cycling team is, clearly, awash with talent, it is hard to dispute the fact that a significant proportion of the riders’ success is as a result of the phenomenal level of support they receive – considerably more than almost every one of their rivals.

When news of GB’s skeleton skinsuit technology broke, there was an outcry from other competitors, with a number questioning the legality of the new suits. However, the International Bobsleigh and Skeleton Federation checked the race suits of the British skeleton team and confirmed there had been no rule violation.

However, this begs the question: where does the line get drawn when it comes to technological doping?

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) defines technological doping as “the practice of gaining a competitive advantage using sports equipment” and acknowledges that technological doping is a hugely serious issue within sport and so has taken steps to address the pushing of the rules.

There have been a number of pieces of equipment in the past which have flouted the rules, most notably the LZR swimsuits which changed swimming overnight. World records were obliterated, but the sport ultimately made the move to ban them in 2010, with times dropping back literally overnight.

So what is the difference between these sharksuits and the technology that GB uses? Both Britain’s skeleton and cycling teams are within the rules, but that is an entirely different thing from the event being contested on a level playing field.

There is little doubt that few countries have the money or the resources to pump into research and development that GB does but while everything Britain does remains within the rules, they have every right to spend their money on this aspect of the sport.

In the four years leading up to PyeongChang 2018, UK Sport invested a whopping £6.5m in skeleton. A considerable portion of this will have been used to develop the skinsuits that are helping the GB athletes to exceed both their rankings and expectations.

With the level of public money to be invested in sport being drastically cut, is it right that this sum is being invested in a sport that is not widely available to the British public purely with the aim of winning Olympic medals?

When Lizzy Yarnold won Olympic gold in Sochi four years ago, her profile was raised considerably but I saw no increase in the number of opportunities for kids to take up skeleton. There are few who disagree that elite sport has become so medal-orientated that often the grassroots side of things gets pushed to one side.

These skinsuits may well help boost Team GB’s medal tally in PyeongChang and take the team closer to its target of five medals, but I am struggling to be persuaded that it is the best use of public money.
GB have done nothing wrong and, while the athletes are within the rules, they have every right to develop secret technology that gives them the edge over their rivals. For me though, the impact of advanced technology takes some of the fun out of watching elite sport. 

And I’m not sure I’ll ever be convinced that the odd skeleton medal every four years is the best return on £6.5m.

AND ANOTHER THING

I’ve heard a few comments criticising the reaction to Elise Christie crashing out of the 500m short-track final on Tuesday. 

A number of people suggested things have been blown out of proportion and that while yes, she crashed out, it was not the end of the world.

I’m sure she would be the first to agree that there are greater problems in the world than crashing in an Olympic final, but cut her some slack – she has put her heart and soul into these Games, so I think a few tears are justified.

While disappointment on the sporting field may not be life or death in the grand scheme of things, it most certainly feels like it when you’re in the thick of it.

Christie is back in action tomorrow in the 1500m and only then will we know if she has managed to get over Tuesday’s crushing blow in the 500m.

I desperately hope she has.