Controversy Over High-Tech Brooms Sweeps Through Sport of Curling

HughPickens.com writes: Billy Witz reports at the NYT that the friendly sport of curling suddenly has become roiled in controversy over — what else? — the brooms. The crux of the debate is fabric — specifically, something called directional fabric. The use of this material in broom pads is the latest escalation in an arms race among manufacturers, whereby the world's best curlers can guide the 44-pound stone around a sheet of ice as if it were controlled by a joystick. Many of the sport's top athletes, but not all of them, signed an agreement last month not to use the newest brooms. But with few regulations on the books and Olympic qualifying tournaments underway this month, the World Curling Federation has stepped in and issued new rules that set severe restrictions on the types of brooms that can be used. "There's definitely some anger over it," says Dean Gemmell. "In curling, we're generally known for being pretty friendly with most of your opponents. Even at the big events, you see the top players hanging out. But it's sort of taken that away this year, that's for sure."

It was prototype brooms made by BalancePlus that were the focus of complaints at the Toronto tournament, but Scott Taylor, president of BalancePlus, says they were never intended for sale, and were meant to demonstrate the problems that the reversed fabrics could cause. Players say the brooms allowed sweepers to "steer" the rock much more than they were comfortable with, and even slow them down. The brooms have been compared to high-tech drivers that allow amateur golfers to hit the ball as far as a pro, or the advanced full-body swimsuits that were banned from competition in 2010 for providing an unfair advantage. Of his company's high-tech broom, Taylor says: "This isn't good. It's like hitting a golf ball 500 yards."

Comments

Looking forwards

[coastwalker]

I find it hard to decide whether banning human assistive technology in sport is a good thing. One day the average teenager with a toy or the right diet will perform better than the best athlete if we prevent athletes from using assistive technologies. So what should we do? Expect sportspeople to live outside society and perform "human" sport for our entertainment?

Re:Looking forwards

[jittles]

Cycling, despite all the drug problems, is kind of in a similar place right now. You can go buy a road bike right now, that weighs just over 10 pounds. But the pros are restricted to using bikes that weigh at least 15 pounds. Some pros have even been known to add lead weight to their bike in order to not run afoul of the minimum weight limit. Note: This is completely within the rules.

I think that at the amateur level, there should definitely be rules about what kind of equipment you can use. Otherwise, many people who might end up being great at the professional level will never get there, as they were discouraged by the fact that they are continually losing to those with more money.

On the other hand, the professionals, with rich sponsors, it makes little reason to try and limit specific technologies. Obviously you want to disallow anything that would make the athletes unsafe. You probably also want to keep the general idea of the sport the same. Such as no recumbent bicycles in bike races meant for upright bikes. But limiting things like the fabric on curling brooms or the shape and material of your swimsuit seems like it's pushing things a little bit too far.

Even at the professional level there will disparities between what one team can afford and another. That is why some sports instituted things such as salary caps. The point is to keep the playing field level for all. I think that makes sense at every competition level. Of course, it'll never be completely level as those with money can devote more time and money on practicing and coaching. But at least you can guarantee that everyone is using roughly the same equipment. I'm not saying you should specifically disallow technology like this. I just think that the competition is better when there is some common requirement for equipment. It allows the athlete to shine and not the gear.

Re:Looking forwards

[Anonymous Coward]

Cycling, despite all the drug problems, is kind of in a similar place right now.

This isn't a problem limited to cycling right now. Cycling is notorious for blocking advancements. Derailleurs, recumbents, disc brakes, and even different positions (such as Obree's "superman" position) have all been banned at one time or another (or still continue to be banned).

It's an interesting sport for the human elements, but it's kind of like Nascar on the technology end of things - purposely limiting what can and can't be used.

What's frustrating with pro cycling is how it drives the technology for a lot of road cycling. To use the obligatory car analogy, on the low end (department stores), we sell bikes that are the equivalent to Yugos. On the high end, we sell bikes that are equivalent to off-street race cars, or bikes that are equivalent to Hummers ("mountain bikes", to use a common term for what is a variety of bikes). For anyone (like me) who uses a bike to get around, we're stuck in the middle trying to piece together the equivalent of a decent mid-range sedan using parts from a Hummer, a Nascar racer, and a Yugo.

Re:Looking forwards

[dj245]

I find it hard to decide whether banning human assistive technology in sport is a good thing.

My issue with this stuff is it's all so arbitrary. Hockey players aren't forced to use sticks improvised from re-used household materials. Tennis rackets aren't reduced to whatever hardcover books the players can find laying around. Swimmers aren't required to don industry-standard street-wear. No. Organized sports allow their participants and technology to optimize... until suddenly they don't. The argument is usually "we want a level playing field", but that's still rubbish. Somali kids don't have access to the carbon-fiber gear kids in the US have. Even access to health-care and nutrition isn't balanced world-wide. When athletes are required to be raised from infants on the borderline-sufficient foods that some people live on, then we can call things "fair". Until then, I don't see a meaningful difference between steroid-use and nutritionally-balanced breakfasts, between cutting-edge broom-heads and custom-fit swimsuits. These gentleman's agreements are bunk, making the very idea of sports competitions a joke. These are not the best of the best, they're the best of what they feel like allowing - for now.

That's completely fine. Don't forget that sports are just games. The rules of the game don't matter, as long as the rules are the same for everybody. Rules are often, and perhaps are unavoidably, arbitrary. I don't see a problem with that. Many rules in sports are arbitrary. Some rules arbitrarily try to make the game more exciting. Some rules draw a line on a level of risk to the players or spectators at some arbitrary point and prohibit dangerous behavior. Some rules arbitrarily try to ensure that the "rightful winner" should always win. As long as the rules are set and made known to all players well in advance, I have a hard time feeling any outrage, no matter how arbitrary the rules are.

Re:Looking forwards

[Anonymous Coward]

Until then, I don't see a meaningful difference between steroid-use and nutritionally-balanced breakfasts, between cutting-edge broom-heads and custom-fit swimsuits.
 

The difference between steroid use and balanced nutrition, is that steroid use has well known negative long term health effects, and proven effectiveness at enhancing short term perfomance in sports.

By allowing steroid use you create an environment where the cost of playing the sport is your long term health as if you aren't on steroids you won't win, and the steroids will eventually mess you up pretty bad.

Who the fuck cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

See: subject

Mostly a ploy by BalancePlus

[BadgerRush]

From what I gather, the whole controversy was manufactured by the broom manufacturer BalancePlus as a way to discredit or even ban the competitor manufacturer Hardline. Basically BalancePlus created a prototype broom which is meant to resemble their competitor's model in a few aspects, but also have a many "enhancements" which completely break the game (this is the "magical" broom that can control the rocks "like a joystick"). They created this game-breaking broom with the sole purpose of getting it banned and trying to get their competitor's model banned in the wake, which they accomplished.

It is a bit like when Tomas Edison created AC contraptions to electrocute puppies in order to prove to everybody that Tesla's AC was dangerous and that everybody should use his DC standard instead.