Is this not preferable, Morris considered, to the technologically powered world of sport we have today?

An interesting idea certainly, but one that the conference - in its illuminating illustration of the scope, impact and profit that technology brings - successfully dispelled.

I must admit that I was not really sure what to expect from an evening immersed in textiles and innovation. As someone who struggles to change a light bulb and finds dealing with the fairly simple computer system at insidethegames a daily trauma, it is fair to say that my talents lie elsewhere.

But although words like "high-density probes", "functional imaging" and "surface engineering", predictably passed over my head, it was amazing how comprehensible the wide-ranging impact quickly became.

Technology is an area where there has been much innovation since the Ancient Olympics ©Getty Images


Perhaps the best example of this lies in swimming and the performance-enhancing swimsuits which revolutionised the sport in 2008 and 2009.

After a 0.8 per cent rate of improvement in world records between 1988 and 1992, we saw a slight increase to 1.1 per cent with the first, limited introduction of bodysuits between 1996 and 2000.

The introduction of the new non-textile Speedo LZR race suit and its ever more innovative successors duly precipitated 255 records in 23 months in 2008 and 2009 - with a staggering 43 in one week alone at the 2009 World Championships in Rome.

One mind-boggling example of this was the case of the future International Olympic Committee (IOC) member Alexander Popov. The Russian's short-course 100 metre freestyle world record of 46.74 sec lasted a full decade - March 1994 to March 2004 - yet one year after the introduction of high-tech suits, the time ranked 37th on the all-time list and by the end of 2009 he was no longer ranked in the top 100.

After these suits were banned in January 2010 there has been a considerable drop off in world records and, rather like the doping influenced times permeating women's athletics, it appears unlikely that any will be beaten.

So, and this is where the science comes in, why did these non-textile suits make such a difference?

Four advantages can be highlighted. Like but more so than their predecessors, they were ultra hydrodynamic to reduce drag and therefore improve shape and efficiency. An "elastic corset" did this further by boosting muscle and body stabilisation so ensuring a more proficient form.

However, the real secret lay in the polyurethane material itself. The flexible material was made up of closed cell foams and within them pockets of gas which were less dense than water. This essentially created extra buoyancy and allowed swimmers to float higher in the water, and consequently go faster.

Furthermore, the suits also enabled better blood flow and therefore lessened the impact of lactate acid and consequent fatigue. The latter two factors made a particular difference over short distances, and it was in those events where records were most freely broken.

A fifth factor relating to the others, of course, is a "placebo affect". Athletes simply had more confidence that with the suits on they would swim faster. Indeed, studies have estimated that, by the end of 2009, these full body polyurethane suits increased performance by 5.5 percent.

Some might say, like with doping, that this creates a level playing field so is not a problem. But of course that is not the case as certain athletes had more access than others and some appeared to benefit more. It therefore appears right that the suits were banned after a somewhat farcical 23 month period.

Paul Biedermann's superior swimsuit helped him defeat Michael Phelps at the 2009 World Championships in Rome ©Getty Images


There are many examples however of technology having an unequivocally positive impact. This is particularly so in speed and power related sports but also in others, and in areas beyond competitive performance.

One recent success has been taekwondo where a new computerised scoring system was introduced to combat the judging problems the sport faced before and during the Beijing Olympics in 2008. These have made a profound difference and World Taekwondo Federation (WTF) director general Jean-Marie Ayer even admitted to insidethegames this was an important reason why the sport remains on the Olympic programme.

The corollary of this, perhaps, was that wrestling's inability to embrace new technology was one of the reasons that they were removed from the Games, if only to be returned last September after making the necessary changes.

Technology can also impact training methods. Power output gauges in cycling introduced in the early 2000s, for example, measure the specific effort put in by the rider, and are a far more accurate means of calculating training speed than stopwatches and heart rate monitors. Pedal forwards a decade and this has been incorporated into race strategy. Riding to a pre-defined "power" level, rather even than the moves of opponents, has been the predominant way by which Team Sky have dominated the last two editions of the Tour de France.

The success of Sir Bradley Wiggins and Chris Froome at Team Sky has been boosted by power gauges ©Getty Images



Though not stretching back as far as to the Ancient Greeks, technology in sport has been around for a long time. Swimsuits were first invented in 1913, and Speedo emerged as a company with the controversial "Racerback" suit the following decade. While its "open shoulder, exposed back and lightweight style" merited a ban from beaches for being "too revealing" it was lapped up by the swimming fraternity.

Nylon and lycra suits then emerged in post war years and in subsequent decades there were Cold War era battles - to reach new standard of equipment as well as athletic prowess.

It has been in the last decade however when technology has made the greatest difference. This relates to the rise in professionalism as well as the boom that has created gadgets from mp3 players and Smartphone's to 3D Printers and a reusable rocket.

It is worth pointing out that a technological advance alone is not enough. It must also be noticed. Cycling's power output metre was first invented in 1986 but went largely unseen for 13 years until was a book by Joe Friel's The Cyclist's Training Bible in 1999 highlighted its usefulness. As Kim Blair, President of the International Sports Engineering Association, explained, "innovation" can be defined as "breakthrough ways of thinking and new ways to approach ideas" It is thus not just invention but a combination of invention and insight.

Sport is, however, one of the best ways by which technology can be noticed. In the words of International Academy for Sports Science and Technology (AISTS) President, Jan-Anders Månson, it "is a catwalk of new things." Other fields, aerospace for instance, may use the latest technology but it takes 15 years to adapt whereas in sport it can be seen far quicker.

This is seen in formula one where brands like McClaren and Ferrari go head to head in a technical as much as a competitive battle, as well as in swimming between Speedo, Adidas and others. This creates excitement for spectators but also vast commercial opportunities for competitors and federations alike.

Can innovation be a bad thing? "Technologcal doping" is a phrase which has emerged in the aftermath of the swimsuit controversy. While not setting definitive rules, the IOC certainly have opinions on the merits of technology, and are influenced by many factors.

One potential problem is injury and safety. This was something explained to me by AISTS director Claude Stricker. A former skier, he highlighted how advances have come so far since his day that athletes are reaching physical limits and are thus putting more pressure on fragile body parts and particularly their knees.

In some sports, innovation is neither necessary nor beneficial. Take table tennis for example. Advances in rubber and bat speed have made the game faster and more power based to the extent that it is more one-dimensional than two decades ago. There is less variety in playing styles, shorter rallies and therefore, arguably, less of a spectacle. Certainly, further innovation is not required.

Would even more innovation help or hinder a sport like table tennis? ©AFP/Getty Images


Yet the point is that table-tennis, due to easy accessibility and huge popularity in certain parts of the world, is not reliant on innovation for progress. Tennis, in its recent trend towards physical rather than technological boundaries is another example of this, as was, to an extent, wrestling due its ancient tradition and global reach. But in others like taekwondo, innovation must be embraced to keep up.

Tucked away alongside Lake Geneva in a town not immediately appearing innovative, the conference showed - even to someone as initially unconvinced as me - that technology in sport is more an asset that a detriment.

It can create unfair advantages and a greater injury risk, but it can also solve problems, boost training and competition performance, as well as excitement, and also bring in huge revenue, sponsorship and publicity.

So we should just sit back and enjoy whatever the next generation of innovation brings us.

The Ancient Greeks may have set the foremost Olympian values, but, as moderator Bill Morris conceded, times have changed and in this professional age, technology must and is being embraced.