I’d have entire days of experiments screwed up just by the water being slightly too warm or cold, or there being dust, or not enough dust, or sunshine, or… fluid dynamics are finicky.

The Titmus vs Sanders vs Ledecky 400m could have been a world record race in another pool, but there's a pretty good chance we'll never see the three of them race each other again.

That way, there's no circus that goes around at great expense each time, and the Olympic city becomes a centre for sports science during the interim.

Perhaps have separate summer and winter cities.

Only drawback is the ioc doesn't get to choose a city every four years.

A more interesting way of doing the Olympics would be to only allow for developing countries to participate in the selection process. Each country would be required to meet a certain level of funding to guarantee they can support the entire Olympics. Foreign investment would be encouraged. There would be a requirement for some aspects to be permanent construction, you couldn't just build a tent city for the athlete village. Then a name is picked randomly. The host country then receives major foreign investment, not just in sporting arenas, but in many areas of its economy. The Olympic committee could also collect dues from participating countries based on GDP that would go to the host country for economic development. It would basically create a lottery system for the economy of developing countries. The build up to the Olympics would create the infrastructure needed for future investment. This would likely require host cities to be selected much further out in advance. An oversight committee would observe the development and if milestones are not met, a host city from a developed country that does have the infrastructure necessary would instead be chosen.

On swimming, sure. But not fluid dynamics. It's a bit like music listeners shouldn't be treated as experts on music quality, or you'll get the audiophile nuts who need gold connectors. Some combination of personal experience for comfort and objective measurements for performance would be much better.

But they are very prone to psychological effects.

Some kind of placebo effect or fear of coming to close to the ground.

Many athletes are superstitious.

Edit: maybe I’m not making myself clear:

I don’t doubt they are slower in the current pool than they were before. But I doubt they can accurately tell you that it’s because of the pool depth. There are other factors that could also influence the performance, and I’m not sure the swimmers can accurately determine which factor is the primary difference.

Temporary pools seem to be thing recently. The US trials were held in one.

Two examples of technique I'm aware of are the Fosbury Flop (1968) in the high jump, in which the jumper goes backwards over the bar (previously jumpers had gone forwards and feet-first, by 1968 with a sissors step), and heads-down technique in Australian Crawl "freestyle" swimming. Both dramatically improved results.

The Fosbury Flop was enabled by the technological introduction of foam mats on the landing side of the high-jump. Without mats, landing on your back after clearing a 2m+ bar position was somewhat undesirable.

Heads-down stroke in freestyle was in conjunction with freshwater (rather than salt) in swimming pools. Swimming heads-down without goggles in a salt-water pool burns the eyes quite strongly. With freshwater, and acrylic plastic goggles (acrylic being invented in the Great Plastics Boom of the 1930s). I'm not entirely sure when plastic swim goggles became widespread, though it may not have been until the 1970s, and the Montreal Olympics (1976) were the first to permit goggles.

Track generally has also seen tremendous improvements in the track composition (loose cinders to rubberised surface). Swimming pools have hugely reduced wave action through wave-absorbing lane lines, deep gutters, inlet diffusers, and laser-guided construction ensuring accurate and consistent distance.

That's on top of vast improvements in training, other equipment, doping (which has a very long history), professionalisation of sport (including the Olympics), and other factors.

Talent is a component, but the overall phenomenon is highly multidimensional.

Various types of doping could cause this too. More positively, tech, diet and science changes could too in some sports too.

Is it’s deep enough, the gravitational mass of the water will form a black hole and squash the swimmer to death.

Here is a source from 2012 which shows pool depths weren't always uniform but it seems more modern pools are

https://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/news/olympic-pools-whe...

If you want to regulate what they wear for the competition itself, fine. But I don't see how regulating what they wear while training is different than regulating what exercises they do while training, what their diet is while training, etc.

la defense arena has a capacity of 40000.

Paris Aquatic Centre -- Aquatics (water polo preliminaries, diving, artistic swimming)

The point is that many athletes are only at their peak for one or two Olympics. How rubbish for them that they're not able to get a fair shot at the record like others have had in the past.

(Aside: this doesn't mean fiber isn't good or useful for you, consuming fiber is a key component in keeping your gut fit and healthy because your gut has to do work to deal with the fiber, similar to lifting weights for your other muscles.)

You’ be interested to have a look at amino acid in quinoa, tempeh and most of the mushrooms

Considered incomplete by whom? References?