How many of you have heard about technological doping?

Technology doping is the practice of gaining a competitive advantage using sports equipment. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) considers prohibiting technologies if they are “performance-enhancing” or “being against the spirit of the sport”. In 2006, WADA initiated a consultation on technology doping which is now officially recognised as a threat, whilst the decision to allow or ban a new technology, specifically relating to sports equipment, is the responsibility of each sport’s own governing body. (“Sports Engineering: An Unfair Advantage?” Institution of Mechanical Engineers. p. 15).

Every World Record from 5 km (road) to marathon has been broken since the introduction of running shoes containing Carbon Fibre plates in 2016. In the 2016 summer Olympic games in Rio de Janeiro all 6 medals during the marathon were won by athletes wearing the same shoe raising concerns that the introduction of this technology leads to a distinct non-physiological advantage for Nike-sponsored athletes

Do Nike’s New Shoes Give Runners an Unfair Advantage? – The New York Times

Notably, these improvements in race performance by athletes running in carbon fibre plate (CFP) shoes are somewhat comparable to those expected from various blood doping substances and methods included on the prohibited list of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), such as erythropoietin, which have been shown to improve performance by 4-6% . (Haile DW, Durussel J, Mekonen W, Ongaro N, Anjila E, Mooses M, et al. Effects of EPO on Blood Parameters and Running Performance in Kenyan Athletes. Med Sci Sport Exerc.)

World Athletics reacted to this situation by announcing new rules on 31st January 2020 stating that sole thickness of a shoe must not exceed 40 mm and the shoe must be on sale for at least four months before use in competition.

However, the announcement of these new rules by world athletics on 31st January 2020 and the launch within seven days of the Nike Alphafly shoe with a 39.5 mm sole, a CFP insert, and the addition of air pods in the metatarsal region, raised concerns that the rules had been drafted to “legitimise” Nike’s CFP shoe series in response to accusations of “technological doping” (KellandK. Nike Vaporflys: World Athletics set to clamp down on ‘technological doping’ | The Independent).

Inevitably, these rules have resulted in a ‘footwear arms race’ to develop patented CFP inserts by shoe companies and are contrary to the integrity of the sport as the access to this technology depends upon sponsorship and can make a bigger difference in the performance outcome than the true physiological difference between the best athletes.

In addition, these rules seem contrary to another important principle of fairness in sport – the universality of sport, where technological developments used by athletes need to be reasonably available to all competitors. (Yannis Pitsiladis, Borja Muniz-Pardos, Mike Miller, Michele Verroken (2020) Sport integrity opportunities in the time of coronavirus. Sports Medicine.)

This issue of technological fairness or technological doping has attracted much recent attention in the scientific literature and the press, but there are also numerous webinars/podcasts on the topic. For example, in a recent GaitUp Academy webinar entitled “The role of shoe technology in the recent improvements in Marathon times” attendees were consulted before and after the webinar on whether they agreed with the new rules by World Athletics. The outcome was quite revealing with 71% of respondents being undecided and 10% not agreeing with the rules prior to the webinar and a significant shift post webinar with 34% of respondents being undecided and 42% not agreeing with World Athletics.

It is undoubtedly the case that the sudden improvements in performance times witnessed since the emergence of CFP shoes in 2016 is technologically driven rather than physiological, as recently inferred by Joyner MJ, Hunter SK, Lucia A, Jones AM. Physiology and fast marathons. Journal of Applied Physiology. 2020; 2020 Apr 1;128(4):1065-1068.

The postponement of the 2020 Tokyo Olympics due to the COVID-19 pandemic provides the opportunity for the world of sport to commission an independent review focusing on technological fairness to systematically evaluate the impact of technology on the essence and integrity of sporting competition. How this matter is resolved will have wider implications not only within athletics but across all sport, including the ski and golf international federations who have their own technological issues of fairness to address.

Ski technologies for effortless rides down the slopes – HILDEGARD SUNTINGER
Have Technological Advancements in Golf Equipment Spoiled the Charm of Golf? – By Rohan Dhir.

For further reading please check out the following articles.
Cheater! Technological Doping – by Ross Wier
Technological Doping – by Suresh Menon

The Research Science of Sport Podcast

World-renowned sports scientist Professor Ross Tucker and veteran sports journalist Mike Finch break down the myths, practices and controversies from the world of sport. From athletics to rugby, soccer, cycling and more, the two delve into the most recent research, unearth lessons from the pros and host exclusive interviews with some of the world’s leading sporting experts. For those who love sport.

A Critical Analysis of the Ineos 1:59: Breaking The Sub-2 Hour Marathon – Listen to the Podcast.

The Shoe That Broke Running – Listen to the Podcast.

The TECH EPISODE / When Tech Affects Performance Integrity / Tech Overuse and Reliance / What The Future Holds – Listen to the Podcast.