The patent angle in one of the OPs argument struck me as very important - I wouldn't automatically disqualify a need to purchase some a legal monopoly of a particular sports-relevant aspect, where some competitors are prohibited to have it at the whim of a third party (e.g. the author suggested, perhaps hypothetical, example of a shoe 'sold to public' by putting 50 pairs in a Tokyo store once and never again) does not seem fair play.<p>Can we make a simple blanket policy that patent-protected gear of any kind are automatically prohibited in races? I mean, if there's no performance impact, then it shouldn't be a problem for athletes to use some other, patent-free gear, and if there is a performance impact, it shouldn't get used.
Perhaps this could also negate the core issue of this article, as the impact on sports is arguably caused by the desire to sell such tech to mass market; but if the high-tech shoes can be sold to mass market <i>only</i> without an impact on competitions, then Nike can put in their shoes whatever shiny gadgets they want.
Semi-seriously, I quite like the idea of going back to the original ancient Greek way of doing competitive sport naked. That would take care of quite a lot of the issues surrounding running shoes, swmming suits, and so on.
Not to disagree with the broader point about the integrity of world records, but I thought this perspective was interesting:<p>> <i>I don’t want a five-set final at the Australian Open thinking “Shit, I wonder if this result would be different if Thiem and Djokovic could swap tennis rackets? If only my guy had a different sponsor”.</i><p>A similar dynamic already exists in many team sports, where the elites can sign all the stars and smaller teams have to try and win with better drafting, coaching, player development, etc. And in these cases, fans often seem to love watching a less-privileged team overcome those challenges to win (see Leicester City or small college basketball teams like Oral Roberts as examples.)
While it is sad to see that equipment is becoming a concern in high level running, I found it most disastrous when thinking about the effect of "equipment" in swimming.<p>Some of the suits that Phelps and folks wore were just so stupidly cutting edge in terms of their effects on stroke efficiency. I think the world swimming organizations have done a better job of regulating here, but again it sounds like ALL sports are required to have their governing bodies playing a bit of cat and mouse to keep the playing field as even as possible.
The main argument of the article seems to be that some runners get more benefit from new shoe technology than others (which may be true, and may or may not be mitigated by other companies developing different variants). However it makes me wonder whether this hasn’t always been the case... if shoes had been banned in the sport entirely then probably other people would have been successful?<p>Also the comparison with tennis is a bit silly... you won’t get far in tennis without a racket that costs a whole lot more than any Nike shoe...
Don't forget: This is amateur league play compared to designer genetics, or when actually practical crispr edit-in-place gene therapy hits mainstream.<p>And basically PEDs is a lost cause, all they try to do now is contain it from frankenstein levels.
I agree with many points in the article, but the idea that it’s unfair if one person’s body responds better to the shoe than another seems silly. Distance running is already a competition of who has better gene adaptations. I have a mediocre VO2 max, so I’ll never be an Olympian. Is that unfair? My body requires a longer recovery time after hard efforts than Galen Rupp. Is that unfair? That’s just life.
The idea that "shoe tech" is the issue with the integrity of running is pretty hilarious to anyone who follows the sport, weather track, road or yes even trail these days.<p>Talking about doping of course, legal and illegal.
“It undermines one of the sport’s most valuable qualities, namely that the outcome, the title, the victory, ...”<p>This seems less about the integrity of running, and more about the integrity of winning.