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.