Controversy at the Olympic Games
The world of sport has always been influenced by technology – enhancing performance, accessibility, officiating and as a spectacle. Often change is not easily welcomed but it is undeniable that technology has made our lives better in many ways. The Tokyo 2020 Olympics has been central to the discussion of technological advancement in running shoes. You may or may not have heard of the new carbon fibre plated running shoes many athletes are now wearing. Much of the research has shown they can improve a runner’s times by up to 4%. A significant difference. This may sound good, but it has been criticised by many and I thought it would be fun to enter the discussion.
Running shoes have constantly been evolving ever since they were invented, to enable better running performance. As you can imagine running barefoot was much harder than running with the first shoe made back in the day, not to mention the shoes we use today compared to those times. This has allowed for the continual breaking of world records over the years and will continue to do so. The reason that the carbon fibre plate is so controversial is that it has made such a significant difference in individual’s running times.
The Nike Vaporfly was the first carbon fibre runner that become well known when Eliud Kipchoge broke his own world record with a sub 2-hour marathon wearing these shoes. He had all kinds of other scientific means of support to achieve this feat not to mention his unbelievable ability and freak genetic attributes. Ever since then this technology has been in question.
Now let’s get to the nitty gritty of why some are against the technology and others are for it.
Firstly, there are many unbelievable world records held by athletes in recent history who did not get to wear these runners. This is a very strong argument as at some point technology maybe having a larger influence on performance than the individual’s own ability. On the flip side through the decades athletes have always had an advantage over their predecessors as technology and science constantly evolves. Equipment, nutrition, coaching, training methods, performance analysis and many more aspects of sport have advanced. With every advancement heavy scrutiny must be applied to ensure sport is fair and an athlete’s ability is the key reason for their performance. The danger is when technology is the main factor for an individual’s performance. We might already be there.
Accessibility is also a very good argument for why the carbon fibre runners should or should not be available to use in the Olympics. Firstly, £200 is a lot of money to spend on a pair of trainers. Not everyone can afford this, and they would therefore be at a disadvantage due to their economic circumstances. For those competing in the Olympics this would not necessarily be a problem due to sponsorships deals and other funding provided. However, it could certainly affect grass roots athletes’ performances preventing them from progressing through the ranks and qualifying for the Olympics in the first place. A term ‘technology doping’ has be become popular for this kind of unfair advantage and should be taken seriously as many young athletes may never get the chance just because of the footwear they can afford.
Finally, as mentioned by Seb Coe, The Olympics as an organisation have never tried to restrict technological advancement and running shoes are one of the key areas to be transformed over the years. Many people like to say ‘things were better back in the day’ but is that really true? In all aspects of life, technology has helped us to become more efficient, healthier, safer, and more connected. As I write this, I can tell that statement is debatable. I guess Technology is always going to split opinions and that’s the beauty of it all. Keep an eye out for how the carbon fibre running shoes impacted the Olympics and I might even write a review on how they influenced the results of the games.
Thank you for reading
Dave Adkins
Owner of Principle Physiotherapy and Chartered Physiotherapist
