Is "technological doping" a job for WADA?

One of the stories that has been all but lost amid the hoopla and razzmatazz of the Olympics is what is being referred to as "technological doping", the use of hi-tech equipment and materials to get ahead in sports.

Probably the first tlme most of us became aware of this issue was the "shark-skin" swimsuits (Speedo's LZR full-body swimsuits, that were responsible for 23 of the 25 records broken at the 2008 Beijing Olympics). Swimming's world regulatory body, FINA, realized that anyone rich enough to be able to buy the LZR suits had a substantial (unfair?) advantage over the others, and banned the use of the suits in official competitions in 2009.

The latest technological innovation is in running shoes. There has been an ongoing arms race by the major athletic shoe manufacturers to create a shoe that can make a significant difference to athletes' performances for decades now, and the potential commercial returns are huge (as world leader Nike has found). The most recent, and perhaps most dramatic, example was Nike's Alphafly shoes, the so-called "shoe that broke running". Using carbon plates and a ground-breaking midsole, these shoes provided an estimated 4% increase in running efficiency and a 3.4% increase in speed. That might not sound like that much, but it arguably abetted Eliud Kipchoge's revolutionary sub-2 hour marathon in 2019. The World Athletics Federation decided to ban the shoes in 2020, so they were not available for use at the Tokyo Olympics.

Nothing daunted, Nike produced a variation of the Alphafly shoe, called the Vaporfly, which elite athletes immediately latched onto. A few athletes got in early and sneaked the new shoes into the 2016 Olympics, but they mainly came to prominence after that event. For example, they were responsible for 31 of the 36 podium finishes in 2019. Some atheletes happily voided their other sponsorship contracts so they could wear the Nike shoes. In Tokyo, Italy's Lamont Jacobs shocked everyone by winning the prestigious 100m dash, and he was wearing ... guess what? ... Vaporfly shoes.

And if these shoes get banned too, Nike will just come up wirh another variation (indeed, I am sure they are already working on it as we speak). It is an issue that is not going away, but it is one that is not easily resolved. After all, why shouldn't athletes do everything in their power to give themselves the best possible chance of winning?

Should the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) get involved? Technically, their remit covers equipment as well as ingested substances, and they could ban particular items of clothing or equipment that they see as "against the spirit of the sport", but you can see why they might be reticent to open up that particular hornet's nest. In the meantime, is it fair that certain athletes with superior kit hog the medals at the Olympics and other meets? Where should such regulation start and where should it end? Tricky.