8 ms·

Nike’s Vivid Shoes, and the Gray Area of Performance Enhancement

102 points by nocoder 10y ago

fiftyacorn 10y ago
Is this a PR story because of Salazar? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/athletics/2017/03/07/fbi-joins-probe-mo-farah-coach-alberto-salazar/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/athletics/2017/03/07/fbi-joins-pr...
hawski 10y ago
Such shoes could be used as a means of human powered transport. But probably fashion is more important to people. No one would like to be associated with lazy-shoes - especially people that run regularly enough to think about buying special shoes. At least it is not on the same level as Segway. I used to bike to work, but after hours of sitting I was not happy to sit on even smaller seat. I was afraid of getting hemorrhoids. Because my butt hurt. Now I usually use kick-scooter and in case of my commute it is a bit faster, because I don't have to take time to lock a bike. I just fold the scooter and take it with me. Also I don't put more pressure on my butt. Other means of human powered transport without butt pressuring: running (and then that shoes could help), roller-blading and skateboarding.
rodionos 10y ago
The way it's going, there should be a rule requiring that any equipment used in certified competitions must be released under GPL or another type of license that strikes a balance between vendor innovations and commercial interests. For instance, such license would grant anyone the rights to reproduce the equipment with a limit of 1000 units at no fee. Anything above the limit needs to be licensed on commercial terms. This will protect vendor IP and at the same time, ensure that the playing field is level in int'l competitions.
soneca 10y ago
As far as I know there is no scientific evidence that these or other shoes improve performance (or even prevent injuries I think). So basically this is Nike using journalists that do not bother to do proper research to gain free publicity.
ars 10y ago
So maybe switch to barefoot running? Especially for indoor venues that seems completely possible. > shoes began to incorporate air bladders and gels for cushioning And yet springs are illegal. But an air bladder is a spring, no matter that they call it "for cushioning".
- spott 10y ago
  >But an air bladder is a spring, no matter that they call it "for cushioning". Everything that "absorbs energy and returns it" is a spring.
  - flat6turbo 10y ago
    that definition is way too broad. is a solar panel + battery a spring?
    - mikestew 10y ago
      Fine, "stores mechanical energy and releases it". You probably knew what parent meant, though.
      - aetherson 10y ago
        Flywheels are springs? ;) (I think that coming closer to a definition of spring would be "stores mechanical energy through compression and releases it through expansion"). I think that you could somewhat legitimately differentiate between an object that stores mechanical energy and releases it due to its atomic structure (ie, every object), and one which stores and releases it at an improved ratio due to macroscopic structure, such as a, well, traditional spring.
        toast0 10y ago
        If we're nitpicking, you can use a spring backwards too (but don't expand it too much, or it won't return)
- 10y ago
paulcole 10y ago
> Some critics have accused Nike of staging a publicity stunt, or a marketing campaign, instead of a credible sporting event. Well it got them an ad disguised as a feature article in the New York Times. Go with what works.
- ak217 10y ago
  Nike's history of supporting runners and track and field athletes speaks for itself.
spott 10y ago
Swimming ran into this kind of problem with full body swim suits. It turns out that reducing friction really sped up the swimmers, and the fancier suits were subsequently banned from FINA races[0]. There is probably always going to be some technological advantage found with various sportswear. In some sense, the "fairest" option is to just make everyone wear "equally capable" sportswear. In swimming, everyone wears the same swimsuit; in running, everyone wears the "same" shoes (quantify the benefits that are given by the shoes, and then keep everyone within those bounds). Unfortunately, with the benefit of marketing that shoe makers get from these kinds of things, I doubt this will happen. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LZR_Racer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LZR_Racer
- basseq 10y ago
  quantify the benefits that are given by the shoes, and then keep everyone within those bounds Which is what they're trying to do. You can't make everyone wear the same shoe, because Shoe X may work better for you and Shoe Y may work better for me. (Then you add the complexity may be that Shoe Company Y may be willing to pay you more money.) But the downside is that it's lowest-common denominator technology. Every time a manufacturer comes up with a game-changing idea, it's "unfair" because they've figured out a way to give more benefit in a way that no one else has, yet.
- clarry 10y ago
  I wouldn't mind a "natural" league where people compete with their junk out, like in good old Roman olympics. That would shift focus fully back to the athletes and their performance, as opposed to the technology they're using. I am concerned that is very difficult if not impossible to come up with precise rules that put everyone in equal standing with regard to technology. Someone will always find a way to gain an advantage, within the allowed limits, or the limits are made in such a way that they favor certain people and conversely. But this wouldn't solve the problem of doping.
  - Someone 10y ago
    Even that wouldn't solve it completely. If you look at horse racing, the 'going' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Going_(horse_racing) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Going_(horse_racing) ) hugely affects results. Similarly, in running, some people run better at height, others in the rain, etc.
basseq 10y ago
Whether through material science technology (shoes, swimsuits, rackets), medical advancements (supplements, techniques, steriods), and general knowledge (nutrition, training, form), sport is always advancing. Other than devices that add energy from a stored reserve, like hidden motors in bicycles, I have a really hard time drawing a line of "cheating". Why were shark suits banned? [1] Why is blood doping to allow for quicker recovery "bad", but a finely calculated nutrition regimen to allow for quicker recovery de rigueur? Why are these fancy new shoes so egregious, when compared to races run 50 years ago, the current shoes are futuristic and unobtainable. Excepting the most basic sports (running), every other sport is reliant on technology. So there's no way around advancement. And I'm in favor of it! I want to see more awesome suits that blast world records out of the literal water. I want to see someone top 2:00:00 in a marathon. I want crazy new F1 cars with ideas no one's had before. Let's do it. That's more "human achievement" than some guy running really fast. [1] "Because Michael Phelps complained." http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/25/why-ban-full-body-olympics-swimsuits-a-scientist-explains-polyurethane.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/25/why-ban-ful...
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  Sports is ultimately about making the masses happy. It involves making it look so that the victory or loss is based on athlete's performance, and not on how good (and expensive) support the athlete has. So they have to ban things that are improving things too much beyond current average. I don't like it, and it's one of the many reasons I'm not really into sports. I think there is a place for a different set of competitions - those, in which rules would not just allow, but encourage pushing the limits of technology. The bicycle race I'd love to watch would involve a electric-motor-propelled bike competing with a rocket-propelled one. Etc.
  - PJDK 10y ago
    > Sports is ultimately about making the masses happy That's an interesting assertion, but it's certainly not universally true. How much sports rules should be for the people watching and how much should be for the people playing is a constant source of tension in the rules. It's also something that people tend to forget. Even for the most popular sports the vast majority of competitions will be watched by almost nobody and engaged in for the pure joy of it. The rules need to take these people into account too!
caio1982 10y ago
Holy bananas, how these shoes are ugly.
- mikestew 10y ago
  If they're as good as claimed, there's little chance that you'll have to suffer seeing me wearing them for more than a brief moment at the starting line.
jimmywanger 10y ago
This is a sporting event, there are two purposes - one is to amuse spectators, and the other is to compete against yourself/others. If they pitched this as "this piece of equipment lowers the entertainment value of the sport", I'd understand. However, why is performance enhancement even in a grey area?
Humdeee 10y ago
I've been following the sub 2 project (Breaking2) for a bit now and it's fascinating. To put it into perspective, you need to keep pace with the ghost of the current 30km record holder by within a few seconds, and then finish off the last 12.2km on horribly depleted and beat up legs at the same or very slightly slower pace. For those who have completed a hard marathon, you know the pain and damage cuts deep past the 32km (20 mile) mark and often takes athletes up to a month of recovery before a regular training can be picked up again. It's mind-boggling the difference in human performance a 2:02:57 marathon performance is from a 1:59:59 one. I can't make enough popcorn for this. It's going to be a very exciting next couple of years in the running world. Already, we've seen an honest attempt at a world record a couple weeks ago at the Tokyo marathon that fell short. Above all else, the doubters (like myself) want to desperately be proven wrong and want to see it done legitimately.
- kirse 10y ago
  This was an old Runner's World article that I remember on this topic... Lot of great infographics and speculation: http://rw.runnersworld.com/sub-2/ http://rw.runnersworld.com/sub-2/ As much as it would be nice to see a sub2 done as a team-effort with rabbits, it'll be cool to eventually see the person who has won the genetic-freak lottery (insane Vo2 max, stride rate, efficiency, etc) and dominates the field all on their own... someone who is the distance equivalent of Usain Bolt.
- paulcole 10y ago
  >Above all else, the doubters (like myself) want to desperately be proven wrong and want to see it done legitimately. Are you referring to Breaking2 as "legitimate"? I was hyped on the initial announcement, but between the technology, the shitload of pacers, and now running on a car racing track it is just going 100% publicity stunt and any result isn't going to feel legitimate to me.
  - Humdeee 10y ago
    I've probably given it the most thought out of any commenter in this thread, and I'm still on the fence. I don't believe it's 100% publicity. I'd above all else, like to see it done in one of the six marathon major events, or at least one qualified as a gold standard label. But the racing track doesn't really bother me.
mikestew 10y ago
"Gray area"? Like the "gray area" when my high school went from cinder track to all-weather, and my mile times dropped dramatically? Or how an Olympic-quality track is noticeably better (with correspondingly better times) than my old high school's track? Modern shoes that are more cushioned, allowing more training without injury? Or the Adidas shoes from a few years ago (Boost, I believe?) with their energy-returning midsole? Look, it'd be one thing to have little batteries and motors in the things. But these just take the energy that I've already expended and returns a bit more of it than my old shoes. But I've still got to do the work. And, hell, they're only $250 in a world of $120 race shoes, so I don't consider them to be outlandishly out of reach. Were I still obsessively racing, I'd buy a pair. And were I beaten by someone that has a pair, even if I didn't, I wouldn't have a problem with it. So it boils down to this: how inefficient does my equipment have to be in order to follow the rules? Put a number on it, manufacturers can build to it, boom, sorted.
- rhcom2 10y ago
  > So it boils down to this: how inefficient does my equipment have to be in order to follow the rules? Put a number on it, manufacturers can build to it, boom, sorted. I believe this is exactly what they do in car racing with restrictor plates.
  - mikestew 10y ago
    Having grown up around Indianapolis, that was my inspiration for writing it. Which is why I get wrapped around the axle about this stuff when it comes to physical sports. Racing cars could be much faster, but we don't want drivers plowing themselves into the Turn 3 wall at 300mph at the Indy oval, so restrictions are carefully defined. Creating testing rigs, define sports shoes to only return 57.3% of energy on that rig. Define full-body swim suits to have a drag coefficient of 47.2 (I'm just making up numbers). But all this hand-wringing over whether this is fair, or that is fair, seems to just be something to keep people in jobs (because I'll need to do further study at $300K/year to decide if the UCI should allow that bike or not).
    - 10y ago
perkee 10y ago
Many sports are running into the issues that powerlifting had to address in the past. Powerlifting used to only involve "gear" meaning suits, shirts, and wraps that store energy elastically and release it when performing the lifts (squat, bench, deadlift). The IPF, the biggest drug tested international federation, limits the techniques used in making the suits: singly ply of material, seams must me made in such a way without adding more material, wraps can only be two meters long, etc. The IPF now requires the manufacturers to obtain approval (with a fee, natch) for each piece of personal equipment as well as for the bars and plates used. Other feds are attracting lifters by allowing multi-ply gear, not using an approved gear list for single ply, and not mandating the exact shape of your underpants when competing (seriously), and allowing for specialty bars for each lift.[1] If the IAAF wants to go down this rabbit hole of limiting the assistance that equipment may provide, they might end up with a list of approved shoes if they aren't careful, or breaking the race into barefoot, foam sole, and springy sole divisions. That just increases the cognitive load for fans and in my opinion decreases the prestige of the various champions who have an asterisk by their records. [1] There's also the whole angle of drug testing: the IPF is the premier drug tested international fed and the USAPL (its US affiliate) is the premier fed in the US. Competing feds without drug testing have actually started adding tested divisions presumably to attract lifters who want to be competitive without drugs.
- m5g 10y ago
  Here's a personal anecdote about the underpants. A few years ago when I competed at an USAPL meet, I was weighing in in my underwear and the judge there said I couldn't wear my boxers (hanes). Since I did not have any extra pairs of underwear, I had to run around the venue to try and find a pair of scissors to trim down my underwear and make it legal.
olegkikin 10y ago
Force everyone to wear the same shoe. All you get is a size choice (in both length and width). That's how they solved it for windsurfing - just forced everyone to ride the same exact gear, no matter the weight of the athlete or how strong the wind is, even though normally these two factors are absolutely defining when you select which sail/board to ride. The rule “must not be constructed so as to give an athlete any unfair additional assistance, including by the incorporation of any technology which will give the wearer any unfair advantage.” doesn't make any sense. Of course shoes are slightly different, and so some are bound to be better than others. It's an unsolvable problem, unless you standardize the gear.
- brianwawok 10y ago
  Except people have different needs in shoes. For example I can't run 3 miles in any shoe Nike makes without having a huge problem. The lasts do not fit my foot shape. But I can wear other brands perfectly.
- hasbot 10y ago
  In sailing too, everybody has to sail the same class boat.
- deepnotderp 10y ago
  This is a terrible idea. As a runner I can tell you that some people just don't work in some shoes, causing either some selection of pain, discomfort, injury, etc.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
averageweather 10y ago
Lance Armstrong was just on Howard Stern and he brought up how in the very early cycling days, riders would run fishing line to a cork...hide the cork in their mouth while the other end was hooked up to their team/pace car. Old school blood doping. Before judging him, I'd listen to the interview and his interview on Joe Rogan. Point being, especially in cycling, people are always finding new ways to cheat and get an edge.
- jdietrich 10y ago
  Cyclists hate Armstrong and always will. Some won't even mention his name. Armstrong was the chief enforcer of the Omerta, the code of silence that allowed doping to continue unabated. Other riders might be able to claim that they simply went along with the culture of doping, that they were coerced by team bosses, that they had no choice but to dope if they wanted to pay their bills. Armstrong has no such excuses. He personally oversaw the USPS doping programme, he personally ensured that anyone who spoke about doping was made a pariah in the sport. He intimidated members of his own team. He libelled reporters whilst falsely suing them for libel. He exploited the goodwill of cancer survivors to protect his own deceit. Armstrong tore the heart out of our sport and left a litany of ruined lives in his wake. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVbrTNX7w1I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVbrTNX7w1I
- oxide 10y ago
  That's what I got out of those interviews, too. They were very informative. I felt like I had more of a perspective on the entire situation: biking/race culture, the proliferation of cheating becoming an arms race of sorts, etc. I had no idea that cheating in bike racing was so prevalent, I suppose that makes me a bit naive.
- lern_too_spel 10y ago
  One rider used fishing line in 1904. He was caught, and he didn't try to deny it and smear anybody who pointed out his cheating or coerce his teammates into cheating under threat of losing their livelihood.
Animats 10y ago
Amusingly, Ariat paddock boots have carbon fiber inserts. Riding boots need something to stiffen the sole, since all the load is on the stirrup bar. Ariat used to use steel, but this caused so much hassle at airport metal detectors that Ariat switched to carbon fiber. But there's no energy storage, as with these Nike running shoes.
- provemewrong 10y ago
  Similarly, clipless cycling shoes. Either hard plastic in cheaper models or carbon fiber in more expensive ones to stiffen the sole and allow more energy transfer to pedals. But then again, everything is carbon fiber in modern cycling.
nocoder 10y ago
It is sort of hypocritical when people talk about unfair advantage in the context of only doping or such technology. I think unfair advantage of some sort is built right into all sports & life in general. Sometimes it is genetic, geographical and lot of times it is because your sports federation has money to afford world class facilities as your nation has a lot of wealth to invest in sports. By leaving the decision of what constitutes as unfair in the hands of few, we are inhibiting technological progress and this is bound to be a cat and mouse game since authorities deciding what is unfair will always be behind the ones looking for advantage. It is also providing incentive to people with money to invest it in finding those advantages. I think a technology, performance enhancing drug on anything such should be allowed as long as everyone in the sport has access to it and there are no adverse health impacts. Edit - Grammar & typos
bitmapbrother 10y ago
Applying material science to increase performance is not a gray area and there are numerous examples in other sports such as swimming, tennis, bicycle racing, etc.

102 points by nocoder 10y ago

Is this a PR story because of Salazar? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/athletics/2017/03/07/fbi-joins-probe-mo-farah-coach-alberto-salazar/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/athletics/2017/03/07/fbi-joins-pr...

hawski 10y ago

Such shoes could be used as a means of human powered transport. But probably fashion is more important to people. No one would like to be associated with lazy-shoes - especially people that run regularly enough to think about buying special shoes. At least it is not on the same level as Segway. I used to bike to work, but after hours of sitting I was not happy to sit on even smaller seat. I was afraid of getting hemorrhoids. Because my butt hurt. Now I usually use kick-scooter and in case of my commute it is a bit faster, because I don't have to take time to lock a bike. I just fold the scooter and take it with me. Also I don't put more pressure on my butt. Other means of human powered transport without butt pressuring: running (and then that shoes could help), roller-blading and skateboarding.

rodionos 10y ago

The way it's going, there should be a rule requiring that any equipment used in certified competitions must be released under GPL or another type of license that strikes a balance between vendor innovations and commercial interests. For instance, such license would grant anyone the rights to reproduce the equipment with a limit of 1000 units at no fee. Anything above the limit needs to be licensed on commercial terms. This will protect vendor IP and at the same time, ensure that the playing field is level in int'l competitions.

soneca 10y ago

As far as I know there is no scientific evidence that these or other shoes improve performance (or even prevent injuries I think). So basically this is Nike using journalists that do not bother to do proper research to gain free publicity.

ars 10y ago

So maybe switch to barefoot running? Especially for indoor venues that seems completely possible. > shoes began to incorporate air bladders and gels for cushioning And yet springs are illegal. But an air bladder is a spring, no matter that they call it "for cushioning".

spott 10y ago
>But an air bladder is a spring, no matter that they call it "for cushioning". Everything that "absorbs energy and returns it" is a spring.
- flat6turbo 10y ago
  that definition is way too broad. is a solar panel + battery a spring?
  - mikestew 10y ago
    Fine, "stores mechanical energy and releases it". You probably knew what parent meant, though.
    - aetherson 10y ago
      Flywheels are springs? ;) (I think that coming closer to a definition of spring would be "stores mechanical energy through compression and releases it through expansion"). I think that you could somewhat legitimately differentiate between an object that stores mechanical energy and releases it due to its atomic structure (ie, every object), and one which stores and releases it at an improved ratio due to macroscopic structure, such as a, well, traditional spring.
      - toast0 10y ago
        If we're nitpicking, you can use a spring backwards too (but don't expand it too much, or it won't return)
10y ago

paulcole 10y ago

> Some critics have accused Nike of staging a publicity stunt, or a marketing campaign, instead of a credible sporting event. Well it got them an ad disguised as a feature article in the New York Times. Go with what works.

ak217 10y ago
Nike's history of supporting runners and track and field athletes speaks for itself.

spott 10y ago

Swimming ran into this kind of problem with full body swim suits. It turns out that reducing friction really sped up the swimmers, and the fancier suits were subsequently banned from FINA races[0]. There is probably always going to be some technological advantage found with various sportswear. In some sense, the "fairest" option is to just make everyone wear "equally capable" sportswear. In swimming, everyone wears the same swimsuit; in running, everyone wears the "same" shoes (quantify the benefits that are given by the shoes, and then keep everyone within those bounds). Unfortunately, with the benefit of marketing that shoe makers get from these kinds of things, I doubt this will happen. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LZR_Racer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LZR_Racer

basseq 10y ago
quantify the benefits that are given by the shoes, and then keep everyone within those bounds Which is what they're trying to do. You can't make everyone wear the same shoe, because Shoe X may work better for you and Shoe Y may work better for me. (Then you add the complexity may be that Shoe Company Y may be willing to pay you more money.) But the downside is that it's lowest-common denominator technology. Every time a manufacturer comes up with a game-changing idea, it's "unfair" because they've figured out a way to give more benefit in a way that no one else has, yet.
clarry 10y ago
I wouldn't mind a "natural" league where people compete with their junk out, like in good old Roman olympics. That would shift focus fully back to the athletes and their performance, as opposed to the technology they're using. I am concerned that is very difficult if not impossible to come up with precise rules that put everyone in equal standing with regard to technology. Someone will always find a way to gain an advantage, within the allowed limits, or the limits are made in such a way that they favor certain people and conversely. But this wouldn't solve the problem of doping.
- Someone 10y ago
  Even that wouldn't solve it completely. If you look at horse racing, the 'going' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Going_(horse_racing) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Going_(horse_racing) ) hugely affects results. Similarly, in running, some people run better at height, others in the rain, etc.

basseq 10y ago

Whether through material science technology (shoes, swimsuits, rackets), medical advancements (supplements, techniques, steriods), and general knowledge (nutrition, training, form), sport is always advancing. Other than devices that add energy from a stored reserve, like hidden motors in bicycles, I have a really hard time drawing a line of "cheating". Why were shark suits banned? [1] Why is blood doping to allow for quicker recovery "bad", but a finely calculated nutrition regimen to allow for quicker recovery de rigueur? Why are these fancy new shoes so egregious, when compared to races run 50 years ago, the current shoes are futuristic and unobtainable. Excepting the most basic sports (running), every other sport is reliant on technology. So there's no way around advancement. And I'm in favor of it! I want to see more awesome suits that blast world records out of the literal water. I want to see someone top 2:00:00 in a marathon. I want crazy new F1 cars with ideas no one's had before. Let's do it. That's more "human achievement" than some guy running really fast. [1] "Because Michael Phelps complained." http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/25/why-ban-full-body-olympics-swimsuits-a-scientist-explains-polyurethane.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/25/why-ban-ful...

TeMPOraL 10y ago
Sports is ultimately about making the masses happy. It involves making it look so that the victory or loss is based on athlete's performance, and not on how good (and expensive) support the athlete has. So they have to ban things that are improving things too much beyond current average. I don't like it, and it's one of the many reasons I'm not really into sports. I think there is a place for a different set of competitions - those, in which rules would not just allow, but encourage pushing the limits of technology. The bicycle race I'd love to watch would involve a electric-motor-propelled bike competing with a rocket-propelled one. Etc.
- PJDK 10y ago
  > Sports is ultimately about making the masses happy That's an interesting assertion, but it's certainly not universally true. How much sports rules should be for the people watching and how much should be for the people playing is a constant source of tension in the rules. It's also something that people tend to forget. Even for the most popular sports the vast majority of competitions will be watched by almost nobody and engaged in for the pure joy of it. The rules need to take these people into account too!

caio1982 10y ago

Holy bananas, how these shoes are ugly.

mikestew 10y ago
If they're as good as claimed, there's little chance that you'll have to suffer seeing me wearing them for more than a brief moment at the starting line.

jimmywanger 10y ago

This is a sporting event, there are two purposes - one is to amuse spectators, and the other is to compete against yourself/others. If they pitched this as "this piece of equipment lowers the entertainment value of the sport", I'd understand. However, why is performance enhancement even in a grey area?

Humdeee 10y ago

I've been following the sub 2 project (Breaking2) for a bit now and it's fascinating. To put it into perspective, you need to keep pace with the ghost of the current 30km record holder by within a few seconds, and then finish off the last 12.2km on horribly depleted and beat up legs at the same or very slightly slower pace. For those who have completed a hard marathon, you know the pain and damage cuts deep past the 32km (20 mile) mark and often takes athletes up to a month of recovery before a regular training can be picked up again. It's mind-boggling the difference in human performance a 2:02:57 marathon performance is from a 1:59:59 one. I can't make enough popcorn for this. It's going to be a very exciting next couple of years in the running world. Already, we've seen an honest attempt at a world record a couple weeks ago at the Tokyo marathon that fell short. Above all else, the doubters (like myself) want to desperately be proven wrong and want to see it done legitimately.

kirse 10y ago
This was an old Runner's World article that I remember on this topic... Lot of great infographics and speculation: http://rw.runnersworld.com/sub-2/ http://rw.runnersworld.com/sub-2/ As much as it would be nice to see a sub2 done as a team-effort with rabbits, it'll be cool to eventually see the person who has won the genetic-freak lottery (insane Vo2 max, stride rate, efficiency, etc) and dominates the field all on their own... someone who is the distance equivalent of Usain Bolt.
paulcole 10y ago
>Above all else, the doubters (like myself) want to desperately be proven wrong and want to see it done legitimately. Are you referring to Breaking2 as "legitimate"? I was hyped on the initial announcement, but between the technology, the shitload of pacers, and now running on a car racing track it is just going 100% publicity stunt and any result isn't going to feel legitimate to me.
- Humdeee 10y ago
  I've probably given it the most thought out of any commenter in this thread, and I'm still on the fence. I don't believe it's 100% publicity. I'd above all else, like to see it done in one of the six marathon major events, or at least one qualified as a gold standard label. But the racing track doesn't really bother me.

mikestew 10y ago

"Gray area"? Like the "gray area" when my high school went from cinder track to all-weather, and my mile times dropped dramatically? Or how an Olympic-quality track is noticeably better (with correspondingly better times) than my old high school's track? Modern shoes that are more cushioned, allowing more training without injury? Or the Adidas shoes from a few years ago (Boost, I believe?) with their energy-returning midsole? Look, it'd be one thing to have little batteries and motors in the things. But these just take the energy that I've already expended and returns a bit more of it than my old shoes. But I've still got to do the work. And, hell, they're only $250 in a world of $120 race shoes, so I don't consider them to be outlandishly out of reach. Were I still obsessively racing, I'd buy a pair. And were I beaten by someone that has a pair, even if I didn't, I wouldn't have a problem with it. So it boils down to this: how inefficient does my equipment have to be in order to follow the rules? Put a number on it, manufacturers can build to it, boom, sorted.

rhcom2 10y ago
> So it boils down to this: how inefficient does my equipment have to be in order to follow the rules? Put a number on it, manufacturers can build to it, boom, sorted. I believe this is exactly what they do in car racing with restrictor plates.
- mikestew 10y ago
  Having grown up around Indianapolis, that was my inspiration for writing it. Which is why I get wrapped around the axle about this stuff when it comes to physical sports. Racing cars could be much faster, but we don't want drivers plowing themselves into the Turn 3 wall at 300mph at the Indy oval, so restrictions are carefully defined. Creating testing rigs, define sports shoes to only return 57.3% of energy on that rig. Define full-body swim suits to have a drag coefficient of 47.2 (I'm just making up numbers). But all this hand-wringing over whether this is fair, or that is fair, seems to just be something to keep people in jobs (because I'll need to do further study at $300K/year to decide if the UCI should allow that bike or not).
  - 10y ago

perkee 10y ago

Many sports are running into the issues that powerlifting had to address in the past. Powerlifting used to only involve "gear" meaning suits, shirts, and wraps that store energy elastically and release it when performing the lifts (squat, bench, deadlift). The IPF, the biggest drug tested international federation, limits the techniques used in making the suits: singly ply of material, seams must me made in such a way without adding more material, wraps can only be two meters long, etc. The IPF now requires the manufacturers to obtain approval (with a fee, natch) for each piece of personal equipment as well as for the bars and plates used. Other feds are attracting lifters by allowing multi-ply gear, not using an approved gear list for single ply, and not mandating the exact shape of your underpants when competing (seriously), and allowing for specialty bars for each lift.[1] If the IAAF wants to go down this rabbit hole of limiting the assistance that equipment may provide, they might end up with a list of approved shoes if they aren't careful, or breaking the race into barefoot, foam sole, and springy sole divisions. That just increases the cognitive load for fans and in my opinion decreases the prestige of the various champions who have an asterisk by their records. [1] There's also the whole angle of drug testing: the IPF is the premier drug tested international fed and the USAPL (its US affiliate) is the premier fed in the US. Competing feds without drug testing have actually started adding tested divisions presumably to attract lifters who want to be competitive without drugs.

m5g 10y ago
Here's a personal anecdote about the underpants. A few years ago when I competed at an USAPL meet, I was weighing in in my underwear and the judge there said I couldn't wear my boxers (hanes). Since I did not have any extra pairs of underwear, I had to run around the venue to try and find a pair of scissors to trim down my underwear and make it legal.

olegkikin 10y ago

Force everyone to wear the same shoe. All you get is a size choice (in both length and width). That's how they solved it for windsurfing - just forced everyone to ride the same exact gear, no matter the weight of the athlete or how strong the wind is, even though normally these two factors are absolutely defining when you select which sail/board to ride. The rule “must not be constructed so as to give an athlete any unfair additional assistance, including by the incorporation of any technology which will give the wearer any unfair advantage.” doesn't make any sense. Of course shoes are slightly different, and so some are bound to be better than others. It's an unsolvable problem, unless you standardize the gear.

brianwawok 10y ago
Except people have different needs in shoes. For example I can't run 3 miles in any shoe Nike makes without having a huge problem. The lasts do not fit my foot shape. But I can wear other brands perfectly.
hasbot 10y ago
In sailing too, everybody has to sail the same class boat.
deepnotderp 10y ago
This is a terrible idea. As a runner I can tell you that some people just don't work in some shoes, causing either some selection of pain, discomfort, injury, etc.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

averageweather 10y ago

Lance Armstrong was just on Howard Stern and he brought up how in the very early cycling days, riders would run fishing line to a cork...hide the cork in their mouth while the other end was hooked up to their team/pace car. Old school blood doping. Before judging him, I'd listen to the interview and his interview on Joe Rogan. Point being, especially in cycling, people are always finding new ways to cheat and get an edge.

jdietrich 10y ago
Cyclists hate Armstrong and always will. Some won't even mention his name. Armstrong was the chief enforcer of the Omerta, the code of silence that allowed doping to continue unabated. Other riders might be able to claim that they simply went along with the culture of doping, that they were coerced by team bosses, that they had no choice but to dope if they wanted to pay their bills. Armstrong has no such excuses. He personally oversaw the USPS doping programme, he personally ensured that anyone who spoke about doping was made a pariah in the sport. He intimidated members of his own team. He libelled reporters whilst falsely suing them for libel. He exploited the goodwill of cancer survivors to protect his own deceit. Armstrong tore the heart out of our sport and left a litany of ruined lives in his wake. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVbrTNX7w1I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVbrTNX7w1I
oxide 10y ago
That's what I got out of those interviews, too. They were very informative. I felt like I had more of a perspective on the entire situation: biking/race culture, the proliferation of cheating becoming an arms race of sorts, etc. I had no idea that cheating in bike racing was so prevalent, I suppose that makes me a bit naive.
lern_too_spel 10y ago
One rider used fishing line in 1904. He was caught, and he didn't try to deny it and smear anybody who pointed out his cheating or coerce his teammates into cheating under threat of losing their livelihood.

Animats 10y ago

Amusingly, Ariat paddock boots have carbon fiber inserts. Riding boots need something to stiffen the sole, since all the load is on the stirrup bar. Ariat used to use steel, but this caused so much hassle at airport metal detectors that Ariat switched to carbon fiber. But there's no energy storage, as with these Nike running shoes.

provemewrong 10y ago
Similarly, clipless cycling shoes. Either hard plastic in cheaper models or carbon fiber in more expensive ones to stiffen the sole and allow more energy transfer to pedals. But then again, everything is carbon fiber in modern cycling.

nocoder 10y ago

It is sort of hypocritical when people talk about unfair advantage in the context of only doping or such technology. I think unfair advantage of some sort is built right into all sports & life in general. Sometimes it is genetic, geographical and lot of times it is because your sports federation has money to afford world class facilities as your nation has a lot of wealth to invest in sports. By leaving the decision of what constitutes as unfair in the hands of few, we are inhibiting technological progress and this is bound to be a cat and mouse game since authorities deciding what is unfair will always be behind the ones looking for advantage. It is also providing incentive to people with money to invest it in finding those advantages. I think a technology, performance enhancing drug on anything such should be allowed as long as everyone in the sport has access to it and there are no adverse health impacts. Edit - Grammar & typos

bitmapbrother 10y ago

Applying material science to increase performance is not a gray area and there are numerous examples in other sports such as swimming, tennis, bicycle racing, etc.