Technology is gradually being viewed as a form of doping at the Olympics, as athletes utilize specialized clothing or equipment to enhance their sports performance.
This year’s Olympic Games are regarded as a “technological marvel”. For example, slow-motion cameras can replay a photo-finish down to a thousandth of a second between the champion and the runner-up. Wearable sensors can detect strikes in a fencing match or a round of taekwondo.
Additionally, Olympic athletes are using motion tracking features, microcurrent stimulation, and lactate monitoring devices to improve their physique, accelerate recovery, and prevent injuries.
Ambiguity in Regulations for Technologically Enhanced Sports Gear
In reality, technology and sports have been closely intertwined for a long time. However, recent debates have emerged regarding the use of such technologies to enhance athletic performance. Referred to as “technological doping,” this term describes athletes using special clothing or devices to gain an unfair competitive advantage.
This year’s Olympic Games in Paris will serve as a testing ground for the “super spikes.” This is a version of the popular long-distance running shoes that has been modified for sprinting. Purists criticize these shoes as a form of technological doping.
The controversial LZR Racer swimsuit gives athletes an advantage in competition. (Photo: Alamy).
Unlike traditional doping, which is monitored by an international anti-doping agency, the clothing and equipment used in sports are determined by the governing bodies of those sports.
Speaking to Scientific American, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency stated that conventional doping and technological doping are two entirely different issues. “Sports governing bodies are responsible for setting technical requirements and enforcing these requirements for their respective sports,” the agency asserted.
However, there are no standard criteria for evaluating the intelligence, cost-effectiveness, or exclusivity of sports equipment.
For instance, at the Beijing 2008 Olympics, 94% of gold medals in swimming were awarded to athletes wearing Speedo LZR Racer swimsuits. Every detail of this full-body suit, including fabric type and seam placement, was meticulously designed to reduce drag when the water makes contact with the body.
While swimming, athletes expend 33% more energy just to swim 10% faster. Many believe that the sharkskin-inspired fabric of the LZR Racer suit helps reduce this drag.
However, subsequent research has shown that this is not accurate. Instead, the full-body coverage of the suit reduces drag and allows for more efficient energy expenditure by minimizing muscle vibration and smoothing the skin’s texture.
Swimmers wearing LZR Racer suits set 23 new world swimming records at the 2008 Olympics. This number increased to 93 by August 2009. Many consider this a form of “technological doping.”
Eventually, the governing body for aquatic sports, World Aquatics (formerly known as the International Swimming Federation), banned the use of full-body swimsuits. Currently, men’s swimsuits can only extend from the waist to the knee.
The Technology Race in the World of Athletic Footwear
The running shoes equivalent to the LZR Racer swimsuit also became a focal point in 2019. At that time, a custom pair of shoes created by Nike for long-distance runner Eliud Kipchoge helped him achieve a record in the sub-2-hour marathon. Similar to the LZR Racer, the commercial versions of these super shoes, Nike Alphafly and Vaporfly, have produced a series of new world records in long-distance running.
According to Kim Hébert-Losier, a biomechanics researcher at the University of Waikato in New Zealand, these super shoes with advanced technology are characterized by three main features: lightweight soles that can return energy, a curved, stiff plate extending across the sole, and the overall curved shape of the shoes, allowing athletes to lean forward naturally if they have enough momentum.
The structure of super shoes. (Photo: Morgan Sport Law).
These design elements work together to enhance an athlete’s running efficiency, the amount of oxygen needed to cover a certain distance, or run at a specific speed. Research has shown that the Nike Vaporfly line improves running performance by an average of 4%.
In response to the controversy surrounding these super shoes, World Athletics, the governing body for athletics, issued new guidelines on running shoes just before the 2020 Olympics. The new rules specify that super shoes must have a maximum heel height of 20-40 mm (depending on the sport), no more than one stiff plate, and must have been made available to the public for at least four months.
Hébert-Losier stated: “The 40 mm heel height was set because it limits the total area that manufacturers can design.” More space means more energy-returning foam and stiffer plates, which would also lengthen the athlete’s legs. These factors can provide a competitive advantage.
“Clean” and “Dirty” Sports
Andy Miah, a professor at the University of Salford in the UK who studies the biomedical, cultural, political, and social structures of the Olympics, believes that this technology race will benefit regions with elite sports.
Miah stated: “Collaborating with brands and using patented equipment is a smart strategy for all elite sports teams. Technology helps athletes achieve their best results and ensures performance.”
For athletes without sponsorship, training with super shoes can be quite costly, as they deteriorate much faster than standard running shoes. Experts recommend replacing a pair of super shoes after every 450 km, while the price can reach up to $250 per pair. Consequently, the total cost can quickly add up.
It is very difficult to ban the integration of technology in sports. (Photo: Shutterstock).
However, for some athletes, the allure of winning gold medals remains too tempting. Hébert-Losier noted: “Before the 2020 Olympics, some athletes chose to discontinue sponsorship with their old brands to be able to run in Nike shoes.”
The disparity in access to sports equipment, coaching, and quality facilities has always been one of the major causes of inequality in sports. Technological doping further widens this inequality due to brand exclusivity and high costs, limiting access to premium athletic apparel.
Yet, the current solutions addressing the issue of technological doping may blur the lines between “clean” and “dirty” sports. Sock lengths are strictly regulated in cycling but not in running.
Carbon fiber elasticity is tightly controlled in running but welcomed in pole vaulting. Banned shoes and legal shoes differ by mere millimeters of cushioning. Such examples make the regulations set by governing bodies appear arbitrary and not genuinely representative of fair sports.
According to Miah, resisting the trend of integrating technology into sports may prove futile. “Top athletic performances are always a combination of biological capability and honing that ability through technological means. There is no such thing as a natural athlete. In fact, becoming an elite athlete is a very unnatural lifestyle, but that doesn’t mean it’s harmful,” the expert concluded.
