
Nike’s Vivid Shoes, and the Gray Area of Performance Enhancement - nocoder
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/08/sports/nikes-vivid-shoes-and-the-gray-area-of-performance-enhancement.html?_r=0
======
basseq
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-
ful...](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/25/why-ban-full-body-
olympics-swimsuits-a-scientist-explains-polyurethane.html)

~~~
revelation
I think what it comes down to is that sport is of course primarily a vehicle
to sell people things when they try to emulate professionals.

You can't sell a swim suit that breaks down after a few uses. You can't sell
people on autologous blood transfusions. If it was about technology bike
racers would all be using recumbent bikes, but that is not very popular with
consumers.

It's a very finely tuned balance; enough advancement so you can keep selling
new stuff, not enough to make it predominantly an absurd R&D game and obscure
the human talent.

~~~
decker
The UCI banned recumbents because the upright bike manufacturers didn't want a
faster bike to compete. People these days don't buy recumbents because they
are very expensive due to being a low-volume niche item.

~~~
WillPostForFood
There is a good history of the recumbent ban by UCI in 1934 here:

[http://www.helsinki.fi/~tlinden/winforb.html](http://www.helsinki.fi/~tlinden/winforb.html)

There is no mention of bike manufacturers involved at all. Do you have a
citation for your claim?

------
mikestew
"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.

~~~
koolba
> 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.

How about Pistorius style blades that extend your feet? There's no external
power source[1] so would that be okay in your book?

[1]: *Assuming they're not "primed" by compressing them prior to the race
starting so you bounce off the starter.

~~~
ClassyJacket
Yeah, I bet I could bear Usain Bolt if I was on a bike.

Also see: flippers.

~~~
prestonbriggs
For 100 meters from a standing start? He'd crush you. Time yourself someday.

~~~
ClassyJacket
True, but over a few KM I could. I couldn't name any longer distance runners
off the top of my head.

~~~
douche
Usain Bolt claims to have never actually run a few KM at a stretch

[http://time.com/4436498/usain-bolt-has-never-run-a-
mile/](http://time.com/4436498/usain-bolt-has-never-run-a-mile/)

------
paulcole
> 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
Nike's history of supporting runners and track and field athletes speaks for
itself.

------
Humdeee
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.

~~~
paulcole
>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
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.

~~~
paulcole
>I'd above all else, like to see it done in one of the six marathon major
events

Well, duh. I don't think there's anybody who's like, "yeah a 2hr. marathon
would be awesome but only if run on an Italian racetrack."

~~~
Humdeee
That's a strange quote... this reply has no use to the discussion.

------
rodionos
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.

------
ars
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
>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
that definition is way too broad. is a solar panel + battery a spring?

~~~
mikestew
Fine, "stores mechanical energy and releases it". You probably knew what
parent meant, though.

~~~
aetherson
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
If we're nitpicking, you can use a spring backwards too (but don't expand it
too much, or it won't return)

------
nocoder
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

------
perkee
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
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.

------
averageweather
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.

~~~
lern_too_spel
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
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
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.

------
spott
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)

~~~
clarry
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
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.

~~~
pcr0
But for the most part, track conditions affect all contestants equally so I
wouldn't compare it to technologically advanced sportswear which gives an
advantage to individual athletes.

------
hawski
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.

------
soneca
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.

------
jimmywanger
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?

------
fiftyacorn
Is this a PR story because of Salazar?

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/athletics/2017/03/07/fbi-joins-
pr...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/athletics/2017/03/07/fbi-joins-probe-mo-
farah-coach-alberto-salazar/)

------
olegkikin
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
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.

------
bitmapbrother
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.

------
caio1982
Holy bananas, how these shoes are ugly.

~~~
mikestew
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.

