Modern Athlete Magazine Issue 129, April 2020 | Page 47

plated shoes. These are by no means limited to Nike,
but without debate the Nike range has been leading
the way, and prolific in the rewriting of records. The
shoes are believed to improve performance for several
reasons (although the percentage contribution varies,
depending on who one speaks to):
• The thicker midsole effectively extends leg
length.
• The angle of landing enforces a drive back and
improved running style.
• The angle of landing enforces core engagement
even when fatigued later in the race.
• Better midsole materials provide greater energy
return. (Therefore, one should also have longer
shoe life.)
• The plate, anchored in the deep midsole, and
when in good running style, adds to the overall
energy return (like a spring)
A key point here is that the shoe does not have an
actual spring in it, but when the runner is in the shoe
in a normal running style, the runner becomes the
spring – or as Jason, the scientist and designer with
X-tep in China, told me, with a telling smile, “The
runner has more spring in his stride.”
All in all, it is clear that no matter where the greatest
benefit comes from, this style of shoe instantly
improves a runner’s performance, simply by lacing
them up. I would also argue that a further benefit
is that the shoes alone are improving the runner’s
previously poor style, which is a good thing. No-one
is saying that PB and record performances do not
require hard, consistent, dedicated training, and that
a new pair of shoes will just ‘give’ an athlete a new
record, but that it is a fact that an athlete will run
better in this style of shoes than in previous, less
technical shoes. And it is against this background that
World Athletics and the sport as a whole have been
concerned about these advances in technology.
Moving the Goalposts
The main concern is that the sport ceases to be man
versus man, but more an athlete and one form of
technology, versus another athlete and a different
level of technology. How would we know if it is the
technology or the athlete that won the race, broke
the record, or won the Olympic or World Gold Medal?
The impact is that if athlete A is with one technical
company, he or she could be beaten by Athlete B not
because B is a better athlete, but because his or her
company has more advanced technology. Given that
athletes from other companies cannot wear another
company’s shoes or gear, it’s easy for some athletes
to thus have an unfair advantage or disadvantage.
That is why this has become a major issue, with World
Athletics now limiting shoes with more detailed rules.
These basic restrictions are listed in the new 2020
Technical Rules (now in new format as TR5), which
state:
• Limits the midsole to be not more than 40mm
thick measured in centre of midfoot and heel.
• Cannot have more than one plate.
• Must have been on the open retail market for at
least four months.
• Must not have been tailor-made for the athlete,
but a standard retail shoe may be modified
for the characteristics of a runner’s foot, e.g.
bunion, pronation, supination, etc, or with
wedges.
• May not have devices or accessories on or in
the innersole that change the overall maximum
thickness or give an advantage.
In other words, the stipulations about being a retail
stock item and four months on the market are
designed to prevent the use of prototypes in races,
and thus gain immediate (and unfair) benefit from new
technical advances, and yet allows the technology to
be used that has been advanced to date.
Inspection Time
The challenge in these rules is how it is to be policed.
Currently, referees and technical officials can inspect
any shoes that they suspect are foul of the rules. The
hope is that this can be done prior to an event, but in
practical terms it would really need to be reconfirmed
or inspected at the start of a road event, or in the
call room at track and field. In some races, this could
mean inspecting 80 to 100 pairs of shoes, but in major
label events, there are only around 30 to 40 athletes
that are in contention for overall awards and must be
checked.
before, but only if the athletes are assured of wearing
the same shoes on race day as inspected. Still better
would be doing it at the finish, as with Doping Control.
This seems more logical, as the focus could then be
on those who had won, or whose performance had an
impact on the awards, or were in the selection criteria.
This seems the more probable option, and we could
soon see the first duty of the athlete being to go
through a winners’ circle where the athlete is notified
of doping control testing and has his or her shoes
inspected. Depending on numbers and questions,
it may mean leaving their shoes with the officials
for a short period while confirming they meet spec.
Of course, technical officials will need to have a
reasonable knowledge of shoes, and they will need to
be au fait with what is available on the market.
Another question would be at which events this
would be implemented. In South Africa, will the rule
be applied at all events, or just events on the ASA
national calendar? The principle of preventing unfair
advantage, and prize money, will surely determine
which races are and aren’t affected.
Finding the Loopholes
Unfortunately, some people will always want to gain
an edge by any means available – that is the reason
for doping control, because some athletes will take
anything to win, or make the team. Similarly, some
athletes have already modified their non-Nike shoes
with branding from their own sponsor manufacturer
to disguise that they are actually
competing in Nike shoes,
On the other hand, a selection race can be more
complicated, especially if an SA Championship is held
within a label event. That would mean there are firstly
the international elite, label level runners, going for
the overall prize money and selection points –
that’s around 30 pairs to check. Secondly,
the provincial senior athletes going for the
SA Title and/or SA team selection would
need to be inspected – that’s probably
another 20 to 30 additional athletes.
Then does one include all the
contenders for the various age
groups? Suddenly we have 100
runners to be inspected!
Now the question is where
and when should this be
done? At the start? Then
a call room will have to
be created. A better idea
would doing it the day
47