Modern Athlete Magazine Issue 129, April 2020 | Page 48

swimming. Going back to move forward, and to
maintain basic principles is not a bad or negative
move, it protects the integrity of the sport.
Technological Advance is
Essential
It is not debatable that technological advances
must be embraced, but there are ways to do this,
and there is still room to review the 2020 rules on
shoes. Furthermore, the second half of the solution,
particularly if my option of a simple racing shoe
were to be adopted, would be to have a new ‘Fourth
Discipline,’ that of Performance! Actually, it already
exists thanks to the NN team, Eliud Kipchoge, and the
various sponsors.
in order to get the benefit of the Nike shoes that
would otherwise be denied them – and thus put them
at a disadvantage. Of course, that would clearly
become visible in a simple inspection. go to a basic shoe design, with a midsole no greater
than say 25 to 30mm. This will exclude any plate, so
the shoe must be totally flexible, and can use any
midsole or upper material.
However, something else may not be so easy to pick
up. The rule saying that it is now acceptable to have
a plate embedded in the midsole opens a whole new
concern, because a critical aspect is not covered.
The angle of landing, and curve of the plate, can be
tuned to the specific biomechanics, flexibility and
limb length of an individual athlete. It would therefore
be possible for any sponsoring manufacturer to
select one particular pair of shoes and instead of
the standard plate, insert one at the specific height
required for a particular athlete. That would be totally
against the rules (TR5.2.1), but how would anyone
know without cutting the shoe open? And even then,
the modifications may be too minor to spot, but would
still give that athlete an advantage. The test of compliance would be easy: With the inner
sole taken out, the technical official must be able to
twist or fold the shoe along it whole width, and at
least 75% of its length. Any ‘control’ required for the
personal characteristics of the athlete’s foot must be
included in the removable inner. This makes it totally
transparent to the Technical official and any addition
must not give any unfair advantage.
Let’s be clear, this really only applies to the elite
level of any competition. If the average runner wants
to run in shoes that have exceptional technology,
then who cares, if they are not winning something.
Simply getting a better time through the assistance
of technology is for their own benefit and won’t
affect others. The reality is that it is highly unlikely,
although possible, that a company is going to offer a
‘shoe tuning’ service for runners that would involve
changing the actual design.
Another Viewpoint?
Although such ‘cheating‘ may be seen as extreme, the
likelihood will be in direct relationship to the increase
in performance by ‘tuning’ of shoes. Personally, I
would prefer a more straightforward ruling: Going
back to basics, making it about man versus man, so
Of course, that would mean a number of world
records may have to be taken back a few notches, but
on this premise and the arguments that it’s the athlete,
not the shoe, we can still see these records fall again
soon. In addition, athletes can still choose to train in
the high-tech shoes, which, if as I believe, will help
train good style, so the athlete still gets some benefit
before going into competition with the basic shoes.
This type of scenario has actually been faced by a
sport before. The LZR swimsuit came onto the market
in 2008 and became the favoured choice, with many
records falling in many major competitions, including
the Beijing Olympics. Again, one advantage came
from the suit activating the core, and it took less
than two years for FINA, the international swimming
body, to prohibit the use of such suits in competitive
Kipchoge’s attack on the sub-2 marathon, first in
Monza and then successfully in Vienna, were exactly
that. They knew that ‘Breaking 2’ required ideal
conditions and something special, so they looked
at how close they could be to normal accepted race
conditions, but recognised that they would need to
gain some relaxation to achieve the best time.
At no stage were they claiming a world record,
just a game-changing performance, using the best
conditions and technology, including one of the first
versions of the new high-technology shoes. This is
where the best technology can be utilised, displayed,
promoted and marketed while it awaits its place in the
retail market and acceptance under the rules. In the
meantime, it’s the chance to see what ‘Man and his
technology’ can achieve.
And this doesn’t have to be restricted to road or track
running. How high can pole vaulters jump with new
materials? How far can a javelin be thrown? If the
track material changed, how far could we jump if the
take-off speed improves with shoes? It would be the
athletics format of motorsport’s Formula 1, and would
be held as a specific event as and when significant
advancement was made. This would encourage
innovation and speculation in the sport.
Technology can, will, and must be encouraged to
progress, but in a way that maintains the sport’s
ethics and standards. There is a risk that the
current rules may stop that progress, but having a
Performance classification would open a new avenue
for recognition of athlete and gear.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Norrie represented Scotland and Great Britain in numerous ultra-distance events,
then emigrated and represented South Africa in triathlon. He is an IAAF-accredited coach and course
measurer, and travels all over the world to work on events, including the Olympics. He has authored two
books (Everyman’s Guide to Distance Running and Every Beginner’s Guide to Walking & Running), and
counts 21 Comrades medals amongst his more than 150 ultra-marathon medals. You can read more from
him at www.coachnorrie.co.za.
Eliud’s two attempts
at breaking two hours
captivated the world, but
questions remain whether
these shoes should be
legal for racing
48
ISSUE 129 APRIL 2020 / www.modernathlete.co.za