Why The Olympics Almost Banned This Shoe
Summary
TLDRThis video delves into the controversial world of 'tech doping' in sports, exploring the fine line between innovation and unfair advantage. From banned swimsuits to cutting-edge running shoes, it examines how technology like Nike's Vaporfly has revolutionized performance but stirred debate. The script challenges viewers to consider the spirit of sports and the role of tech in enhancing—or possibly cheating—human capabilities.
Takeaways
- 🏃 Sports gear advancements have sparked debates on whether certain technologies provide an unfair advantage, termed as 'tech doping'.
- 🛑 Regulators often ban equipment that increases the risk of injury to athletes or fans, such as aluminum bats in baseball.
- 🤔 The 'spirit of the sport' is a vague concept, leading to more specific questions about the fairness and accessibility of technology in sports.
- 🥽 Goggles in swimming were initially controversial but eventually accepted, while other technologies like the Speedo LZR racer were banned for enhancing performance.
- 📊 The introduction of the LZR racer suit in 2008 led to a significant improvement in swimming records, raising questions about its impact on fairness.
- 👟 The development of 'super shoes' in running has increased energy return rates, with some arguing they give an unfair advantage and others seeing them as a natural progression of sports technology.
- ⚠️ Regulatory bodies have attempted to limit the advantages of super shoes by imposing restrictions on design elements like foam height and the use of carbon fiber plates.
- 👀 The debate extends to prosthetics, as seen with Oscar Pistorius and Blake Leeper, where the line between correcting a disability and enhancing performance is blurred.
- 📏 The Olympics have used specific rules, like the MASH rule, to determine the eligibility of athletes using prosthetics, which can be controversial and complicated.
- 🌐 The script touches on the broader implications of technology in sports, questioning where to draw the line between innovation and unfair advantage in various aspects of life.
- 🔍 The video aims to explore the cutting edge of sports technology, questioning what is allowed and what is not, and the philosophical and practical implications of these decisions.
Q & A
What is the main debate the video script addresses?
-The main debate the video script addresses is the concept of 'tech doping' in sports, where the line between enhancing performance through technology and gaining an unfair advantage is blurred.
What does the term 'tech doping' refer to?
-'Tech doping' refers to the use of physical gear or technology to gain an unfair advantage in sports, which is a controversial topic as it can make athletes perform beyond what is traditionally considered possible.
Why are certain sports gear banned in professional sports?
-Certain sports gear is banned because it may increase the risk of injury, go against the spirit of the sport, or provide an artificial enhancement to a player's performance that is deemed unfair.
What was the significance of the LZR racer suit in swimming?
-The LZR racer suit was significant because it used advanced technology to mimic shark skin and streamline swimmers' bodies, leading to a surge in world record performances and subsequent debates about its fairness.
What is the role of the Nike test lab in the video script?
-The Nike test lab is where the video script's host explores and demonstrates the technology behind some of the most controversial sports equipment, including the energy-returning running shoes.
What is the energy return rate in running shoes, and why is it important?
-The energy return rate in running shoes refers to the percentage of energy exerted by a runner that is returned to boost them into their next stride. It is important because a higher energy return can significantly improve a runner's performance.
What are the specific rules that regulators implemented regarding energy-returning shoes?
-Regulators implemented a 40 mm foam height limit and a rule stating that shoes cannot have more than one carbon fiber plate. Additionally, they required that all shoes must be available for public purchase at least four months before being used in competition.
How did Nike respond to the new regulations on energy-returning shoes?
-Nike expressed concern that the new regulations would stifle innovation and issued a statement arguing against the rules, stating that their goal is to push human potential forward, not to create an unfair advantage.
What is the controversy surrounding the use of prosthetic legs in sports, as exemplified by Oscar Pistorius and Blake Leeper?
-The controversy revolves around whether the use of prosthetic legs provides an unfair advantage by enhancing performance beyond what an able-bodied athlete could achieve, and how to fairly determine what constitutes a 'correction' versus an 'enhancement'.
What was the MASH rule, and why was it significant in the case of Blake Leeper?
-The MASH rule, or max allowable standing height, was significant in Blake Leeper's case because it was used to disqualify him from competition on the grounds that his prosthetic legs made him taller than he would be naturally, which was not considered in the case of Oscar Pistorius.
What broader implications does the script suggest about the role of technology in sports and society?
-The script suggests that the role of technology in sports and society is a complex issue that goes beyond the field of play. It raises questions about innovation, fairness, and the ethical considerations of using technology to push human capabilities.
Outlines
🏃♂️ The Ethics of Technological Advancements in Sports
This paragraph delves into the debate surrounding the use of advanced sports gear and its potential to provide an unfair advantage, termed 'tech doping.' It highlights the historical context of banned gear like streamlined swimsuits and grippy gloves, and introduces the concept of technology pushing human limits. The narrator aims to explore the line between enhancement and cheating, using the Nike Vaporfly shoes as a focal point of controversy.
👟 Controversial Running Shoes and the Limits of Innovation
The second paragraph focuses on the controversy surrounding high-performance running shoes, particularly those worn by Eliud Kipchoge when he broke the 2-hour marathon record. It discusses the evolution of running shoes and the specific design features of the latest super shoes that have been criticized for potentially threatening the integrity of the sport. The narrator's visit to Nike's test lab sets the stage for an exploration of how these shoes work and the implications for the future of running.
🤽♂️ The Impact of Technological Gear on Athletic Performance
This section examines the impact of technological advancements on athletic performance, using the example of the LZR racer swimsuit that led to a surge in swimming records. It discusses the criteria used to determine whether a piece of gear is allowed in sports, such as its potential to increase injury risk or whether it goes against the spirit of the sport. The paragraph also touches on the complexity of defining what constitutes a fair advantage, especially in the context of the Olympics and the debate over the use of prescription lenses in shooting.
🛍️ The Intersection of Sports Technology and Commerce
The fourth paragraph takes a brief detour to discuss Shopify, a commerce platform that facilitates business management and online sales, highlighting its features like AI tools for image transformation and SEO optimization. The narrator relates their personal experience with Shopify in considering the manufacture and sale of team merchandise, emphasizing the platform's ease of use and global reach.
🦿 The Dilemma of Prosthetics in Sports
The final paragraph addresses the complex issue of prosthetics in sports, drawing on the cases of Oscar Pistorius and Blake Leeper. It raises questions about fairness and the potential for technology to enhance athletic performance beyond natural capabilities. The discussion centers on the difficulty of distinguishing between correcting a disability and gaining an unfair advantage, as well as the ethical implications of regulating such technology in sports.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Tech Doping
💡Super Shoes
💡Energy Return
💡Regulators
💡LZR Racer
💡Nike Vaporfly
💡Oscar Pistorius
💡Blake Leeper
💡Innovation
💡Fairness
💡Performance Enhancement
Highlights
The debate on 'tech doping' in sports and the ethical implications of using high-tech gear to gain an advantage.
Banned sports gear such as swimsuits that enhance streamlining and gloves that provide unnatural grip.
The introduction of Nike's controversial Vaporfly shoes, which have been accused of making runners too fast.
The historical context of sports gear evolution, from basic to high-tech, and its impact on performance.
Regulatory considerations for banning sports gear, including danger to athletes and fans, and the spirit of the sport.
The 1972 Olympics without goggles and the subsequent allowance and impact of goggles on swimming records.
The introduction of Speedo's LZR racer swimsuit and its role in breaking world records, leading to its ban.
The role of technology in sports and the difficulty in defining what constitutes an unfair advantage.
Eliud Kipchoge's sub-2-hour marathon feat and the controversy surrounding the prototype shoes he wore.
Nike's test lab and the拆解 of the latest super shoe to understand its technological advancements.
The energy return concept in running shoes and how super shoes have revolutionized it.
The personal experience of wearing advanced sports gear and the tangible feel of energy return during running.
Regulatory measures to restrict energy return in running shoes and the impact on shoe design and innovation.
Nike's perspective on the regulation of sports technology and the importance of pushing human potential forward.
The ethical and practical considerations of allowing prosthetics in sports, as exemplified by Oscar Pistorius and Blake Leeper.
The broader societal implications of technology in sports and the ongoing debate about its role in enhancing human performance.
The future of sports technology and the potential for humans to surpass current limitations with the help of innovation.
Transcripts
I'm wearing the real Team USA Olympic uniforms with one of the world's fastest super shoes and
we're going to cut it in half because what's inside this shoe is part of a huge debate
happening in sports right now. The question is, when does sports gear get so good that it's
actually CHEATING? There's a ton of cool gear that's banned from sports from making athletes
too good, like swimsuits that make a swimmer's body too streamlined, or gloves that make a receiver's
hands too grippy, or bats that let a player hit the ball too to hard, or shoes that make
a runner too freaking fast. They call it "tech doping," using physical gear to gain an unfair
advantage. In this video, I'm going to show you the banned technology that you won't see in the
Olympics... oh that's grippy... and the cutting edge tech that you will see that's on the very edge
of what's allowed. You might be thinking, "hold on, no gear should give athletes an advantage!"
But we don't run barefoot anymore. We don't swim naked. We use tech to play sports and that tech
keeps getting better, pushing forward what humans can do. So... where's the line? That's what I really
want to figure out. This debate is about way more than sports. In every part of our lives,
technology pushes humans forward and it's up to us to decide what do we want from it. This
video is about that question. Let me show you the cutting edge of sports technology...
MICHAEL PHELPS: "I am wearing the fastest suit in the world and that's a fact..."
"the fastest suits in the world" "technological doping..."
"it is cheating" "a weekend that changed distance running forever" "Nike's controversial vaporfly
shoes" "fueling new controversy over the suits the swimmers are wearing" "surpassing human capabilities..."
Today I'm at Nike's test lab in Oregon to show you some of the world's best and
most controversial sports equipment. But first, if you were trying to decide whether to ban something
from sports, how would you do it? Here's where to start. First most regulators ask is, it dangerous
to athletes or fans or both? This is the big reason they give for banning steroids but it applies to
hardware too. For example, in Major League Baseball they're not allowed to use aluminum bats they have
to use wooden ones because aluminum would allow them to hit the ball so fast they might kill
people on the field or hurt people in the stands. So if gear greatly increases the risk of injury
it might not be allowed. But most of the cool tech that we're talking about doesn't increase
danger, it just makes athletes better. So the next question they ask is, is it against the spirit of
the sport? But how do you define that exactly? Spirit of the sport, it's intentionally vague!
So it gets broken up into smaller questions like, can everyone use this tech? Is it fair to record
holders? Does it artificially enhance a player's performance? Let me give you some examples. Try to
decide what you think is right before I tell you what the rule-makers chose. This is the Olympics
in 1972. Do you notice anything missing? Nobody's wearing goggles! Four years later, the Olympics
allowed them. You see early adopters start to use them and those athletes start winning. Here's a
chart showing swimming records by year. That's when goggles were allowed. Most people today
would say allowing goggles was a good idea but then something new caused another big spike...
In 2008, Speedo collaborated with NASA to make this, the LZR racer. This suit was so cool.
The fabric mimicked shark skin with these little channels that let water flow more easily. It had
these panels that sucked swimmers bodies into a more streamlined position, and people speculated
that the way it trapped air made swimmers float more easily, which Speedo denied. But
it was clear this new tech was helping swimmers crush world records. Athletes were doing things
nobody thought was possible. It was awesome. You remember that Olympics when Michael Phelps won
more gold medals than any human had ever won in a single Olympics ever? He was wearing a LZR racer.
Is that fair? This new suit made the swimming world lose their minds. The general manager of
the US team said the records shouldn't count. So should this fancy super swimsuit be allowed?
Within a year, the swimming governing body voted to ban them. The swimmers you see at the Olympics now
are wearing suits made with only textile fabrics that can only cover this much of their body. I feel
mixed about that! We can't see well underwater and our skin isn't textured like sharks but
goggles are allowed and these swimsuits aren't but on the other hand we don't allow flippers
there's a line somewhere. It's just not always obvious... like prescription lenses in Olympic
shooting... okay or not okay?
If you said okay, the regulators agree with you. Olympic shooters are
allowed to wear prescription lenses. They can correct their vision, they just can't enhance
it. Or how about this: Sticky glue that makes it easier to catch a football... okay or not okay?
The NFL said not okay but grippy gloves are fine. "How in the world? Oh my goodness!" I love these
questions because they get it what we think the whole point is of both sports and technology and
of course it's so messy but the messiest of all is the debate about running shoes and a
record that was supposed to be impossible to beat... "he has done it!"
Welcome to Nike's test lab!
I'm at Nike to answer a question I've been wondering for years. Let me explain. In 2019
I watched Eliud Kipchoge become the first person ever to run a marathon in under 2 hours. That
is 4 minutes and 35 seconds per mile for 26.2 miles! Here's what that speed looks like for most people...
This was supposed to be impossible but he did it and while the world celebrated Kipchoge's
record in professional running all eyes turned to these. He was wearing special prototype shoes
built to make him run faster. In fact, studies showed that this design helped runners at the
time go 2 to 3% faster than the next fastest shoe and regulators started saying that this
shoe threatened the Integrity of the sport. But why this shoe? If you look back at the history
of running shoes you'll see that over the last 100 years they've gotten a lot better than 2-3%.
Early running shoes looked like this. They're basically loafers with spikes! People can run a
lot faster in basically any running shoe today. So why was this shoe all of a sudden so controversial?
Let me show you the answer. This is the newest version of that same shoe design and I'm about
to cut it open. So this is the successor of what Eliud Kipchoge beat the 2 hour marathon in? "Yeah
It's a culmination of all kinds of technological development. It's a thing of beauty and we're going
to destroy it." There's no chance I can put it through is there? You could guide me. If I lose a
finger, it's my fault. "Uh Lindsay what do you think?" "Well we do have her on camera saying it will be
her fault..." If I cut my finger off, I'm saying it to camera, it's not like Nike's fault. "Sweet Jesus
this is fine, come on it's fine, it'll be fine, it'll be fine, it's okay..." While I set up to
cut this shoe in half, let me tell you about another company whose tech makes things run
better: Shopify. Shopify is a commerce platform that lets anybody start and manage a business.
They have a drag and drop store editor that makes building a store so easy. Incredible stores run on
Shopify. And you can sell things across social channels like YouTube and I'm based in the US
but I'd want to be able to reach you in other countries too. Shopify makes it easier to sell
across borders with local payment methods and helps with tax compliance with Shopify Markets.
they also just launched Shopify Magic which are AI tools designed for business owners. They can help
you transform your images by removing or adding new backgrounds or write SEO optimized product
descriptions for your store. I made some hats and sweatshirts as gifts for our Huge If True team
and I keep getting comments from people who'd want to buy them, so I'm working on figuring out how I
could manufacture them and if I do, I'd sell them on Shopify. And you can do it all on your phone.
You have the most powerful tools for growing and managing a business, anywhere. Shopify makes selling
things online easy. If you want a free trial, click the link in my description. Now let's cut that shoe open...
Woooo! Look at this!
Lots of companies now make their own version of a super shoe and people say they've changed running
sports forever, but how exactly? At a high level, every super shoe today has three key sections: The
upper, which holds your foot, the outsole, which hits the ground, and the midsole which mostly
determines how much of the energy that a runner exerts down into the ground is returned to boost
them into their next stride. This is called energy return and it's a huge deal in running. Nike's new
super shoe specifically maximized energy return by building in a way taller stack of new cushy
foam and a carbon fiber plate that acts like a lever springing the runner forward, which outside
the shoe looks like this right here. They even included special air pockets for extra bounce.
Before super shoes, a good energy return rate was about 60 to 65%. Now it's more like 80%, way more
of the runner's energy that they get to reuse. I wanted to show you what that energy return
feels like but to do it Nike didn't just give me their shoes. They let me try the real team
USA Olympic uniforms. So I'm wearing this and this and this and most importantly these. Okay now go away...
I feel awesome. Let's do this. They didn't just test the shoe, they tested me.
They analyzed my running style, they showed me how these uniforms deal with sweat, and hardest of all
they made me run in 95° heat at 70% humidity. "Some of your cameras may not work super well
in here 'cause they might fog up. What speed would you like to run at today?" Uh I'd like to go
fast enough to give you some real information... "I'll just be right outside the window. So I'll
look at you, thumbs up means I can go a little bit faster, thumbs down means a little bit slower." Okay
put me in coach! Yeah I did not fully understand what I was in for... I don't know how to do that...
"She wants to go as fast as you'll let her go..."
I feel the energy return, it feels like a trampoline on my feet...
When Super Shoes were introduced, just like the swimmers with the LZR racer, runners began
to crush world records. Marathon times saw the biggest increase in 50 years. People started
complaining that the shoes were giving runners energy, but that's not how "energy return" works.
All the energy has to come from the runner, and anyone who runs knows it's not easy. I'm reaching
a point where I can't talk casually anymore. "She's getting hot. She's been running for 2 and a half
minutes. The world's best marathoners can run in this temperature at faster speeds than this for two
plus hours." "If you're up for it, we'll have you go for about six more minutes." Okay! "How you feel? So
fun right?" That was great. "You got good sweat going all over the place, beading up over here" Dripping.
Look at this. So running shoes that make you faster: okay or not okay? Regulators decided something in
the middle. They tried to restrict how much energy return super shoes could give by implementing a
40 mm foam height limit and saying shoes can't have more than one carbon fiber plate. Kipchoge's
shoes barely fit these requirements but they were prototypes which felt unfair so Regulators added
a rule saying that all shoes had to be available for anyone to buy at least four 4 months before
they were used in competition. These rules were pretty much aimed at Nike and back then Nike
wasn't happy about it. They issued a statement saying the rules would stifle innovation so
I asked the head of Nike's sport research lab about it now. Why did Nike feel that way at the
time and do you still feel that way now? "There was a number of reasons we were pushing back
and and worrying about stifling innovation. I think it's like just a moral obligation to
keep to keep pushing forward. Our goal is not to make the world's fastest athletes faster
by putting fans behind them and pushing them down the field. It's that's not interesting to us." That's
really the key. It's all about pushing the human body forward. But that brings us to the last big
debate about technology in sports: What if the tech that you're debating is part of someone's
body? You might remember this guy, Oscar Pistorius. He was the first person to qualify and compete in
the Olympics with these. running blades. This was a moment that got a lot of people talking about
what's fair and what's not in sports. You might not know him yet but that's Blake Leeper. He qualified
for the Olympics 8 years after Pistorius but he wasn't allowed to compete... "So I had what
the fifth fastest time in the world against able-bodied athletes which qualified me for the
Olympic Games and then I was abruptly stopped. I had to take my my case to the Court of
Arbitration of Sport..." The Olympics had allowed Pistorius but they now wanted to revisit the
rules. Should running blades be allowed? If you let people wear glasses for shooting, meaning they can
correct a disability that they have, aren't prosthetics the same? And how do you decide
what's a correction and what's an enhancement? Turns out, tests. A lot of tests. "They put dots on my
blades to see the spring compression to see like what type of energy return are we getting out of
the prosthetic legs and how does that compare to somebody who have their legs?" Researchers
found that Blake's prosthetic legs made him no faster at sprinting or gave him better endurance
but they did make him worse at accelerating and rounding curves. Then the opponent side argued
that prosthetics are lighter and they don't require of the body's oxygen. It was seeming
like a tossup but then... "the one thing that they got me on specifically was called the MASH
rule, max allowable standing height." The Olympics didn't use this rule for Pistorius, but now they
decided Blake couldn't compete because his blades made him taller than he would be naturally but
Blake was born without the bottom part of his legs. He has never had a full height naturally with his
legs. They calculated it using measurements from other parts of his body to tell him
what his height would theoretically have been and to make matters worse those calculations were
based on only small studies of white and Asian men but the whole idea of using averages for athletes
is tricky. Most people's wingspan is roughly their height, but Michael Phelps wingspan is three whole
Ines taller than he is. That's part of what makes him so great. But in the end... "they said this is the rules
that're set, we're sorry Blake, but you have to drop your legs by 6 inches." And changing your height
is not the same as changing in your swimsuit. "I trained at 6'2 my whole life and now I'm
5'9 so I'll go reach or I'll go run or my back went out. And the question, that the million-dollar
question is, what's fair and what's not fair? If somebody was born with bad vision and they wear
glasses you wouldn't regulate that. Now I could try to wear glasses, but I don't I don't need glasses!"
Really the conversation that we're talking about is a fear or a concern that technology will get so
good people on blades will actually outperform everybody, is that what people are really talking about?
"I think yeah. I think that's the conversation that is really at hand.
It wasn't me trying to compete. It was the idea of the Pandora's Box that it could potentially
open up. I don't agree with it but I understand."
We have come so far in improving what humans can do.
Today we have better nutrition and training and strategy and recovery and of course technology.
The whole point of technology is to make people better, to make our lives easier, to make us more
capable, to make things that we never thought were possible come true. But how far and how fast and
exactly in what direction technology pushes us is the big debate that we're going to keep on having
far beyond sports. "Should we regulate it should we tame it down? Should we allow it? Should we integrate
it?" "I think it's wrong to stop. I think it's you can say it's unethical to introduce these things
to sport. It's unethical to stop inventing and to stop pushing human potential forwards"
And personally I can't wait to see what humans are capable of.
[Wait for it...]
Welcome to Nike's test lab...
That's gonna be the ending!
Weitere ähnliche Videos ansehen
♫ E SE CERTOS LANCES TIVESSEM SIDO DIFERENTES? pt. 6 | Paródia Ilusão (Cracolândia) - Alok, Hariel
Part1 Digital innovation in sports (SC)
The Intersection of Technology and Sports: Insights from Industry Leaders | SiGMA Eurasia 2024
הצד האפל של האולימפיאדה!! (גועל נפש.)
(Don't) Know Thyself | Serial Experiments Lain Anime Discussion
ChatGPT dan Masa Depan Pekerjaan Kita
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)