Why The Olympics Almost Banned This Shoe

Summary

This 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

00:00

🏃‍♂️ 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.

05:05

👟 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.

10:06

🤽‍♂️ 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.

15:09

🛍️ 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.

Keywords

💡Tech Doping

Tech doping refers to the use of technology to gain an unfair advantage in sports. It is a central theme in the video, which explores the ethical and competitive implications of high-performance sports gear. The term is exemplified by the debate over whether certain gear, like the Nike Vaporfly shoes, provides an unfair boost to athletes' performance.

💡Super Shoes

Super shoes are a type of athletic footwear designed to enhance performance through features like energy return and improved biomechanics. In the video, the term is used to discuss the controversy surrounding shoes like the Nike Vaporfly, which some argue provide an unfair advantage by returning more energy to the runner, thus enabling faster times.

💡Energy Return

Energy return is a measure of how much kinetic energy is returned to the athlete from the footwear during movement, particularly running. The video explains that super shoes have increased energy return rates, which has led to significant improvements in running times and sparked debates on fairness in sports.

💡Regulators

In the context of the video, regulators are organizations or governing bodies that establish rules and guidelines for sports to ensure fair competition. They are responsible for deciding what equipment is permissible and what constitutes tech doping, as seen with the rules around the Nike Vaporfly shoes.

💡LZR Racer

The LZR Racer is a high-tech swimsuit developed by Speedo in collaboration with NASA. It became infamous for its ability to enhance swimmers' performances, leading to numerous world records. The suit is mentioned in the video as an example of tech doping in swimming, which was eventually banned by swimming's governing body.

💡Nike Vaporfly

Nike Vaporfly shoes are a specific model of super shoes that have been the subject of controversy due to their potential to enhance running performance. The video discusses how these shoes were scrutinized by regulators and almost deemed as tech doping, highlighting the ongoing debate about the role of technology in sports.

💡Oscar Pistorius

Oscar Pistorius is a notable athlete who competed in the Olympics using running blades, which raised questions about the fairness of using prosthetics in sports. The video uses his case to explore the broader issue of what constitutes a fair advantage and the challenges of regulating technology in sports.

💡Blake Leeper

Blake Leeper is an athlete who, like Oscar Pistorius, used running blades to compete in sports. However, he was barred from the Olympics due to rules about the height of his prosthetics. The video discusses his case to illustrate the complexities of determining what is fair when technology is integrated into an athlete's body.

💡Innovation

Innovation in the video refers to the development of new technologies and methods that push the boundaries of human performance in sports. It is highlighted as a driving force behind the creation of super shoes and other gear, but also as a source of controversy when it comes to maintaining a level playing field in competition.

💡Fairness

Fairness is a core concept in the video, which examines how technology can complicate the idea of a fair competition in sports. It is discussed in various contexts, such as the use of super shoes, the LZR Racer, and prosthetics, and raises questions about what constitutes a fair advantage and how it can be regulated.

💡Performance Enhancement

Performance enhancement refers to the improvement of an athlete's abilities through various means, including training, nutrition, and technology. The video explores how certain types of gear, like super shoes and the LZR Racer, can significantly enhance performance and whether this enhancement crosses the line into tech doping.

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!