STATE OF PLAY
Carbon-plate innovation has sparked a series of contentious run shoes that blur the reality of what we’re watching
Around 15 years ago a little-known company called Spira Footwear developed a pair of running shoes with springs in them. The patented technology claimed to reduce the impact on a runner’s feet, leading to easier recovery and less overall exertion.
The IAAF, the athletics governing body now rebranded as World Athletics, clamped down, invoking rule 143.2, which states shoes ‘must not be constructed so as to give athletes any unfair assistance or advantage,’ and left Spira’s founder, Andy Krafsur, lamenting: “There are politics involved. If Nike came out with our tech, their shoes would be allowed.”
Spira closed in 2016 and Krafsur died in April, but his words proved prophetic. Now any competitive road race is replete with a sea of key lime or brilliant pink sneakers towards the pointy end – Nike’s new generation of carbon-plated running daps is blasting the opposition, and the record books, to oblivion.
Triathlon is not immune. If you’re not capable of a 7:45 (men), 8:40 (women) over a standard Ironman, then don’t turn up thinking the top podium spot is within reach. Jan Frodeno won the 2019 Ironman Worlds in a course record 7:51:13 with a 2:42:43 marathon. He wasn’t wearing Nikes, but a pair of prototype Asics with a carbon-plate.
Sports marketing, especially when promising a ‘4% improvement’ is usually met with a healthy dose of cynicism, but from 2hr marathoners to hardy club runners slicing chunks off their PBs, then forgive the paraphrasing, but you’ve got to be in ’em to win ’em.
So what? Technological progress has evolved sport from the outset, and if said shoes are ‘reasonably available to all in the spirit of universality’ (also in the rule book), albeit at an eyewatering price point, then there’s no contravention of the rules, right? Not so fast. Interested parties can get about as close to Eliud Kipchoge’s triple carbon-plated Nikes used in the
INEOS 1:59 attempt as his competitors can get to him in a race. But while it’s fair to argue that was an experiment, prototypes worn in competition are, by definition, not ‘reasonably available to all’.
No governing body has a handle on this. The International Triathlon Union confirms it defers to World Athletics. British Triathlon said it looks to the ITU. Ironman don’t have any answers and no will to intervene. Hoka has a carbon-plated offering and sponsors its Kona run course. The reality is the big brands with their sponsorship bucks call the shots.
Other brands are rushing to catchup with Nike and athletes are breaking sponsorship contracts to make sure they have the best kit. But the cautionary tale of swimming, that banned full body polyurethane swimsuits in 2009 after an asinine two years and damaged reputation, should be heeded. And what if this year’s Olympics aren’t won by the best triathlete, but by a competitor wearing a prototype that allows him or her a 30sec advantage over 10km? If we’re being asked to care about what we’re watching, we need to believe in the fairness of it too.
“The reality is the big brands with their sponsorship bucks call the shots”