The strange case of the 'illegal' Nike running shoes

They are for sale for 175 € in discount on the Nike official online store and have become the most talked about running shoes of the moment. The reason? They guarantee such positive performances that they risk being considered 'illegal'. We are talking about the Nike Vaporfly 4% Flyknit, the favorites of the best world marathon runners because of an advanced technology that allows you to run faster than the others. In fact, 4% is not a random percentage, but indicates the advantage given to the athletes which use them, the result of a particular mixture of foams and a carbon plate in the midsole capable of storing energy and releasing it with very low losses.

As stated in the description on the Nike online store, in fact, the Vaporfly 4% was 'born to meet the needs of world-class marathon runners, and designed for a speed that beats every record'. It's no coincidence that the Kenyan runner Eliud Kipchoge had them on his feet when he broke the two-hour wall for the first time during the Vienna marathon last October, as well as compatriot Brigid Kosgei to beat the women's marathon record after 16 years. The effect of the Vaporfly has been meticulously studied in a nice New York Times article, according to which 41% of the athletes benefited from the shoes with the particular sole. And obviously those of Nike are fully aware of all this: as stated in 2013 by the then CEO of the American brand Mark Parker:

"We use innovation to serve human potential rather than marvel at human limits. Innovation is the antidote to human limits."

In addition to having seriously questioned the records achieved, World Athletics, the athletics worldwide federation, would be ready to ban the Vaporfly 4% from the next Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games, significantly reducing the benefits with the introduction of limits to the 'spring' effect of the carbon plates, the same also present in the ZoomX Vaporfly Next%. Or at least limiting the use of customized versions (those that often use professional athletes), guaranteeing the principle according to which products to be considered "allowed" must be available to everyone in the same way. The issue has been described by many as 'technological doping' and is very reminiscent of that of the suits/costumes introduced by Speedo and seen during the 2008 Beijing Olympics, banned a year later by the World Swimming Federation. A ruling to that effect by World Athletics is expected soon.