A Pragmatic Approach to Resolving Technological Unfairness: the Case of Nike\u2019s Vaporfly and Alphafly Running Footwear

Bryce Dyer

doi:10.1186/s40798-020-00250-1

Abstract

BackgroundTechnology is often introduced into sport to facilitate it or to improve human performance within it. On occasion, some forms of novel technology require regulation or prevention entirely to ensure that a sport remains fair and accessible. Recently, the Nike Vaporfly and Alphafly shoes have received some concerns over their appropriateness for use in competitive distance running.MethodsThis paper evaluates the use of these shoes against an existing framework for sports technology discourse and adopts a pragmatic approach to attempt to resolve them.ResultsIt is proposed that the three concerns regarding cost, access and coercion cannot be ruled out but likely remain short-term issues. As a result, it is proposed that these running shoes are acceptable forms of technology but that ongoing vigilance will be required as such technologies develop further in the future.ConclusionsThe Nike Vaporfly/Alphafly shoes do push the perceived acceptability of running shoes to the limits of the current sports regulations. However, the alleged gains have not manifested themselves to a level that could be considered excessive when reviewing historical performances or when evaluated against a set of well-cited criteria. The sport will need to adopt a stance of ongoing vigilance as such technologies continue to develop or be optimised in the future.

Highlights

In October 2019, Kenyan Eliud Kipchoge became the first runner to complete the 26.2-mile marathon running distance in under 2 h [1]
Are the Nike Vaporfly/Alphafly shoes unnatural? Do the Nike Vaporfly/Alphafly shoes provide an unfair advantage? Could the introduction of the Nike Vaporfly/Alphafly shoes coerce athletes to want to use them? Does the use of the Nike Vaporfly/Alphafly shoes contribute towards spectator appeal? Does the use of the Nike Vaporfly/Alphafly shoes affect the integrity of the sport or provide an advantage over the sport itself? Does use of the Nike Vaporfly/Alphafly shoes deskill or reskill the sport? Does the use of the Nike Vaporfly/Alphafly shoes somehow dehumanise the sport? Could financial cost be a barrier to using the Nike Vaporfly/Alphafly shoes? Are the Nike Vaporfly/Alphafly shoes inaccessible to some athletes?
Are the Nike Vaporfly/Alphafly Shoes Harmful to the Health of the Athlete Using Them? The criterion of harm relates to the result of an injury or any temporary or permanent damage inflicted on an athletes’ health either directly or via side effects [24]

Summary

Introduction

In October 2019, Kenyan Eliud Kipchoge became the first runner to complete the 26.2-mile marathon running distance in under 2 h [1]. This attempt was known as the Ineos 1:59 Challenge. Likewise, during the same month, Brigid Kosgei broke the (2020) 6:21 women’s world record in the marathon by completing the distance in 2:14:04. She achieved this record when wearing a pair of the Vaporfly % [2]. Technology is often introduced into sport to facilitate it or to improve human performance within it. The Nike Vaporfly and Alphafly shoes have received some concerns over their appropriateness for use in competitive distance running

Methods

Results

Conclusion