Innovation or Unfair Play? – Tech Doping in International Sports

Tech Doping is a highly intriguing term I recently came across, thanks to all the news around the Paris Olympics. I realised there was a lot more to it and that it went beyond the Olympics, too.

?In the world of competitive sports, the quest for glory has driven athletes to embrace the latest and best in the world of technology. This use of cutting-edge technology has sparked a heated debate over tech doping.?The use of advanced equipment and apparel that may provide athletes an edge over their competitors could be looked at as gaining an unfair advantage. As the Paris 2024 Olympics drew to a close, the spotlight intensified on how some of these innovations in sports may tilt the playing field, raising important questions about the integrity and fairness of these international competitions. ?

?Background

Tech doping isn’t an entirely new concept but has gained significant attention due to high-profile cases and advancements in Sports Technology. From swimsuits that enable a shark effect to carbon-plated running shoes or even an additional pedal in the car to smartly manage the camber specific to each turn on a track, technology has aided in continually pushing the boundaries and capabilities of an athlete’s performance.

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has been constantly challenged and required to address these challenges, ensuring a level playing field. The regulations of bodies like WADA have continually evolved, trying to clearly define what could be a permissible improvement and what should be categorised as an unfair advantage.

?Key incidents and Historical context

Swimming: this came to light, questioning the legitimacy of the incredible 94% of races in the Beijing 2008 Olympics won by swimmers wearing a particular kind of swimsuit, Speedo LZR Racer. The suit helped reduce drag, providing substantial performance boosts and was linked to a staggering number of world records. The regulatory body stepped in after an uproar, and this led to the ban of the LZR and was followed by laying down regulations on the permissible materials and design of the apparel in the sport.

Athletics & Footwear: Nike was in the spotlight with their Vaporfly, equipped with design and material advancements and improved running by significantly reducing energy loss. While this might have been a significant advancement for casual runners, it could fall under the category of tech doping when it comes to athletes and international competitions. Just before the Tokyo 2020 Olympics, World Athletics, the governing body for professional track & field, issued new guidelines stipulating the thickness of the sole and the use of rigid plates in the footwear. They also specified that these products should be available in the open market for at least four months before use in any competition. Since this particular Nike product was already available to the public, competitors had little time to respond. Some had to drastically cut their R&D cycles and ensure their products were available on the shelves for the public to purchase. ?

Motorsports: F1 particularly has no season where a top team isn’t accused of unfair technical advantage over the rest of the field, with the imaginations of the car developers and engineers stretching the boundaries of regulations laid down by the FIA, (Fédération Internationale de l’ Automobile). McLaren adopted an extra pedal to provide better stability in the corners, enabling them to be faster by 0.5 sec per lap, and was banned following a protest by Ferrari. Mercedes, more recently in 2020, brought in the DAS system, which helped their drivers maintain better tyre temperatures, especially behind a safety car. Mercedes’ domination that year drew the ire of all other teams. Although FIA didn’t term it illegal, they brought in rule changes that ensured no team managed to use DAS after the 2020 season.

The ethical debate for regulators

Governing bodies face the constant challenge of regulating these dynamic technologies. The regulations need to continually adapt to advancements in technology. The integration of tech in sport is inevitable, but regulation is the thin line between the quest for better products and fairness in the sport.

The challenge for the regulators in the foreseeable future remains their ability to embrace technology without compromising the spirit of fair competition. Engineers are trained to push the boundaries and constantly seek the furtherance of either the core technology or the application.

The regulators are tasked with creating an equitable field for the sport, ensuring the best man/ woman on a particular day wins. ?The future is anything but dull in the world of competitive sports.