Experts Debate Whether Super Shoes Count as Doping in Marathon Running

Kenyan runner Sebastian Sawe recently shattered history by completing a marathon in under two hours, aided by the latest high-tech footwear. He achieved this feat wearing the Adidas Adizero Adios Pro Evo 3, which features carbon-fibre plates and advanced foam technology. These innovations provide a powerful spring, allowing athletes to move faster while expending significantly less energy.

Research indicates that such super shoes can boost running efficiency by up to four percent, shaving crucial minutes off race times. However, this technological leap has sparked intense debate among experts who fear it may become a form of doping. Shaun Creighton, a former Olympian and sports lawyer, told the Daily Mail that these devices genuinely enhance performance in a very real sense. He stated, 'We should be clear that modern marathon super shoes are performance enhancing devices in a very real sense.'

The controversy escalated in 2019 when Eliud Kipchoge became the first person to run a sub-two-hour marathon. His achievement relied on the Nike Alphafly, which sports scientist Dr Ross Tucker described as 'the shoe that broke running.' Nike claimed the footwear offered a 3.4 percent speed increase, translating to a two to three-minute advantage over a marathon distance. Although World Athletics quickly banned shoes with excessive stack heights, manufacturers rapidly developed new models that skirted the rules by staying just under the 40-millimeter limit.

The impact on race results has been profound. In 2019, 31 of the 36 podium spots at major marathons went to athletes wearing Nike's Vaporfly shoes. Dr Brian Hanley from Leeds Beckett University explained that these shoes return energy better than standard trainers, reducing workload and allowing runners to sustain speed for longer. He noted, 'The super shoes return energy better than normal trainers and this reduces the athletes' workload and lets them run faster for longer.'

This technological shift means race times from before 2019 are no longer directly comparable. David Roche, an ultramarathon coach, compared the situation to comparing tennis serve speeds with wooden versus composite rackets. While he recommends the shoes for everyone pushing their limits, others argue they create an uneven playing field. Tegla Loroupe, a former world record holder, has previously called using such gear to set records a form of cheating.

Dr Nicolas Berger from Teesside University highlighted that the benefits are not shared equally among all runners. He warned that some athletes are super-responders who gain massive advantages, while others see little to no benefit. This measurable disparity raises concerns about fairness and whether results depend more on proprietary technology than on human endurance. Shaun Creighton emphasized that since super shoes clearly enhance performance, they threaten the spirit of the sport. He argued, 'They can distort the relationship between training input and performance output, benefit some athletes more than others, and depend heavily on access and sponsorship.'

Regulatory bodies like World Athletics have attempted to tighten rules regarding midsole height and carbon plate counts. Yet, experts worry these guidelines do not go far enough to prevent shoe technology from dictating outcomes. The World Anti-Doping Agency focuses on drugs but can rule on equipment against the spirit of the sport. Creighton concluded that if rules remain too loose, sports risk sliding away from the ideal that results depend on training and toughness rather than shoe design. The core challenge is ensuring the marathon remains a test of human preparation rather than a showcase of midsole engineering.