schiffern
9 months ago
More proof that "doping" has become a meaningless word.
If shoes are considered "doping," why aren't all marathons (and indeed, all athletic events) run barefoot and naked[1]? If those are the "rules," then surely they should at least be consistently applied...
[1] Presumably reduced thermal stress due to clothing improves athletic performance, therefore is "doping" by this metric.
code_runner
9 months ago
Exactly. The whole super shoe discourse is really tired at this point.
Shoes changed. Now all of the shoes have carbon plates. The athletes are still incredible… nobody is getting one of these shoes and becoming some super star overnight.
We let the athletes drink hyper specialized drink mixtures based on studying their sweat content and even adjusting the drinks for their perspiration level during the race.
The shoe foam and carbon plates sell more expensive shoes.
a012
9 months ago
So you’re saying the athletes have perks that optimize their performance, not _boosting_ performance which is doping.
schiffern
9 months ago
What's the difference between "optimizing" and "boosting?" Be specific.
fnordpiglet
9 months ago
Medical inducement of physiological changes that wouldn’t occur naturally without intervention.
krisoft
9 months ago
So like for example training? Should we ban anyone who has run before (any distance, ever in life) for doping?
Training definietly induces physiological changes that wouldn’t occur naturally without doing it.
cdirkx
9 months ago
Training was considered to be "bad sportmanship" in the early days of soccer, when it was amateur gentlemen sport clubs playing against each other.
fnordpiglet
9 months ago
Training isn’t a medical intervention. A medical intervention is typically a drug, surgery, or other intervention. I think the term is probably on the surface understandable as not being exercise, diet, or other normal every day use of the body unless you’re being particularly “internet obtuse.”
krisoft
9 months ago
> Training isn’t a medical intervention.
You didn’t say medical intervention in your previous post. You said “Medical inducement” which is a term i’m not familiar with.
Let me think now about it again. Sounds like you just declared anyone doping who is taking multivitamin suplements. It is a medical intervention (a drug), it induces a physiological change, wouldn’t occur naturaly. Sounds like it is doping!
Or anyone who had a dental cavity filled. It is a medical intervention (a surgery), it induces a physiological change, wouldn’t occur naturaly. Clearly beneficial to an athlete, since someone without tooth ache can concentrate more. Ban them all those dopers!
> unless you’re being particularly “internet obtuse”
Look, it is not me who offered a simple definition of what is and isn’t doping. Simple answers are almost always wrong. There is a reason why real doping regulations are hundreds of pages long. If they could write a one sentence rulebook they would. They are just trying to ban real doping without also baning dental fillings, training and multivitamins.
number6
9 months ago
I would like to see this as companion event to the Olympic, just to se how layperson's would fare
g8oz
9 months ago
Training is not a medical inducment
krisoft
9 months ago
What is "medical inducment"? It is not a term I'm familiar with.
fnordpiglet
9 months ago
Seriously - internet grammar and spelling pedantry?
krisoft
9 months ago
I didn’t even notice the spelling. What i was asking is what is “medical inducement” or “medical intervention” in your opinion.
woleium
9 months ago
it is if a doctor prescribes it
fnordpiglet
9 months ago
No, it’s still not. Medical interventions or treatments are not definitionally “something a doctor says.” Generally it’s the use of atypical substances or physical modification to create a response in the body that wouldn’t otherwise naturally occur. Broadly speaking it’s the “stuff the fda would be able to regulate,” which exercise is clearly not.
woleium
9 months ago
i beg to differ. Medical intervention refers to any action or process undertaken by healthcare professionals with the aim of diagnosing, treating, preventing, or improving a person’s health condition or functioning.
user
9 months ago
achileas
9 months ago
No, doping is a specific set of techniques that use proteins (EPO) or specially extracted blood to boost the red blood cell count in the blood, increasing oxygen carrying capacity.
Anything else is just marketing.
user
9 months ago
Spooky23
9 months ago
Totally agree. At the end of the day, if you’re not running naked and barefoot, your clothing and shoes affect your performance. I wear fancy expensive socks that prevent blistering. Is that cheating because I’m not suffering on a long run? Is wearing a brace to avoid injury cheating?
The way I see it, if your shoes are supporting your biomechanics in a way that optimizes energy and prevents injury, that is both fine and should be encouraged. I run, my nephew is a track athlete, my son plays football. Injury is a huge barrier to performance and a good experience… anything that avoids it is good.
maxglute
9 months ago
Athletic orgs can regulate what level of technologic advantage to allow, i.e. FINA banning shark suit for swimming and eventually regulating what level of tech suit assistence is allowed. High level athletes frequently spend a few 100-1000s dollars on new/fresh equipment without diminished performance (lots of performance fabrics foams), which feels pretty unfair when it comes to global competition. I love equipment porn, but TBH I think they should be limited to training (i.e. enable more sessions / prevent injury), but requirements for competition should be as barefoot / naked as possible.
Doping is this context is just introducing something exogenous to enhance properties/performance, like drugs or industrial process. It seems apt, if anything people should embrace usage more, I like doping my food with spices.
kjkjadksj
9 months ago
Usually this happens when the marketing departments are involved with the sport and want to keep that up. No one wants to end up like baseball with the same old wooden bat and ball. You want to market like golf. Have the pros hit the brand new marketing dept named driver every year that sells for $600. Never mind the effect on the rest of the sport when equipment iterates unchecked like this until it hits some breaking factor elsewhere.
cjpearson
9 months ago
Any high level athlete wills try to optimize their equipment and baseball is no exception here. They've tweaked sizes, weight and wood types in bats to try and gain a performance advantage. Maple bats were non-existent until the late 90s and now are now used by the vast majority. The axe-handled bat has also become popular in recent years.
Balls are chosen by the league rather than the players, but these have changed too in recent years. It's not clear if these changes were accidental, or intentionally designed to increase scoring.
Of course none of these equipment adjustments are going to turn your beer league slugger into Babe Ruth, but they're probably in that same ~4% improvement ballpark that super shoes offer.
AStonesThrow
9 months ago
I began to think about various things that are called "doping", including a process to treat fabric-covered aircraft.
It turns out that there are many kinds of "doping" and even an article on the supposedly mythical practice of "abortion doping", so there you go.
xg15
9 months ago
Ok, but on the other hand, if the only way to compete in professional sports is to have the research team of a megacorp behind you, several million in the bank and contort your body in ways that are unhealthy and completely impractical for everyday life, what is even the point? Like, what would the winner of the competition actually represent?
Admittedly, shoes don't pass the third point as you can just step out of them after the competition, even if they were unhealthy. But still - if extremely optimized hi-tech running shoes are allowed, why not go one step further and add motorized rollers? Where would be the difference?
(This is an actual issue in biking, btw. You could also ask why relentlessly optimizing your bike for low weight and air resistance is allowed, but adding hidden motors is not)
l1tany11
9 months ago
The reason is the same reason these issues come up in Motorsports. In reality, technology matters. And sponsors (Nike, Pirelli, etc) are attracted to the sport in part for that reason. Sports don’t exist at the level they do without sponsors. So it’s a synergistic thing. The governing body has to come up with rules, and try to enforce them.
Why don’t they use recumbent bikes at the Tour? They are way faster, way more aerodynamic. But the rules prohibit it because bike companies think (almost certainly correctly) that they won’t sell like normal bikes due to the myriad issues with them.
People may think that something as simple as running is “pure” but they are just uninformed. Aerodynamic skin suits are useful in running (and have been used to win gold at the Olympics).
cjpearson
9 months ago
Most competitions will only allow runners to use publicly available shoes. The idea being that if you want the best shoes you still need to spend a couple hundred dollars, but you don't need the research team or megacorp to make a custom shoe for you.
Konnstann
9 months ago
I thought cycling competitions have a minimum weight/aero limit specifically to prevent people from buying their way to better times past a certain point? Is that not the case?
xg15
9 months ago
Ah, that's possible. Also only read about the "motor doping" incidents in some articles.