To Ban or Not to Ban: The Case of Nike Vaporfly Shoes

Word Count: 4, 215

SRE 708

Jay Michael L. Cordero

Student number: 0787452
3rd Cohort
Master of Arts in Sports Ethics and Integrity (MAiSI)
1. Introduction

Recently, the World Athletics, formerly known as the IAAF, has to deal with the problem of

deciding whether to ban or accept a technological innovation in the running shoe. The said

technological innovation refers to Nike’s Vaporfly shoes, which has been the center of

controversy due to the fact that world records in marathon running were broken by runners

wearing the shoe. Hence, in this paper, I discuss the different ethical considerations and

arguments that the World Athletics should consider in deciding whether or not to ban the

aforementioned shoe equipment. In particular, I would argue that considerations of fairness and

the meaning and purpose of a particular sport are the most important factors to take into account

in making such a decision.

The paper is structured as follows. First, I will provide a brief background and information,

including relevant biomechanical findings, on the Nike Vaporfly shoes, as well as recent

achievements in marathon running that have partly been attributed to the equipment. Second, I

will discuss the argument from fairness and equal opportunity as one of the main ethical

considerations for accepting or rejecting the technology. Third, I will discuss the importance of

considering the impact of the technology on the nature, meaning and purpose of the sport. In the

discussion, I will refer to examples of equipment in other sports that have been rejected or

embraced on the ground that they have altered or deviated from the nature and point of the sport.

I argue that these examples could provide insights as regards the case of the Nike Vaporfly

shoes. In the last section, I will provide a concluding remark.

2. The Nike Vapor Fly Shoes

Introduced in 2017, the Nike Vaporfly shoe has been scrutinized and has become the center of

controversy when marathon runners Eliud Kipchoge and Brigid Kosgei set world records using

the shoes. Kipchoge was wearing the Nike VaporflyNext% when he broke the marathon world

record during the 2018 Berlin Marathon with a time of 2:01:39 (Hunter et al., 2019). During the

2019 London Marathon, he was also wearing the VaporFlyNext% shoe when he won the race

with a time of 2:02:37, the second-fastest marathon time in history (Keh, 2019). On other hand,

his fellow Kenyan runner, Brigid Kosgei, also used the Nike Vaporfly shoes when she set a

world record at 2:14:04 during the 2019 Chicago Marathon, breaking Paula Radcliffe’s marathon

world record of 2:15:25, which had stood since 2003 (Futterman and Minsberg, 2019). Further

evidence of the superiority of the Nike Vaporfly shoes is the fact that the five-fastest marathons

in history have been run by men wearing the VaporFlyNext% shoes (Novy-Williams, 2019). It

also turns out that Kipchoge and Kosgei were not the first ones to succeed using Nike Vaporfly

shoes. Hutchinson (2018) claims that during the 2016 Olympic marathon the top three finishers

in men’s category, as well as the gold medalist in women’s category, were wearing a disguised

prototype of what is later known as the Nike Vaporfly shoes.

Is the shoe really superior to other running shoes? Several tests and studies have been conducted

to find out the truth of this and claim and to what extent in case there is any. The most

authoritative and widely cited study is the one conducted by Hogkamer et al. in 2018. Comparing

the Vaporfly shoes with other popular and leading running shoes, namely the Nike Zoom Streak

6 and the Adidas Adios BOOST 2, the researchers concluded that the Vaporfly shoe is superior

since it significantly reduces the energetic cost of running by 4% on average, which means that

the runner saves 4% in running energy. In a replicated study by Hunter et al. in 2019, the results

corroborated the findings of the earlier research that the Vaporfly shoe improved running
economy compared with other leading shoes at 4.44 m/s. Improvement in running economy is

tied to improvement in running times. When running economy improves, metabolic costs also

decrease as well as oxygen uptake, which results in improved performance times (Hunter et

al.,2019). Moreover, in a study conducted by The New York Times in which the results from over

a million marathons and half marathons combined since 2014 were compared, the findings reveal

that the runner wearing Vaporfly shoe “ran 4 to 5 per cent faster than a runner wearing an

average shoe, and 2 to 3 per cent faster than runners in the next-fastest popular shoe” (Quealy

and Katz 2019). The results of these studies provide enough evidence of the superiority of the

Vaporfly shoe.

3. Unfair advantage and fairness: Should the Shoe be Banned?

Having provided a background on the Vaporfly shoe in the previous section, I discuss in this

section the concept of unfair advantage and equal opportunity, specifically what kind of

advantage the shoe confers and whether such advantage is distinct from other advantages in sport

to be considered as unfair. Thinking through the concept of advantage, un/fairness and equal

opportunity will help us evaluate and decide whether to ban or permit certain technological

equipment or innovation, in this case, the Nike Vaporfly shoes.

3.1 The concept of advantage

In a moment, we will discuss in what ways the shoe is considered to be an unfair advantage. But

before turning to the concept of unfair advantage, let’s take up a prior question: What does

advantage in sport mean?

Advantages in sport, according to Hämäläinen (2012) is a “relationship of superiority” that can

be classified into performance advantage and property advantage. In sports competitions, athletic
performances are compared by assigning numbers representing the performance. In basketball,

for instance, each team’s performance is represented by a score, say Team A has 50 points while

Team B has 60 points. The points represent the performance of the team. The team which has the

higher performance number, or is leading in terms of points, is the one that has a performance

advantage. As we can see, performance advantage is only possible once the competition has

started.

The most relevant concept of advantage for our discussion, however, is the concept of Property

Advantage, defined as “A has an advantage over B in property X if A has a more favourable

amount of this property X than B does” (Hämäläinen, 2012, p. 317) Properties refer to “any kind

of matter that has an impact on athletic performance” (Hämäläinen, 2012, p. 317) and is divided

into properties of the competing parties and properties of the competing environment. The

former, according to Hämäläinen, can include the following: testosterone, muscle structure,

eyesight, capability to digest carbohydrates, motoric skills, capability to resist pain and tactical

eye. Examples for the latter, on the other hand, include “shoe grip, tail wind, sunshine angle, the

surface of the playing field, spectators and training facilities” (Hämäläinen, 2012, p. 317). In

general, the latter refers to the athlete’s sports equipment and training facilities or environment.

Following Hämäläinen’s classification and by logical extension, we can say that the shoe, as a

sport equipment is a property of the competing environment. Moreover, the shoe can be

considered as a property advantage in so far as it has an impact on athletic performance and

contributes to having performance advantage. But in what way can an athlete wearing a Nike

Vaporfly shoe is considered to have property advantage over others? The favourable amount in

this context refers to the energy efficiency of the shoes. The athlete wearing the Nike VaporFly

shoe has a property advantage in competition environment since the shoe is more energy
efficient by reducing the economic cost of running, thereby providing at least 4% improvement

in running speed.

3.2 When is an advantage unfair?

So far, the concept of advantage in sport is clear and we have established that the Vaporfly shoe

is considered as a property advantage, specifically as a property of the competing environment.

The next consideration is why the advantage conferred by the shoe considered as an unfair

advantage. When is an advantage unfair?

One of the main considerations in permitting or rejecting a piece of technological equipment or

innovation is the argument from unfair advantage. It is widely accepted that anything which

confers unfair advantage must be eliminated or compensated. However what counts as an unfair

advantage in sports? For instance, athletes do not start at a perfectly level playing field since no

athlete is identical to each other. In fact, it is claimed that a perfectly level playing field is “a

piece of folk psychology” (Camporesi and McNamee, 2018, p.137). They claim although it is a

useful heuristic device, it is a metaphor that must not be taken too seriously in policies. Every

athlete possesses a certain type or degree of advantage due to biological or physical composition.

One athlete, for instance, is taller or muscular than the other or has greater tolerance to pain.

Also, some have an advantage in terms of access to resources and technology, such as being able

to train with top coaches and having access to modern training facilities. Others also have the

advantage provided by geographical location, which provides a better opportunity to train.

3.3 Fairness in access and equality of opportunity

Despite the differences and inequalities that exist in sports, sport aims to level the playing field

and eliminate unfair advantages that boost an athlete’s performance. The problem, however, is

what advantages are unfair and ought to be eliminated. Jones and Wilson (2009) note that

advantage in sport may be considered as unfair if such advantage is not equally available to all

competitors. This argument is often advanced by those supporters of anti-doping who claim that

athletes who use performance-enhancing drugs are obtaining an unfair advantage over others

who are not using them.

In order to understand why fairness in access and equal opportunity are of paramount in sport we

need to understand the purpose and aim of sporting competition. The goal of a sport competition,

according to Sigmund Loland (2002) is to “measure, compare and rank two or more participants

according to athletic performance” (p.44). Valid and reliable measurement of performance,

however, is pre-requisite to make accurate comparison and ranking of participants. To achieve

this goal, Loland claims, standardization of equipment and equal opportunity are essential

conditions. Of course, standardization does not require that equipment must be identical, at the

very least they must have the same basic features and quality. Moreover, to achieve the goal of

the competition, it is essential that non-relevant inequalities must be eliminated or compensated,

particularly those that are not part of athletic performance.

Access to technology or technological equipment, Loland argues (2002), is one of the non-

relevant factors that affect athletic performance that ought to be eliminated or compensated.

Sport is about athletic performance, not technological performance. In sports, technical and

technological innovations should not trump the athlete’s talent and skills. Inequalities in system

strength such as access to resources, according to Loland, must be eliminated or compensated

from a moral perspective. Such inequality is a non-relevant factor in sporting competition. Sport,
running marathon and sprint specifically, measure athletic performance based on talent,

dedication and hard work, not according to who has access to the best technology. Loland (2002)

argues that technology and resources that are not equally accessible to all and at the same “exert

significant and systematic influence on athletic performance” (p.65) must be eliminated,

compensated or regulated by being standardized. Following Loland’s claims, I argue that the

Nike Vaporly fly shoes, which improve running economy and efficiency by 4%, must be

regulated and standardized. Otherwise, the “systematic and significant influence” of the

technology on athletic performance could be considered as an unfair advantage. The outcome of

a sporting competition must never be decided by access to technology, but by the athlete’s

athletic ability.

However, it could be argued that sport does not totally eliminate advantages due to inequality in

resources. As pointed out earlier, some advantages and inequalities that appear to be unfair are

tolerated in sports, such as financial and technological resources. In what ways can the advantage

conferred by Vaporfly shoe be considered different from other advantages that are tolerated and

condoned in sports?

First, the advantage provided by the shoe is decisive in the sense that several lab tests with

corroborating findings established that indeed the shoes improve running efficiency by 4%. This

improvement in time could be the difference between the first and the last runner in a

competition. It can also be said that in a tight race between two athletes of the same ability,

where the difference is mere milliseconds, the advantage due to technology can make a crucial

difference and may even account for the outcome. It could even account on one’s chances of

qualifying in a marathon. Kara Goucher, for instance, failed to qualify for the 2016 Olympic

team by one spot because she was 65 seconds behind. Had she worn the Nike Vaporfly shoes,
which is believed could have reduced her running time by 65 seconds or two minutes, she could

have made it to the Olympic team (Novy-Williams, 2019).

Second, the advantage that one derives from the shoe directly affects or impacts the performance.

Whereas other technological equipments used in training and preparation do not directly

contribute and affect the actual performance of the athlete, the impact of a Nike Vaporfly shoe

on running performance is apparent and distinct. An analogy between a school examination and

athletic competition can be helpful to illustrate the case. Lenk (2007) compares the use of

enhancing technology in sport competition with the use of aids in an exam that directly answers

the question. All students during an exam, according to Lenk, may be permitted and are given

the equal opportunity to use pocket calculators, but they are not allowed to use learning aids that

directly answer the question, for it would make the written exam worthless. Similarly, during a

sports competition, all runners are permitted to use a running shoe, which they could also choose

to dismiss if they wish to, in order to have equality of opportunity. Moreover, they are also

allowed to use all available and allowable means during their preparation. However, they are not

permitted to use a technical aid that directly enhances their performance during competition for it

would make the competition worthless. Hence, along with the magnitude of advantage one could

derive from the Vaporfly shoe, the fact that the shoe directly boosts one’s performance means it

is neither a “modest inequality” (Murray, 2018) nor a “tolerable unfairness” (Devine, 2019).

Finally, inequalities in system support such as access to training and coaching facilities are still

considered as irrelevant inequalities in sports competition. A possible explanation, according to

Loland (2014), why there seems to be no common agreement to eliminate and compensate for

these types of inequalities is partly because this has become part of the “emerging ethos in elite

sports (p.103).” However, as not all ethos in sports can be morally justified, from a moral
perspective, inequalities in financial, technological and scientific resources must be compensated

or eliminated. Moreover, while it might be far from reality to compensate for all system

inequalities, in cases where it is possible to compensate or eliminate non-relevant inequalities

that confer significant advantage and could potentially affect the outcome of the competition, it

is imperative that sports federations must do so.

Other arguments concerning unfair advantage when examined are actually about fairness in

access and equal opportunity. For instance, the argument that the Vaporfly shoe is unfair because

it constitutes technical doping is not totally different from the fairness in access and equal

opportunity argument. Once a certain technology is made available to anyone, it ceases to be a

form of technological doping. Hence, technological doping is considered as unfair because in the

first place the technology is not equally available to all. The argument about the purity of sport,

is also partly about fairness and equal access. Guttman (2002) argues that once the advantages

provided by the technology is made available to all, the technology is no longer seen as violating

the purity of the sport.

To conclude this section, I argue that as long as the World Athletics ensures that other shoe

companies are given enough time to manufacture their version of the shoe and that the

Vaporflyshoe is made available in the commercial market to all athletes, the problem of unfair

advantage can be addressed. This is the reason that the IAAF rules state that a shoe introduced

after April 30 cannot be used for the competition unless it is available in the open retail market

for at least four months before the competition (World Athletics, 2020). However, although it

could be argued that not all athletes have equal access because of their exclusive contracts with

other shoe companies, strictly, speaking this is not a compelling argument since it is enough that
the shoes must be commercially available to everyone. Also, the shoes could be made available

to all athletes were they choose to rescind on their contracts.

4. Technology, Nature and Purpose of Sport

Some technological equipment and innovations in sport were rejected not only based on unfair

advantage, which can be easily addressed by making the equipment accessible and available to

everyone. Controversies concerning technology could have been easily resolved if they were all

about equal opportunities. However, a much complicated and problematic issue concerns the

negative impact of technology on human performance and to the game itself. In this section, I

discuss that certain technological innovations were rejected because they deviated from the point

and purpose of the sport by compromising the athletic challenge of the game. Insights from these

cases could enlighten us in the case of Nike Vaporfly shoe.

Some technological innovations in sport that promotes efficiency are rejected while some are

embraced as legitimate innovations. Pole vaulting, for instance, accepted technological

innovation by allowing athletes to use fibreglass poles instead of bamboo or metal poles,

although the fibreglass poles enabled the athletes to leap higher. Swimming, on the other hand,

banned the use of whole-body fast-skin swimsuit as technological equipment. These examples

show that “sport has an ambivalent relationship with technologies” (Murray, 2018, p. xiii), and

deciding whether to accept or reject a certain technology requires one to look at the values,

purpose and meaning of each sport. Often times the rules of a sport reflect what a particular sport

is all about and what it aims to test and therefore serves as a guide as to what technological

innovation is acceptable.
Looking at the history of different sport, we can see that most often technological innovations

that alter the athletic challenge and nature of the game through de-skilling are rejected by the

authorities of that particular sport. The example of Speedo’s LZR racer swimsuit, also known as

a fast-skin swimsuit, is a case in point. Introduced by Speedo in 1999, the fast-skin swimsuit was

designed to model a shark’s skin. With the use of the swimsuit, swimmers broke 130 world

records in swimming in the first seventeen months since the suit was introduced (Craik, 2011).

During the 2008 Beijing Olympics, several records were also broken by swimmers in the LZR

suit. With these surprising events, sports authorities and athletes look for a possible reason that

could explain athletes’ incredible performance, and the suit worn by the swimmers became the

center of controversy. In 2009, during the FINA Congress, the suit was banned by the swimming

federations (Crouse, 2009). However, although unfair advantage was initially a problem since

the suit was only exclusive to athletes sponsored by speedo, the main issue was that the suit was

deemed to alter the nature of the sport of swimming as well as what the sport is supposed to

reward and value. That is, the suit deviates from the main purpose of the sport by compromising

the challenge posed to test the skills, excellences and technique that are considered essential to

the sport.

In order to point out the specific problem with the suit, a brief idea of the qualities and

characteristics of the suit is necessary. The suit is made of polyurethane and traps small pockets

of air that increases buoyancy. The suit is also hydrophobic and reduces drag by 8% (Barrow,

2012). According to US swimmer Bill Pilczuk, “The whole suit floats you. The more buoyancy

you get, the less you have to pull through the water” (Craik, 2011). He also claims that suit

benefits people with more muscle as it can help them to float better. These characteristics of the

suit according to Murray (2018) threatens and alters the skills and excellences that are valuable
in swimming. He writes, “swimming was now rewarding muscled, stocky athletes who paddled

on top of the water rather than sleek bodies slicing through it (p.44).” If swimming considers the

athletes’ skills of overcoming the drag and friction in the water as part of the challenge of the

sport, then wearing a swimsuit that reduces the drag and skin friction is threatening the skill that

the sport is meant to test and reward.

Another technological innovation that was banned is the Polara Ultimate Straight Golf ball,

which was banned by the US States Golf Association (USGA) in 1981. The golf governing body

claimed that the innovative ball makes the game of golf too easy by flying straight regardless of

how one hits the ball. The ball reduced flight deviation due to slice and hook. It is claimed that

the crucial skill in golf is one’s ability to strike the ball squarely so that it flies true instead of

hooking or slicing (Murray, 2018, p. 37). Excellence in the sport of golf consists of perfecting

this skill, but the Polara golf ball, according to Hardman (2014), “eliminates the essential

challenge of being able to control the flight of the ball due to one’s own efforts” (p.289). Another

innovation in technology that sport of golf rejected is the used of clubfaces with deep rectangular

grooves, which is believed to improve one’s “ability to hit controlled shots out of the tall grass

growing in the ‘rough’ surrounding the trimmed fairway” (Murray, 2018, p. 37).). Golf

authorities claimed that hitting out of the rough surrounding is more difficult. Hence, they

rejected the innovative clubs because they believe that golf is “supposed to be harder” (Murray,

2018, p.37. Italics as in original)

What insights can we draw from these examples in relation to the Vaporfly shoes? The cases of

LZR swimsuit and Polara golf balls illustrate that sport does not always welcome innovative

technologies on the ground that they alter the nature of the sport by making it easier than it is

supposed to be, thereby undermining the challenges and skills that the particular sport is
designed to test. In sport’s literature, this is referred to as de-skilling, downgrading the level of

skill necessary to perform a specific job (Sheridan, 2006). De-skilling is also charged with

violating the purity of sport. The level of de-skilling in a particular sport contributes to the

alteration of challenges and skills a particular sport is meant to test. The swimsuits were suspect

when they change the skills in swimming to the extent that it becomes questionable whether the

swimmers are performing the same activity or when the less talented swimmers are overtaking

the talented and hardworking swimmers. De-skilling in running could refer to how an innovation

in a particular sport equipment allows an athlete to perform skills in running more easily. In

marathon running, for instance, this could mean that more marathoners could run a sub-two-hour

marathon, which has never been achieved using shoes other than the Vaporfly.

However, just as swimming faster in a fast-skin swimsuit does not mean swimming better,

running faster in Vaporfly shoe might not also mean running better. Even though one can run the

marathon under 2 hours due to Vaporfly shoe, one can dispute whether it constitutes an

improvement in performance. This is the reason that there was disagreement on whether

swimming records broken by athletes wearing the LZR suit had to be marked with an asterisk,

signifying a somewhat dubious performance (Brenkus, 2010). Similarly, in the 1980s when

carbon fibre bikes that were lighter and stiffer were introduced, they greatly enhanced the

performance of the cyclists. But the Union Cyclist Internationale (UCI) did not consider this as a

real improvement in the athlete’s performance. In fact, the Union referred to the records since

Eddie Merckx in 1972 onwards as “best human effort” rather than “world record” (Haake, 2009,

p.1425-1426). Furthermore, anyone who attempts to break the record following the rule change

should do so using a bike to the ones used in 1972. Hence, World Athletics must consider

whether the Vaporfly shoe technology is consistent with the purpose of the sport and preserves
the artificial challenges meant to test the skills and excellences that the particular sport is meant

to reward and promote. Sports authorities must, therefore, determine if the Vaporfly shoe,

borrowing Hardman’s (2014) words “constitutes a technological regression rather than a

progression (p.291).

5. Conclusion

This paper argues that two important considerations must be taken into account in accepting or

rejecting a technological innovation, specifically the Nike Vaporfly shoes. The first

consideration is fairness and equal opportunity. World Athletics must ensure that the Vaporfly

shoe is commercially available to all athletes and that other shoe companies can produce their

own version of the shoe for athletes that they sponsor. The affordability of the shoe must also

allow for equal opportunity and access. However, the most challenging consideration for the

World Athletics is to establish that the shoe does not deviate or undermine the traditional skills,

talent and challenges that are essential to the sport. Otherwise, sports authorities in athletics

might find itself facing the same problem encountered by the authorities in swimming when they

allowed the use of the fast-skin swimsuit only to be banned later, resulting to subsequent

swimmers competing for world records against swimmers in a fast-skin swimsuit.

References
Barrow, J. D. (2012, Jul 25). Why ban full-body olympics swimsuits? A scientist explains
polyurethane. The Daily Beast. Retrieved from https://search-proquest
com.kuleuven.ezproxy.kuleuven.be/docview/1666813053?accountid=17215
Brenkus, J. (2010) The perfection point: Predicting the absolute limits of human
performance. HarperCollins.
Camporesi, S., & McNamee, M. (2018). Bioethics, genetics and sport. Routledge.
Craik, J. (2011). The fastskin revolution: from human fish to swimming
androids. Culture Unbound: Journal of Current Cultural Research, 3(1), 71-82.
 Crouse, K. (2009, July 24). Swimming bans high-tech suits, Ending an era. New York
Time. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/sports/25swim.html.
Futterman, M., & Minsberg, T. (2019, October 13). Kenya’s Brigid Kosgei breaks
marathon world record. New York Times. Retrieved from
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/13/sports/marathon-world-record.html
Guttmann, A. (2002). The Olympics: A history of the modern games (Vol. 14). University
of Illinois Press.
Hämäläinen, M. (2012). The concept of advantage in sport. Sport, Ethics and Philosophy,
6(3), 308-322, doi: 10.1080/17511321.2011.649360.
Hardman, A. (2014). Sport and Technological Development. In C. Torres (Ed.),
Bloomsbury companion to the philosophy of sport (pp. 279-294). Bloomsbury Publishing.
Hoogkamer, W., Kipp, S., Frank, J. H., Farina, E. M., Luo, G., & Kram, R. (2018). A
comparison of the energetic cost of running in marathon racing shoes. Sports Medicine, 48(4),
1009-1019.
Hunter, I., McLeod, A., Valentine, D., Low, T., Ward, J., & Hager, R. (2019). Running
economy, mechanics, and marathon racing shoes. Journal of Sports Sciences, 37(20), 2367-2373,
doi: 10.1080/02640414.2019.1633837
Hutchinson, A. (2018). Endure: Mind, body, and the curiously elastic limits of human
performance. HarperCollins.
Jones, C., & Wilson, C. (2009). Defining advantage and athletic performance: The case
of Oscar Pistorius. European journal of sport science, 9(2), 125-131, doi:
10.1080/17461390802635483.
Lenk, C. (2007). Is enhancement in sport really unfair? Arguments on the concept of
competition and equality of opportunities. Sports, Ethics and Philosophy, 1(2), 218-228, doi:
10.1080/17511320701425157.
Loland, S. (2002). Fair play in sport: A moral norm system. Psychology Press.
Loland, S. (2014). Fairness and Justice in Sport. In C. Torres (Ed.), Bloomsbury
companion to the philosophy of sport (pp. 98-114). Bloomsbury Publishing.
Keh, A. (2019, October 12). Kipchoge breaks two-hour marathon barrier. The New York
Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/12/sports/eliud-kipchoge-marathon-
record.html.
Novy-Williams, E. (2019). How Nike started a sneaker arms race. Bloomberg
Businessweek, (4637), 16.
Quealy, K., & Katz, J. (2019, December 13). Nike’s fastest shoes may give runners an
even bigger advantage than we thought. Retrieved from New York Time. Retrieved from
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/13/upshot/nike-vaporfly-next-percent-shoe-
estimates.html
 Sheridan, H. (2006). Tennis technologies: de-skilling and re-skilling players and the
implications for the game. Sport in society, 9(1), 32-50.
World Athletics (2020, January 31). World Athletics modifies rules governing
competition shoes for elite athletes. Retrieved from https://www.worldathletics.org/news/press-
releases/modified-rules-shoes