Technological doping

Technological doping loosely refers to instances when technology enhances an athlete’s performance beyond their natural capabilities, potentially giving them an unfair advantage over other competitors in a sporting event. Specifically, it refers to the use of "performance enhancing" sports equipment (sports equipment, footwear, clothing, prosthetics). The definition varies according to the individual sport, but it is officially recognized as a concern by the World Anti-Doping Agency. The lack of a universal description also creates a gray zone and debate over whether advancements in sports technology can ultimately threaten the integrity of a sport.

Within the world of sports, there are many standards set for sports equipment. Whether it is soccer ball weight, baseball bat material or tennis racquet length, these standards are set to prevent unfair advantages between competitors.  Back in 2006, the World Anti-Doping Agency started a dialogue about the impacts of "technology doping" as allegations of unfair competitive advantage across the sports world were reported. The issue is since been recognized as a potential threat to many types of sport that employ individual equipment, kit or personal devices.  

When an athlete is able to use a brand-new technology to perform better, especially when personal records are repeatedly broken, the question of technological doping comes into play. Currently, swimwear, sports equipment, apparel and footwear are under scrutiny by the sports authorities and cited as being examples of technology doping.

Swimwear: In the 2008 Olympic Games, athletes wearing Speedo LZR Racer hi-tech swimsuits developed in collaboration with NASA broke 23 out of 25 world records. The suits compresses the body, trap air for buoyancy and allow better oxygen flow to muscles. They were swiftly banned from professional competition by the governing body, FINA, after the Olympics.

Sports Equipment: One of the biggest technological doping scandals happened in 2016, when a Belgian pro cyclo-cross rider, Femke Van den Driessche was accused of having a hidden motor in the frame of her bike. This was not the first time that "mechanical doping", or ‘technological fraud’ as the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) defines it, was suspected. Back in 2010, the Swiss pro-cyclist, Fabian Cancellara (winner of the Tour de France that year) was accused of planting a motor in his bike after he overtook another cyclist on a climb during the Tour of Flanders. He denied the allegations and no charges were brought against him. In contrast to other examples of technological doping, "mechanical doping" is unique in the fact that it carries an intention to cheat and to hide that cheating.

Apparel: Ionized sports apparel -- notably Ionx, a brand of clothing created by the New Zealand firm, Canterbury -- "delivers ionized energy to the body through a negatively charged electromagnetic field present in the fabric, which stimulates blood flow, increases efficiency and power and speeds up recovery time". It is claimed that athletes using this technology will see an increase in speed, stamina and strength by 2.7%. Although many critics argue that this is a form of technological doping, a 2.7% improvement is low enough to not be considered a threat by the governing sports authorities. 

Footwear: The Nike Vaporfly 4% (there are many other iterations) became an international sensation in 2019 when Kenyan, Eliud Kipchoge, broke the two-hour marathon barrier, finishing the 26.2 mile (ca. 42 km) race in 1:59:40. The shoes contain a thin carbon fibre plate integrated within a midsole composed of highly compressible, resilient and flexible plastic. Many other male and female competitive runners have broken their personal records since the introduction of this shoe technology that some say acts as spring. However, as of 2020 these shoes have not been banned (although there was a freeze on any other new shoe technology before the 2020 Tokyo Olympics).