CITIUS, ALTIUS, FORTIUS 1

Citius, Altius, Fortius

Tyler Nolan

Brownsburg High School

CITIUS, ALTIUS, FORTIUS 2

May 6th, 2019

Mrs. Bess,
This essay has been probably one of my best topics to ever write about and I think my
inquiry question had a lot to do with that. I knew if I was not passionate about my topic I would
struggle to stay focused and motivated on working on my essay. I think I found the epitome of
my passion, which is the bridge between engineering and athletics. I stared by asking myself
“How far is too far in terms of athletic equipment?” and “Are records really being broken
because humans are getting better or is it because we are just getting more advanced in our
technology?”
I had to be very cautious about not letting this topic get too broad, as there are many
sports out there and a lot of equipment to accompany them. Following our inquiry question and
claim presentations, I decided to focus in on the Olympics for my scope as they have set
standards for how they operate and the mission they have. Along with this scope came my
audience of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), which governs over the Olympics.
As I completed my research I began to wonder how it was all going to come together to
support my claim but, as I began to write my evidence truly came together and turned out
incredibly strong in my opinion. Most of my evidence is anecdotal and logic bases. For each one
of my points I make I take an instance of controversy around an athletic technology and relate it
to the values of the IOC as outlined by the Olympic Charter. I think this style makes a very
strong point and gives me an extremely knowledgeable and professional tone.
One strategy I employed in this essay was the use of a motif. The story surrounding the
Nike Vaporfly 4% racing shoe is current, controversial, and applicable too many of the points I
make. I am able to relate it back to many of the arguments I make in order to strengthen said
argument. I think it is also very helpful in keeping the audience engaged and connected thought a
longer essay.
In the past, I took things such as selecting an inquiry question, doing lengthy research,
and drafting an outline for granted. They never seemed necessary for me. I would research just
enough and sit down and write my essay all in one sitting. I can understand now how much
stronger my writing can be by investing more time into these things. The fact that I was impartial
to my inquiry question while still interested led me to extensive research. Having more evidence
than I knew what to do with led me to relying on an outline and finally drafting an outline
brought everything together into a piece of work that I am extremely proud of. Also I love the
idea that not all of my researched sources have to be referenced in my writing. I think
researching more than you think you need gives you a better frame of mind when considering
your stance.
If you couldn’t already tell this essay began to border on the side of “passion project” at
times since it was so interesting to me. All of the little stories about tech in sports enthralled me
from the evolution of the javelin to the use of camouflaged suits in the 2014 Olympics. I can
remember pacing around my grandma’s living room as I discussed my argument with my aunt
CITIUS, ALTIUS, FORTIUS 3

(who used to teach senior English at Cathedral High School). As I paced around I would just spit
facts and anecdotes at her to support my side and through that I was able to better formulate
thoughts for what to write. In the same motion I took a step back and realized how excited I was
to finish this essay not because I wanted it off my plate but because I would be so stinkin’ proud
of it! I really hope this essay isn’t just another file in your inbox but rather a break from
monotonous works on overdone topics and when it nets me a job at Nike in a few years I will be
sure to come back and thank you with the first set of shoes I design.

Sincerely,
Tyler Nolan
CITIUS, ALTIUS, FORTIUS 4

Burnton, S. (2012, May 08). 50 stunning Olympic moments No28: Dick Fosbury

introduces 'the flop'. Retrieved from

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2012/may/08/50-stunning-olympic-moments-

dick-fosbury This article is one of a collection of 50 stories of the most memorable

moments in Olympic history. The story Simon Burton covers is the evolution of the high

jump that climaxed with Dick Fosbury winning gold at the 1968 game in Mexico City

with his groundbreaking technique. Burton is a subeditor for the sports category at The

Guardian. His passion for sports and this story as well as the purpose of the article can

cause him to beautify the story at times. Even so, the majority of the piece is pure fact of

the events that took place in the 1986 Olympics as the story itself is beautified enough.

Any bias should be disregarded as I am using this sources as a basis for information in

order to outline the story as a hook in my essay. I will tie in the innovation of Fosbury to

the innovations in sports tech that are present currently.

Caesar, E. (2017, June 30). The Epic Untold Story of Nike's (Almost) Perfect Marathon.

Retrieved February 11, 2019, from https://www.wired.com/story/nike-breaking2-

marathon-eliud-kipchoge/ This article on Nike’s historic Breaking 2 event outlines the

extensive research, training, and preparation that went into attempting to break the mythic

two hour marathon. The author Ed Caesar describes in vivid detail the nervousness of the

early 5:30 AM start line, the intense application of sports science to make a shoe well

worth the controversy, and the bittersweet finish that fell but 25 seconds off the historical

mark. Caesar is a well-known writer who has works published in The New Yorker, The

New York Times, GQ, The Sunday Times, and many other popular news sources. He was

named Journalist of the Year by the Foreign Press in 2014. This piece in WIRED is about
CITIUS, ALTIUS, FORTIUS 5

the same story as his book. Caesar is obviously passionate about this story and may

exaggerate slightly. This source of bias should not be of concern as I will be using this

source to simply paint a picture of the breaking two attempt.

Epstein, D. (2014, March). Are athletes really getting faster, better, stronger? Retrieved February

7, 2019, from

https://www.ted.com/talks/david_epstein_are_athletes_really_getting_faster_better_stron

ger In his TED talk on the advancement of athletes David Epstein talks about cases of

major changes in winning Olympic efforts. These changes are caused by a multitude of

sources including: athlete specialization, changes in technique, and even advancements in

technology. The sports he speaks on range from track to swimming to high jump which

provides me with a range of sports that I have been looking for. His talk is supplemented

by infographics to give a visual representation of just how much our records have

jumped. Epstein is a sports scientist specialist who has published investigative reports on

the world’s greatest athletes for Sports Illustrated. His obvious bias in this case is one that

sides with the greatness of the athletes. He displaces this bias in his talk with bipartisan

takes and a basis on statistics. I will use his talk to create counterarguments on how not

all record breaks are due to advancements in technology.

International Olympic Committee (IOC). (2018). Olympic Charter. Switzerland: International

Olympic Committee. The Olympic Charter is the official document that governs over all

of the Olympic Committee’s actions. I will be focusing in on Rule 46 of the Olympic

Charter as it states the events in the Olympic games are to be governed by their respective
CITIUS, ALTIUS, FORTIUS 6

International Federations. For example, the International Association of Athletics (IAAF)

Federations governs the track and field events. Other federations such as FIFA, FINA,

and FIBA govern their respective sports. The Olympic Committee is a body which

governs an international event, therefore they make extensive efforts as to not take any

bias in any controversy. Regardless a governmental document such as the Olympic

Charter should not be subjected to any sort of bias. My sole intent for this source is to

draw the correlation between Olympic events and the bodies that they are governed by. I

can then look into the rulings of those International Federations in order to look at how

technologies are restricted in their rules.

International Olympic Committee. (2019, April 09). Promote Olympism in Society. Retrieved

April 22, 2019, from https://www.olympic.org/the-ioc/promote-olympism This webpage

on the International Olympic Committee’s official site briefly outlines the basics of

“Olympism” which is basically the values of the Olympic Games. These values range

from ethical agendas such as doping and fairness in competition to political agendas such

as the equality of all peoples and the unification of the globe for the purpose of

celebrating sport. The page has many links to other pages that venture further into what

each value means and how it is being upheld. Above each of these links is a short passage

detailing the further explanation held within the link below. The Olympics are obviously

sided toward the protection of their own values which would grant them a heavy bias.

This bias should be mostly avoided as I likely will not reference this page directly but

rather use it as a clarifying piece for what the IOC stands for which is outlined in the

Olympic Charter using a legal lingo.

CITIUS, ALTIUS, FORTIUS 7

Lee, A. (2017, June 21). Technology Doping in the Olympics: Cheating or Progress? Retrieved

from https://breakingmuscle.com/fitness/technology-doping-in-the-olympics-cheating-or-

progress Breakingmuscle.com is a website created by athletic coaches. The website

contains numerous articles about fitness plans and diets and truly anything remotely

related to athletics. This article in particular describes a few instances of “technology

doping” in modern Olympics. Amber Lee describes the two sides to the tech, which are

that which aids all athletes and that which aids only a select group. Her expertise comes

from her background in technical support combined with her evolution into a CrossFit

athlete and eventually the owner of her own gym in Boston, Massachusetts. There is not

much bias to not in this article. Lee describes the technology and how it could be used to

gain an advantage and concludes with some thought provoking questions for the reader to

consider, but she never reveals her stance on the subject. This article will serve as my

source when describing technology used in the 2014 Olympics Games in Sochi.

Lee, J. B., Mellifont, R. B., Burkett, B. J., & James, D. A. (2013). Detection of illegal

racewalking: a tool to assist coaching and judging. Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 13(12),

16065-74. doi:10.3390/s131216065 This research document looks at a tool that would be

able to detect a violation of the rules of racewalking. The document is purely a look into

the device that was created and its effectiveness at correctly detecting a violation of the

rules. The device they created is used to detect a violation of the two main rules of

racewalking. These rules are: the athlete is to have one foot on the ground at all times and

the athlete is to have their front leg full extended as it comes into contact with the ground.

The authors of this document are a collection of sports science professors from a variety

of universities. The only potential bias may be one that argues sensors should be used to
CITIUS, ALTIUS, FORTIUS 8

officiate racewalking competitions. The research is primarily data driven however

meaning a source of bias should be uprooted. I intend to use this document as I describe

the conundrum that surrounds the sport of racewalking.

Minutephysics. (2012, September 21). Is Racewalking a Sport? Retrieved from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTfm03T3VAE This YouTube video gives a brief

overview on the sport of racewalking. In the video the Henry Reich, the creator and

narrator of Minutephysics gives a crash course on the rules of racewalking. He then

follows up his explanation with a particular issue that is know to baffle the world of

racewalking. This issue is the fact that just about every athlete that competes in

racewalking can be seen to be breaking the rules in still frame photos or slow motion

video. Meanwhile the competition is judged by officials standing alongside the course.

The judges are not permitted to use any aid to make their calls on any particular athlete.

This leaves to question the very integrity of the sport. Reich, the creator of

Minutephysics, makes videos to explain certain things, that are usually physics related, in

a simple yet effective way. He shouldn’t have any bias on this topic as he is relatively

disconnected from it. I plan on using this source to explain the sport and issue of

racewalking.

Olympic. (2018, April 01). How One Man Changed the High Jump Forever | The Olympics on

the Record. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZsH46Ek2ao This

video by the Olympics official YouTube page is on Dick Fosbury’s performance in the

1968 Summer Olympics in Mexico City. The video discusses Fosbury’s rise to glory

through the use of his “Fosbury Flop” which proves superior in willing athletes over the
CITIUS, ALTIUS, FORTIUS 9

bar in the high jump. The Olympics YouTube page would have a bias gearing toward the

protection of the Olympic values yet this bias should not come into play, as this is simply

an anecdotal video. This video will supplement my knowledge when outlining the story

of Dick Fosbury in my outline. This story will serve as the hook for my essay as it is

interesting and can connect to my essay.

Smith, R. (2008, June 2). Engineering in Sports: Cycling 1 Hour World Record. Retrieved March

1, 2019, from https://www.symscape.com/blog/engineering-in-sports-cycling-1-hour-

world-record This blog post from Symscape tells the story of how engineering has

dropped the times of the one hour cycling world record. The post discusses how the use

of different bicycles and even the use of a recumbent riding position was effective in

decreasing atmospheric drag and aiding the athletes in riding faster and thereby further.

The actions taken by the governing bodies due to the innovations are also discussed.

Symscape is a fluid dynamics software developed in part by Richard Smith who is also

the author of this blog post. Smith’s posts are about connections between fluid dynamics

and real world applications of it. He has no real bias toward the subject I am writing on.

He simply tells the story of the evolution of cycling and how it relates to fluid dynamics.

I plan to use this source when making a concession on what action should be made when

a certain technology is extremely desired by the community.

Smith, R. (2009, July 27). Swimsuits Banned as 'Technology Doping'. Retrieved March 1, 2019,

from https://www.symscape.com/blog/swimsuit-banned-as-technology-doping This is

another blog post from Richard Smith, fluid dynamics expert. In this particular post

Smith talks about how the Speedo LZR Racer suit was able to give athletes a competitive

edge in the 2008 Summer Olympic Games in Beijing. The three advantages it gave are
CITIUS, ALTIUS, FORTIUS 10

outlined by Smith as, flotation from trapped air pockets, the compression of the

swimmer’s body into a more streamlined shape, and reduced drag from a textured surface

similar to that of a shark’s skin. As previously stated, Smith is a fluid dynamics expert

who posts periodically on this website for his fluid dynamics software. Once again, Smith

shows no real bias in this blog post given his background and neutral stance. This post

will be used as a source for information on the case of the Speedo LZR Racer suit and

how it violated the values of the IOC. This source was also useful as it contained links to

other articles which had pertinent information.

Yachtingnut, Sean. (2012, September 21). The Story of the Javelin- Bringing it Back Down to

Earth. Retrieved March 1, 2019, from https://engineeringsport.co.uk/2012/09/21/the-

story-of-the-javelin-bringing-it-back-down-to-earth/ This article from The Center for

Sports Engineering Research in the United Kingdom describes the actions taken by the

Olympics regarding the javelin throw. The article outlines the risk factors of the previous

design. These factors included the javelin flying too far and threatening to hit spectators

and how the flat landing of the projectile would be cause for arguments as discrepancies

on if the throw should count would arise. The article then goes on to describe how simply

moving the center of mass of the javelin solved both of these problems. The author, Sean

Yachtingnut, has maintained interests with many sports including cycling, archery, and

golf and has also graduated from Sheffield Hallam University in England with a degree in

Electrical Engineering. His interest for sports drove him to joining the Center for Sports

Engineering Research. His bias is not present in this article as he simply outlines the

physics of the javelin throw and how it was altered with the rule change. I plan to use this
CITIUS, ALTIUS, FORTIUS 11

source to describe a time in which the IOC sacrificed athletic performance in order to

maintain one of its core values.

CITIUS, ALTIUS, FORTIUS 12

What if I told you that the best athletes were no match for the greatest engineers? That

brain would be stronger brawn? That defying gravity was best done backward? What if I told

you that raising the bar wasn't a physical exercise, but a mental one? What if I told you that all it

took was an outside thinker to revolutionize a sport? And that the last to qualify would be the

first to finish?

1968, Mexico City. The games of the XIX Olympiad marked a new era for the sport of

high jump (Burton, 2012). At the time, the competition was divided over various techniques of

getting over the bar (Olympic, 2018). The two most popular techniques were “The Western Roll”

where athletes would fly over the bar sideways flicking their legs over and “The Scissor Kick” in

which the jumper would jump up and kick each leg over the bar in a sideways hurdle (Olympic,

2018). The debate on the best way to jump persisted for a long time until along came a gangly

engineering student from Oregon: Dick Fosbury (Olympic, 2018). Even though his coaches

encouraged him to follow suit with the techniques at the time, Fosbury had not perfected either

(Burnton, 2012). Besides, Fosbury’s knowledge of kinetics from his engineering studies enabled

him to envision a new approach to jumping (Olympic, 2018). Fosbury would run to the bar, and

as he leaped, he would arch his back over the bar and flop over it flying backward (Olympic,

2018). Bending backward effectively brought his body above his center of gravity, keeping his

center mass below the bar even as his body flew over. (Olympic, 2018).

Fosbury was an underdog going into the 1968 games as he was ranked 61st in the world

and the last American to qualify, but as the bar moved to 7ft 4in, only two Americans remained:

Fosbury and Ed Caruthers (Olympic, 2018 and Burnton, 2012). Caruthers knocked the bar off his

attempt, but as Fosbury bounded toward the bar, he leaped up and cleared it, setting a new

Olympic record and earning himself a gold medal (Olympic, 2017 and Burnton, 2012). From
CITIUS, ALTIUS, FORTIUS 13

then on the “Fosbury Flop” was the only way to fly (Olympic, 2018). Other athletes quickly

picked up the technique, and to this day other methods of jumping are rarely seen (Olympic,

2018).

Dick Fosbury's outrageous form was a massive innovation in the high jump; this was one

of many changes in mindset or approach to have an impact on human performance. For example,

changes in coaching mindset have led to the specialization of athletes for particular sports: the

tallest for basketball vs. the smallest for gymnastics and the lightest for running vs. the heaviest

for wrestling (Epstein, 2014). While massive breakthroughs in physiological advancements are

currently scarce, the advancement of athletic performance technology is ever-present. Engineers

are continually pushing technology in pursuit of the Olympic motto: “Citius, Altius, Fortius”—

Latin for “Faster, Higher, Stronger.” It seems though, that there are times where technology

pushes too far. As equipment becomes increasingly advanced, questions arise:What is the limit?

Where must the line be drawn? The line between technological advancement and technological

doping is vague, with each individual advancement calling for an individual decision. The

International Olympic Committee must begin to expel specific athletic equipment in order to

prevent the growing ubiquity of performance technology advancement from overshadowing the

values of Olympism and the Olympic Spirit that they strive to uphold. Without strict

enforcement of this standard, the Olympic Games could begin to fall from the stature that the

IOC has been created to upkeep.

The Olympic Games have been a symbol of human physical excellence since the days of

Ancient Greece. In order to maintain this symbolism, the International Olympic Committee

(IOC) has been created to create the guidelines by which the Olympics are carried out (IOC,

2018). The Olympic Charter outlines these guidelines, providing "the codification of the
CITIUS, ALTIUS, FORTIUS 14

Fundamental Principles of Olympism" (IOC, 2018). The "Fundamental Principles of Olympism"

are the core values on which the Olympics are based. These core values include upholding the

competitive nature of sport, using sport as a center point for moral development, and the

assurance of fairness for all people regardless of race, color, sex, etc. (IOC, 2018). These values

are essential to keep in mind when considering the standard by which the committee should

judge technologies.

Athletes in every sport push themselves for every inch and millisecond in their

competition. A one percent improvement in performance may seem meaningless; however, one

year’s work for one percent better seems completely worthwhile for the world's greatest athletes.

What about a four percent increase in performance? The cost is relatively small while the

potential benefits seem staggering in the case of the new Nike Vaporfly 4% marathon racing

shoes. In the summer of 2014, the researchers at Nike's world headquarters set their eyes on

sending a man further, faster than ever had before: 26.2 miles in 1:59:59 or less (Caesar, 2017).

The feat would need two critical components: the world's best marathon runner and the world's

fastest shoe. Nike spent three years creating a shoe that featured a lightweight foam for shock

absorption and energy return, a rigid sole shape designed to make every step feel like a downhill

slope, and a carbon fiber plate embedded beneath the insole to amplify the spring-like element of

the human foot in every stride. When compared against Nike’s best racing shoe at the time, the

newly dubbed “Vaporfly” provided up to a 4% increase in performance over the course of a

26.2-mile race. Nike showcased their creation in their "Breaking 2" attempt. Three of the best

marathoners in the world were specially trained and outfitted in Nike Vaporfly 4%'s for a

controlled marathon attempt complete with a pack of professional runners to break the wind and

a Tesla Model S to lead them on a set pace for the coveted 1:59:59. 26.2 miles and 2:00:25 later
CITIUS, ALTIUS, FORTIUS 15

Eliud Kipchoge of Kenya crossed the finish line (Caesar, 2017). Despite failing to break the two-

hour mark, surpassing the previous world record by over two and a half minutes made a

profound statement on what Nike and Kipchoge were able to achieve. As the shoes hit the

market and word of Kipchoge's effort spread, controversy swirled around the potential for the

4%'s use in competition (Caesar, 2017). Nike remained secure in their design as they didn't bring

anything new to the table in terms of marathon running shoes, as most all racing flats incorporate

foam and a sole plate in some way (Caesar, 2017). Nike’s design wasn’t an alteration to the

athlete’s physiology. They simply took what had already been done and what the human body

already does and supplemented it. Their design doesn't grant athletes an ability otherwise

unnatural to the human body; it merely amplifies the body's inherent features.

A perfectly natural innovation is not always common in athletic technology. There have

been multiple cases in which the IOC has had to take action. One of the more famous bans was

the case of the Speedo LZR Racer swimsuit following the 2008 Olympics. A significant number

of Olympic records were annihilated by swimmers donning the LZR Racer suit (Smith, 2009).

Following the Olympics, FINA-the International Federation which puts in place the rules for

Olympic swimming-banned the use of the swimsuit from further competition (IOC, 2018; Smith,

2009). Fluid Dynamics expert, Richard Smith (2009), outlines the three areas that caused the

Speedo LZR Racer to be considered as "technology doping." He states that the "Pressure drag is

reduced by compressing a swimmer's body into a more streamlined shape." Additionally

"Viscous drag is reduced by providing a textured surface," and "Buoyancy is aided by trapping

air within the swimsuit which enables a swimmer to be higher in the water and therefore focus

their effort on horizontal propulsion,” (Smith, 2009). These advantages from the LZR Racer suit

are unnatural. They give the athletes superhuman abilities that they didn't have previously.
CITIUS, ALTIUS, FORTIUS 16

Humans are not innately buoyant, streamlined, or smooth. Our bodies are not evolved to swim

with the most proficiency. It is these deficiencies that make athletes like Michael Phelps so

incredibly impressive. By banning the LZR Racer swimsuit, the IOC is upholding the "joy of

effort" which is directly written in their core values (IOC, 2018).

The Olympics are often seen as a time for the world to come together and recognize all as

equal. This equality is again one of the principles the IOC (2008) strives to keep. Even still, the

human desire to win is a strong one, and the use of technology to gain a competitive edge is the

fuel to this fire. This desire was on full display in the efforts taken by multiple countries in the

2014 Winter Olympics (Lee, 2017). There were a multitude of endorsement deals for equipment

in these 2014 games that were in essence “pay to win” (Lee, 2017). For example, the teams from

Russia, Canada, and the United States employed Columbia Sportswear to design freestyle skiing

uniforms which were lighter than most other designs as well as equipped with a snow

camouflage pattern that could mask body movement which the judges would use to grade the

landing of tricks (Lee, 2017). The athletes using these suits were effectively tricking the eyes of

the judges in an effort to gain an edge. Those games also featured US bobsled and skeleton slides

developed by BMW using carbon fiber to make them lighter and more aerodynamic than those

used by the other countries (Lee, 2017). Both of these equipment choices were made by

countries with a commonality: wealth. These countries could afford to invest in the equipment of

their athletes vastly more compared to the rest of the field. The simple fact that their country had

more money to give to their athletes provided them with an advantage. The IOC (2008) must

crack down on these attempts at an advantage as they directly pose against “discrimination of

any kind” in the Olympic Charter.

CITIUS, ALTIUS, FORTIUS 17

It would be one thing if the technologies being used, and in some ways abused, were only

providing minor aids to human performance. However, these instances of technology doping are

smashing the standing records in their respective sports. The LZR Racer suit was in use for 23

out of 25 of the records broken in the 2008 Beijing Olympics (Lee, 2017). Moreover, most

records usually follow a gradual and consistent progression (Smith, 2009). The records broken

while new groundbreaking technology is in use are often quite significant (Smith, 2009). These

large increments in progression are not evidences of a special athlete that comes once in a

lifetime. These increments are proof of technology’s ability to push too far and provide athletes

with an advantage unavailable to those who came before them.

It would seem logical that in all aspects we would want to see the capabilities of human

performance pushed as far as possible. Fans want to see their athletes achieve highly just as

much as the athletes themselves do. As it relates to the Olympics however, performance takes the

wayside to the protection of their core beliefs. The IOC has not been afraid to sacrifice

effectiveness in order to protect what it stands for. In 1984 the javelin world record had reached

104.8 meters set by Uwe Hohn of Germany (Yachtignut, 2012). Around that same time, serious

issues were surrounding the competition. As athletes were able to throw further, there was a

serious safety concern for the spectators as the projectile was threatening to overshoot the

competition field (Yachtignut, 2012). Also, the javelin would often land flat on the ground and

slide forward, which led to numerous confrontations when officials would declare such attempts

invalid (Yachtignut, 2012). In an effort to resolve both of these issues the IAAF, which governs

Olympic Track and Field, altered the design of the javelin (Yachtignut, 2012; IOC, 2018). By

moving the center of mass of the javelin 40 millimeters forward and blunting the tip, the flight

path of the projectile was altered resulting in shorter throws (Yachtignut, 2012). This adjustment
CITIUS, ALTIUS, FORTIUS 18

also meant the javelin had a steeper decline angle which allowed it no longer land flat and

instead stick into the ground (Yachtignut, 2012). By altering the design of the javelin, the IOC

made a statement that the ability for the athlete to perform best takes a back seat to the

preservation of enjoyment at "the great sports festival" and the practice of sport "with a spirit of

friendship, solidarity and fair play" (IOC, 2018).

The idea of doping has never been one unknown to the Olympic games. The names of

known dopers and cheaters stick out in the minds of all sports fans. Lance Armstrong, Barry

Bonds, and Alex Rodriguez are recognized by the public eye as dopers and therefore as cheaters.

Their actions are seen as a direct attempt to gain an advantage. As the IOC makes decisions

about what technologies to ban, they must consider the intent of that technology. A country

purchases equipment such as those used in the 2014 Winter Olympics with the intention of

gaining an advantage. Tech such as the Nike Vaporfly 4% however, does not follow this trend.

Nike created the shoes with the purpose of pushing the human limit. To see how fast someone

could go. The IOC has directly stated in the Olympic Charter that they have the mission of

“taking action against all forms of manipulation of competitions and related corruption,” (IOC,

2018). They must apply this same ideology to their stance on technology with the same intent.

There is also a scenario in which a technological advancement is extremely desired by the

community. This scenario was on display in the case of the record of the one-hour cycling

record. In 1933 Francis Faure rode 28 miles in one hour, further than any man had before. it

wasn't his effort alone that aided him; he employed the use of a recumbent bicycle (Smith, 2008).

By cycling in the reclined position, he reduced his aerodynamic drag which allowed him to ride

faster and further (Smith, 2008). When a technology of this sort arises Richard Smith (2008)

claims two courses of action can be taken: to "allow it either unchecked or within modified
CITIUS, ALTIUS, FORTIUS 19

rules," or "ban it and risk creating a new branch of the sport." In this case, the UCI, which

governs Olympic cycling, took the latter (Smith, 2008; IOC, 2018). The recumbent style bicycle

was banned from use in the one-hour competition, and a group known as the International

Human Powered Vehicle Association (IHPVA) was formed (Smith, 2008. The new group

allowed for any modifications to be made to the vehicle so long as it was powered solely by

human motion. There is a place for such organizations which recognize the ingenuity of the

human mind just as much as the excellence of the human body. This place, however, is not in the

Olympics. The Olympic games are a celebration of human performance exclusively. The IOC

must ensure that the competition it is holding is one between its athletes—not the equipment they

are donning.

The International Olympic Committee doesn't need to stand as a deterrent force against

technological advancement, but it does need to protect itself against infringements. The Nike

Vaporfly 4% is an archetype by which aspiring technologies should follow. The 4% does not

give the athlete an unnatural advantage but rather supplements the existing abilities of the human

body. The shoe was created for and is readily available and accessible for all professional

athletes. And finally, the Nike Vaporfly 4% was created with the intent of pushing human limits,

not to gain a competitive advantage. Nike’s shoe is a technology that falls right in line with the

“Fundamental Principles of Olympism” of the IOC. There can be a future where advancement

and fairness coincide and this is indeed the future that the IOC wants to see, but in the upcoming

games, they must stand firm in what they believe to see such a vision come to life.
CITIUS, ALTIUS, FORTIUS 20

References

Burnton, S. (2012, May 08). 50 stunning Olympic moments No28: Dick Fosbury introduces 'the

flop'. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2012/may/08/50-stunning-

olympic-moments-dick-fosbury

Caesar, E. (2017, June 30). The Epic Untold Story of Nike's (Almost) Perfect Marathon.

Retrieved February 11, 2019, from https://www.wired.com/story/nike-breaking2-

marathon-eliud-kipchoge/

Epstein, D. (2014, March). Are athletes really getting faster, better, stronger? Retrieved February

7, 2019, from

https://www.ted.com/talks/david_epstein_are_athletes_really_getting_faster_better_stron

ger

International Olympic Committee (IOC). (2018). Olympic Charter. Switzerland: International

Olympic Committee.

Lee, A. (2017, June 21). Technology Doping in the Olympics: Cheating or Progress? Retrieved

from https://breakingmuscle.com/fitness/technology-doping-in-the-olympics-cheating-or-

progress

Olympic. (2018, April 01). How One Man Changed the High Jump Forever | The Olympics on

the Record. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZsH46Ek2ao

Smith, R. (2008, June 2). Engineering in Sports: Cycling 1 Hour World Record. Retrieved March

1, 2019, from https://www.symscape.com/blog/engineering-in-sports-cycling-1-hour-

world-record
CITIUS, ALTIUS, FORTIUS 21

Smith, R. (2009, July 27). Swimsuits Banned as 'Technology Doping'. Retrieved March 1, 2019,

from https://www.symscape.com/blog/swimsuit-banned-as-technology-doping

Yachtingnut, Sean. (2012, September 21). The Story of the Javelin- Bringing it Back Down to

Earth. Retrieved March 1, 2019, from https://engineeringsport.co.uk/2012/09/21/the-

story-of-the-javelin-bringing-it-back-down-to-earth/