The 2024 New York Marathon was historic as more than 54,000 participants ran in the iconic annual race. However, one incident has come to dominate the discourse around the mega event, and that is Matt Choi’s ban. The Korean American entrepreneur, athlete, and influencer is a well-known entity in the track and field world with over 800,000 followers across TikTok and Instagram.

So when the marathoner aimed to run the World Marathon Majors event in under 3 hours, his fans took notice. Yet, the 29-year-old’s quest of “pushing limits,” ultimately earned him a lifetime ban. Choi bright a film crew of two, who followed him on e-bikes to film his 2:57:15 run at the World Athletics certified event. And while a lifetime ban may sound harsh to some fans, looking at the 2019 Nike shoe ban may shed some light on why no one should trifle with World Athletics rules.

Why did the innovative shoes ushered in controversy instead of a revolution

In the aftermath of the November 4 road race, the New York Road Runners noted that Choi “ran with the assistance of two unauthorized people riding the course on electric bicycles, obstructing runners.” While the organization ruled his offense as egregious, people and gear have been banned from World Athletics events for far less. Case in point? The 2019 Nike AlphaFly prototype and Vaporfly Next% ban.

The Vaporfly, introduced in the mid-2010s, quickly gained popularity among runners worldwide, from casual joggers to elite athletes. However, the shoe truly made headlines when Eliud Kipchoge stunned the world by running the Vienna marathon in 1:59:40.2, breaking the revered two-hour mark in a prototype pair. This achievement ignited a wave of excitement and debate, especially when Brigid Kosgei shattered the 16-year-old women’s world record in Chicago, further fueling the Vaporfly’s reputation as a game-changer in running performance.

Kipchoge and his fellow Kenyan athletes wore cutting shoes by Nike. The Olympic champion wore the prototype AlphaFly, which had some serious upgrades under the hood. Besides being ultra-light, the show had three carbon fiber plates sandwiched between Nike’s Zoom Air cushioning pads. Meanwhile, Kosgei’s Vaporfly Next% had one such plate.

Experts noted that Kipchoge’s sub-two-hour marathon was partly due to the Vaporfly’s design, which provided an extra spring to each stride. This sparked comparisons to the controversial full-body swimsuits worn at the 2008 Beijing Olympics, which revolutionized swimming. Those suits, credited with drastically improving buoyancy and reducing drag, contributed to over 200 world records falling within a year of their introduction. Michael Phelps, famously, wore them during his historic run to eight Olympic gold medals in Beijing.

“I’m glad they’re banning them, but they should have done them almost two years ago before the damage was done to the history of swimming,” journalist Christine Brennan told ABC. A 2017 study found that the older versions of the Vaporfly already gave athletes an estimated 4% efficiency boost. So after some deliberation, World Athletics banned the three-carbon fiber plate model in 2019.

Nike asserted that the Vaporfly didn’t incorporate any banned technology, such as embedded strings. Nonetheless, a verdict was reached: any runner completing a marathon in shoes with prohibited enhancements would face a lifetime ban, similar to the one imposed on Choi. Yet, whether the Vaporfly truly offered a significant advantage became a contentious issue within the track and field community, sparking debates over the fairness of technological aids in sports.

Did the technological innovation truly result in a true competitive advantage?

The IAAF rules regarding the dos and don’ts of shoe innovation gave a rough outline to manufacturers. Rue 143 defined that technology that gave athletes “unfair additional assistance” to the user would earn an automatic ban. While the 2017 and Nike’s 4% claim may not sound like an unfair advantage, sports scientist Ross Tucker begged to differ.

The South African discussed the performance boot in more tangible terms with the New York Times. “‘The equivalent of running downhill at a fairly steep gradient’ of 1 to 1.5 percent” reported the New York Times. “That’s a massive difference,” Tucker added in his statement. According to Tucker, such an advantage could be the difference between getting or missing a marathon world record.

However, it’s important to note that Tucker’s analyzed the older models in 2017. In 2019 Runners World reported that the shoe could provide an up to 6% boost. Although unproven, such a boost would fall well into the category of technology or mechanical d—ing. “We’re not using any sort of illegal springs or anything like that.” Bret Schoolmeester, Nike’s senior director at the time, said in defense of the design innovation in 2017.

However, World Athletics didn’t want to risk repeating what happened with Speedo’s LZR Racer swimsuit in 2008. So they quickly banned the prototype before a production version became available ahead of the 2020 Olympics. While athletes were allowed to wear the existing versions of the Vaporfly for the 2020 Olympics, the triple carbon fiber model didn’t go into production.

The 2019 Nike shoe ban showcased just how seriously World Athletics enforces its rules. So it’s despite some fans finding Matt Choi’s lifetime ban to be drastic, it’s easy to see why the marathon organizers took such strict action against a blatant rule violation.