Hellen Obiri Compares Wavelight Technology to Doping

Shoes may be a bigger issue but she is undoubtedly correct that, for example, if even pacing is more conducive to running faster, then the wave light is serving as an aid, again in varying degrees, as some runners are like a metronome but most are not and are aided, however slightly, by the light. Of course there is no point to the light if it is not an aid, unless you want to make it only visible to the watcher on video, like a light following a hockey puck.

If she literally said 'wavelight is the same as doping' that is an idiotic statement.

Has she ever benefited from wavelight technology? I hope not if she’s making this claim.

I think it’s interesting that she chooses to wear nike super spikes if this is her take on wavelight tech. One is merely a tool to help athletes gauge their efforts, while the other is basically a pair of trampoline shoes that not all athletes in the same race have access to.

Troll, Jutulsessen wrote:

If she literally said 'wavelight is the same as doping' that is an idiotic statement.

She literally used a simile. To not understand such devices is idiotic.

That has literally nothing to do with whether the statement is idiotic or not!

Finally. The wavelight is ridiculous and a huge competitive advantage when going for records. I'm all for making it so the fans can see it, but for that it doesn't even have to be a real thing on the track, but the runners can't be able to see it and use it.

Thank you obri.

She didn't literally say it, so no harm, no foul then. That being said, you couldn't spend an extra 15 seconds to confirm it?

Troll, Jutulsessen wrote:

That has literally nothing to do with whether the statement is idiotic or not!

I am not clicking on that link as aside from being 'banned' from the BBC website, I do not support their policies.

No, I read the title which said 'Obiri: Wavelight is the same as doping' and then looked it up elsewhere.

Regarding the other comments:

- She literally used a simile - OK, agreed (or not). I would say the BBC used a simile.

- To not understand such devices is idiotic - Not sure I agree with this one as there may be cultural differences. If you go to another country and use a simile it could cause confusion or misunderstanding and that wouldn't be due to the people being idiots.

- The issue is that what she said said implies that wavelight confers similar advantages to doping or raises similar ethical issues. That statement IS idiotic (well, in my opinion anyway - others may disagree). I think we are all well aware that wavelight isn't the same as doping in terms of administration, side effects and so on. By equating wavelight with doping she is doing a massive disservice to the sport. It is a horrible thing to say. Wavelight is within the rules and everyone within the race is subject to the same advantage, just like they are with the track surface - which varies from track to track (look at faster tracks such as Monaco and Beijing). It is approved by World Athletics.

- I can't believe I'm having to make this argument, but doping is unfair. It harms people, it denies truthful, fair, good people medals and sponsorship which is incredibly wrong. A lot of those wrongs are never put right - or if they are it is many years on when the event is practically forgotten. It also damages people, causes health problems (look at the Soviet-era women) and a whole host of other issues.

- Did both of you honestly think that anyone who read this did not understand it was a simile? I want you to answer that honestly - why try to make problems? Unless you are implying Hellen Obiri doesn't understand similes, which is more than a little offensive.

- Maybe I should have expanded on why I thought it was idiotic - but maybe you shouldn't make assumptions either?

- 'Wavelight is the same as doping' is an idiotic statement.

missing dope tests is an anti doping rule violation

eating us beef might be a doping violation

engaging in certain activities with a partner on certain substances creates doping violations.

previous record holders, and certain events today did / do not have access to such techncology which clearly gives an advantage or why use it?

on both the sliding scale and the absolute rule that an unfair advantage is wrong;

wavelight is the same as doping.

Plus, its necessary as clickbait

Hmm, I quite like your argument. I still think the spirit of it is different.

Clearly it is not doping, which involves taking chemicals to enhance performance beyond one's natural abilities.

But pacing lights are a distinct advantage. They change the conditions of the race. In most record setting performances the runner had the ability to run faster if the pace was ideal. Being able to set and hold the proper pace, and the mental and physical energy this required, are all factors in being able to set a record. They were part of the athletic challenge. Take some of this challenge away and it creates a tangible advantage over a runner who did not have the benefit of this technology.

Comparatively I think pacing lights are less of an advantage than pacers. A pacer not only helps set an ideal pace but helps the record seeking runner draft and save considerable energy. We deem certain advantages as within the realm of an acceptable athletic edge that an athlete can employ or as traditional methods. Bannister for example famously used two pacers in the 4 minute mile run. But even on track not all things are equal. There remain differing degrees of difficulty.

So I think there is an issue regarding degrees of difficulty and whether this should be reflected in the record books. A solo record without pacing or pacing lights is harder than a record set with a pacer which is harder than a record set with a pacer and pacing lights. I'm not sure if the record books should create different categories (solo, paced, pacing lights, etc) but it should be indicated in the official records in some manner.

pupil3142 wrote:

missing dope tests is an anti doping rule violation

eating us beef might be a doping violation

engaging in certain activities with a partner on certain substances creates doping violations.

previous record holders, and certain events today did / do not have access to such techncology which clearly gives an advantage or why use it?

on both the sliding scale and the absolute rule that an unfair advantage is wrong;

wavelight is the same as doping.

Plus, its necessary as clickbait

Is it really doping if everyone in the race can see the lights and has the opportunity to reap the benefits of having wavelight technology? Comparing wavelight to doping would draw the conclusion that the wavelight technology benefits only certain athletes in the race, like EPO benefits only the user. Wavelight seems more like the Boston indoor track. Everyone gets a boost.

‘’We use pace setters because you know they reach a point then drop out so that you can push yourself but for wave light technology it can take you maybe up to the finish,"

‘’With wave light technology you don't need to train 100 percent because you know there is something which s going to boost you [during the race].’’

She has a point, it is an advantage to run even splits. But wave light technology will not ‘’take you to the finish’’, you still have to run!