If this kind of thing is important, the best approach is to narrowly define what athletes can wear. (Shoes, socks, compression sleeves, clothes, ect.)
Then, working within the limits is part of the sport itself.
This is true, humans have been running for thousands of years without them.
> You wouldn't want to run a marathon in whatever the ancient greeks wore.
why not?
> Abebe Bikila (August 7, 1932 – October 25, 1973) was an Ethiopian double Olympic marathon champion. He won the marathon at the 1960 Summer Olympics in Rome while running barefoot, setting a world record.
He finished in 2:15:16.2
Or take Roger Bannister: [1]
> Sir Roger clocked three minutes 59.4 seconds in the historic race at Iffley Road Track in Oxford on 6 May 1954 when he was a 25-year-old medical student.
> The thin leather running spikes which weigh just four and a half ounces were snapped up by an anonymous buyer at the auction in South Kensington, London.
I don't know about you, but I can't run a 2:15 marathon or a 4 minute mile, and I don't think fancy shoes would make the difference.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/11/roger-bannis...
We didn't evolve to run on tarmac or concrete. Public roads are strewn with broken glass and fragments of metal. Regular distance running is punishing on your joints, even if you're a forefoot runner with perfect form.
The studies I'm aware of (e.g. [1]) point in the opposite direction: runners have a lower risk of osteoarthritis, potentially because they have a lower BMI. As an avid long distance runner myself, if you have any evidence to the contrary, I'd be very interested to read it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3724624/How-running-...
But for those that can, fancy shoes make a massive difference.
Would that be so bad? I imagine if I had trained so hard for so long, and overcome so much, I would rather accept that I'm in a group of people who "are all so good it's impossible to tell who is the best", than have it decided by who has the bigger R&D department.