The chemistry of performance

The Milan-Cortina Winter Olympics took place against a backdrop that, long before the competitions began, had already sparked debate around costs, environmental impact, infrastructure, and the sustainability of snow in an increasingly unstable climate. A major sporting event today is not just competition and spectacle, it is also a test of coherence between technology, territory, and environmental responsibility.

Within this context, a story emerged that might seem purely technical, but marks a significant turning point. Three athletes were excluded from competitions after their skis (and one snowboard) were found to contain fluorocarbon-based ski wax, substances banned by the International Ski and Snowboard Federation (FIS). These are the first Olympic disqualifications linked to the fluoro wax ban, which came into full effect in international competitions.

This is not a case of doping: the athletes did not test positive for any substance in blood or urine. The banned substance was applied to the skis, and checks are carried out using instruments capable of detecting fluorine on the base of the equipment, regardless of intent. 

Responsibility in these cases lies with the materials used in competition and compliance with the technical rules set by the governing body.

For years, fluorinated ski waxes were used in cross-country skiing and other winter sports disciplines because they improve glide performance under specific snow conditions, reducing friction and delivering a measurable competitive advantage. Their technical effectiveness was never in question. What has changed in recent years is the growing awareness of their environmental impact.

Fluorocarbons belong to the PFAS family (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) chemical compounds characterised by extraordinary molecular stability. 

This stability makes them resistant to water, heat, and degradation, properties that drove their widespread use across many industrial sectors. At the same time, however, it makes them exceptionally persistent in the environment. Once dispersed, they tend to accumulate in soil, water, and living organisms which is why they are often referred to as "forever chemicals."

In recent years, scientific research has highlighted the global diffusion of PFAS and the challenges associated with their removal, while at the regulatory level several European countries have initiated processes to restrict and review their use. The ban in competitive sport sits within this broader trajectory and does not represent an isolated measure, it reflects a wider shift in how we assess risks, benefits, and responsibilities.

The Olympic episode makes visible a cultural transition that goes beyond a single disqualification. High-level competition has historically been a laboratory for technological innovation: lighter materials, higher-performance surfaces, increasingly sophisticated solutions to reduce friction and maximise speed. 

Today, however, innovation can no longer be measured solely in terms of performance. It must also be evaluated in light of material lifecycles, supply chains, and the long-term environmental consequences they generate.

Regulation now extends beyond the athlete's body to encompass the entire material system that makes performance possible. This is not a minor technical detail it is a cultural signal. Acknowledging that what happens "at the trackside" falls within the scope of environmental responsibility means expanding the very boundaries of the rules.

At a moment in history when the viability of winter sports is increasingly called into question by rising temperatures and shrinking natural snowpack, this issue takes on an added dimension.

If climate conditions change, so do the conditions of competition and if the conditions of competition change, it becomes inevitable to redefine what we consider acceptable in pursuit of a competitive edge.

Elite sport has always pushed beyond limits. Today, however, the limit is not only physical or technological,  it is also environmental. Establishing that a substance is no longer acceptable means recognising that speed is not the only parameter by which we measure progress. Even a race on snow, in its own small way, reflects the choices of the era in which it is run.