The nonsense of the rule regarding racing shoes not allowed on track

Sorry, can't agree with you. The real problem was that carbon plated shoes were allowed in the first place and with too high stack.Now to save their reputation and in some way stop this cheating against the original rules , World Athletics has realized they have to restrict this otherwise unstoppably escalating spiral from the profitable manufacturers.

That your Sondre can't run without 4 cm stack they can't include in the assessment. ;)

Can’t we just discuss the initial argument? This post wasn’t about all the issues with shoes, it was ONLY meant to address the idea that wearing spikes is faster for an elite 1500/5k/10k runner than any non-spiked shoe. So what’s the point of banning a slower shoe? That’s it. Maybe carbon shoes should be banned altogether, idk, who cares, that’s not the topic of discussion. Just discuss the topic at hand.

I don't think this matters and honestly could have swayed his opinion the other way if it was influencing him. For example right now he is arguing one set of shoes should be used for everything instead of needing two - which means people could buy only Nike flats and not Nike spikes. Right now people actually need to buy both.

I don't understand what you wrote.

"Because the shoes were not banned, and might have some advantages on the track, the sports administration has banned the shoes even though spikes should be so much faster".

Racing shoes CANNOT HAVE some advantage on the track, comparing with the most advanced spiked shoes. They can have some advantage with the OLD RACING shoes, so logically I could accept a position of ban of racing shoes with thickness higher than some limit (maybe 30 or 40 or 70mm) FOR ROAD RACES, especially when Nike was the only Company making this type of shoes, but never can accept the illogic idea to ban racing shoes for track competitions, WHEN EVEREYBODY KNOWS THE BEST RACING SHOES ARE SLOWER THAN THE BEST SPIKED SHOWES WHEN WE GO ON A TRACK.

The problem with you Renato is that sometimes when you say everybody knows something, it is your educated opinion. That is what it is sometimes. Surely you understand this? You can be a great coach and still makes erroneous assumptions.

c7runner7 wrote:

Can’t we just discuss the initial argument? This post wasn’t about all the issues with shoes, it was ONLY meant to address the idea that wearing spikes is faster for an elite 1500/5k/10k runner than any non-spiked shoe. So what’s the point of banning a slower shoe? That’s it. Maybe carbon shoes should be banned altogether, idk, who cares, that’s not the topic of discussion. Just discuss the topic at hand.

I guess this is - or at least should be - the focal point of the thread. I agree with the suggestion that Renato's second post states the proposition more succinctly and somewhat clears things up. If the gist of the OP was:

These new and controversial shoes may have advantages over anything else on the road. (We do not even need to answer whether or not they do, or if so, how much, for the purposes of this topic. I agree with 7runner here.) However, if they are NOT faster than traditional (or new) spiked track shoes ON THE TRACK SURFACE, banning them vs. not banning them on the track is moot. Army combat boots are conceivably legal on the track per WA but so what? If they were faster than spiked track shoes, there would possibility be an issue to address. Since they are not, who cares?

If that is the point of the thread, well OK.

If the gist in fact, at the time of the OP, was:

that a runner who is paid by Nike and has never run in a non-Nike shoe, coached by a coach (admittedly great in my opinion anyway) who does not coach anybody shod in a competing brand and himself is paid by them, hopes to wear a specific shoe - the Nike Vaporfly Next % - on the track, giving more exposure and notoriety to that shoe - and ultimately it's manufacturer - instilling the notion that this is the greatest track racing shoe ever made into the minds of every high school track runner, then the opinion expressed in my first post stands.

So if road racing shoe cannot have advantage, what is the need to wear them on the track????? Just simply let them use any spikes or racing flats that has legal stack height.

Main reason for the restriction is to prevent potential controversy in the future as it was way overdue. They decided to allow for 40mm to save the vaporfly and alphafly. Since track is a softer surface with mainly shorter distance compared to half and full, runner doesn't need same amount of protection so they decided on 25mm. With development in technology no one here can be sure if there wouldn't be any high stack shoes that has clear advantage over spikes on track. It is their best interest to keep the integrity of the sport and past records as much as possible.

You write :

It is their best interest to keep the integrity of the sport and past records as much as possible.

If the best interest to keep integrity of the sport and past records as much as possible, Worldathletics doesn't have to validate the shoes of the new records (Dragonfly), of course with spikes. Nobody bettered a record on track in Olympic distances with racing shoes, not depending on the thickness : so, which is a LOGICAL REASON for not validating those shoes on every surface, including track ?

My thread has nothing to do with Nike, but is for pointing out the absurdity of a rule only able to contradict itself. Which is the logic to authorize new fast prototypes, for WR too, and to ban shoes that can't compete with the spikes of last generation on track, that are used by the road runners the few times they try to run a competition on track ?

The reason because many road runners want to use racing shoes on track is that for athletes ALWAYS wearing racing shoes in every training session, to use suddenly spikes can create some injury, particularly in Achille's tendon, which is more stretched because of the less thickness. Of course, also a road runner can use spikes after a long period of adaptation, but this is exactly what doesn't happen, because ALL his training (including the shortest distances on track) is carried out using racing shoes, and not spikes. Of sure, track runners athletes, normally using spikes in training, don't have any reason to compete with racing shoes, but also don't have any reason for running on track distances of one hour or longer.

The reason because " a runner who is paid by Nike and has never run in a non-Nike shoe, coached by a coach (admittedly great in my opinion anyway) who does not coach anybody shod in a competing brand and himself is paid by them, hopes to wear a specific shoe - the Nike Vaporfly Next % - on the track, giving more exposure and notoriety to that shoe - and ultimately it's manufacturer " is not "to instill the notion that this is the greatest track racing shoe ever made into the minds of every high school track runner", but more simply that he had a surgery in one foot that forced him to stop running for more than one year, and that running with spikes longer than about 15 minutes starts to create problems in his tendon and in his plantar fascia.

And, honestly, I don't think that a European Record of one hour can have so wide visibility for instilling in every high school track runner that this is the greatest track racing shoe ever made, when with spikes of new generation athletes destroyed WR of 5000 and 10000m for men and of 5000m for women.

You are only looking at the perspective of using road shoes on the track. If World Athletics were to relax standards and allow thicker shoes on the track this would open up the possibility of "catapult" spikes. World Athletics doesn't want that. That is the bigger worry for them, not the minority of a Moen who uses road shoes for track races.

Sorry if I did some mistake regarding Adidas shoes. However, the fact Rhonex bettered the WR on the road with LEGAL racing shoes, but on track preferred to use spikes, is another fact giving more strength to my thesis that the rule doesn't have any reason to exist, BECAUSE ON TRACK THE SHOES ALLOWING ATHLETES RUNNING FASTER ARE WITH SPIKES

like it is wrote:

yep :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renato_Canova#/media/File:Renato_Canova.png

Here he is in nike swag. The real title of this post should be not allowing nike vaporfly's on the track cuts into nike's profits.

Actually wouldn't it be the opposite - now people racing on the track need to go and also buy dragonflys, so in fact Nike get a chance for more $$$?

Les wrote:

You are only looking at the perspective of using road shoes on the track. If World Athletics were to relax standards and allow thicker shoes on the track this would open up the possibility of "catapult" spikes. World Athletics doesn't want that. That is the bigger worry for them, not the minority of a Moen who uses road shoes for track races.

But didn't they first set a different rule for track allowing the 40mm road shoes, but spiked shoes had a lower limit? And then changed it to 25mm for both spiked and unspiked? How did the first version leave any more room for spike development as the new one - it only affected dedicated road runners like Moen?

need more information wrote:

Les wrote:

You are only looking at the perspective of using road shoes on the track. If World Athletics were to relax standards and allow thicker shoes on the track this would open up the possibility of "catapult" spikes. World Athletics doesn't want that. That is the bigger worry for them, not the minority of a Moen who uses road shoes for track races.

But didn't they first set a different rule for track allowing the 40mm road shoes, but spiked shoes had a lower limit? And then changed it to 25mm for both spiked and unspiked? How did the first version leave any more room for spike development as the new one - it only affected dedicated road runners like Moen?

No, I believe last year there were no thickness rules, so it was legal to use road shoes on the track. That was changed when World Athletics set limits for road and track shoes thicknesses.

What you say doesn'ty have sense. I don't see any connection between the rules for the shoes and the rule for USING the shoes.

Maintaining the limits of today for the thickness (25mm for spikes and 40mm for racing), there is no room for "catapult" spikes, and I don't see any relation between the two situations.

It's clear that it's not possible to use the thickness of 40mm for spikes, if the limit for spikes is 25mm, so I don't understand your post.

Simplicity is the best solution, without complicating everything with absurd rules : we need to look at the SHOES, not at track or road. A rule with the following points :

a) Spiked shoes : thickness no higher than 25mm

b) Racing shoes : thickness no higher than 40mm

is very clear, and doesn't penalize anybody. Those shoes must be allowed for every distance, because there is no advantage using racing shoes in the distances of track. Period.

About the fact that now road runners trying some track race must buy Dragonfly, this seems to me a real stupidity. The top track runners have already the best spiked shoes for track, the best road runners usually don't run on track with the goal of big performances, and athletes of normal level are allowed to use racing shoes, but their performance can have only statistical effect. So, for an athlete running 14 or 15 or 16 minutes in 5000m with racing shoes, nothing changes : the performance is not good enough for reaching some limit in any important competition, and the goal of the athlete is to beat his PB, that in any case can be valid under statistical side. So, road runners continue to run on track with their "illegal" racing shoes, now "legal" for statistic reason only. Do you think this is a clear rule ?

Do people read posts that long? Lost my interest after the first paragraph

Renato Canova wrote:

The reason because many road runners want to use racing shoes on track is that for athletes ALWAYS wearing racing shoes in every training session, to use suddenly spikes can create some injury, particularly in Achille's tendon, which is more stretched because of the less thickness. Of course, also a road runner can use spikes after a long period of adaptation, but this is exactly what doesn't happen, because ALL his training (including the shortest distances on track) is carried out using racing shoes, and not spikes. Of sure, track runners athletes, normally using spikes in training, don't have any reason to compete with racing shoes, but also don't have any reason for running on track distances of one hour or longer.

They don't have to wear spikes, they only have to wear any form of shoe that has a stack height less than 25mm ie. many current and past racing flats are still allowed. You may argue this change in stack height (not the spikes themselves) can create achilles injury, but the athlete is responsible for being able to handle racing conditions. THERE IS NOTHING STOPPING A ROAD RUNNER FROM TRAINING PERIODICALLY IN RACING FLATS (MUCH LIKE THOSE OF THE PAST) THAT ARE UNDER 25MM. If your athlete has become so dependent on a massive stack height for all forms of training then that is the coaches/athlete's fault for developing such biomechanical weaknesses.

briswiss wrote:

Do people read posts that long? Lost my interest after the first paragraph

His post are hard to read through the broken English.