Open letter from Spira

So let me get this straight. You build a shoe. Have an understandably hard time breaking into the market place. So you lie about the shoe being banned. To support this lie you file a lawsuit that, on the face, appears to have not merit as you have not been banned. Then you come on here and lie to us about the ban in hopes of gaining support from the running community.

This is your marketing strategy to “be edgy and play up the controversy in order to get noticed”? Is it play up the controversy or create the controversy?

What a load of bull! Why not going back to selling senior citizens' life insurance policies you hack.

Starting up a business based on outright lies is a surefire way to eliminate any chance for success. The sooner you and your company are out of running the better.

How 'bout some free samples for LETSRUN posters?

I wear a size 9, thank you. I like those bright yellow ones.

Andy, I tried on your shoes at the Paris Marathon expo, and they are interesting and innovative.

I am a patented inventor myself (US Patents 6224483, 6186894 and 6231442), so I appreciate creativity and originality.

I also happen to be a 2:18 marathoner.

One of your executives emailed me about a year or so ago offering me a pair to test-pilot and I never got them.

I think that you should quit worrying about whether or not your shoes are banned, and just focus your energies on creating great products, and then you will make a lot of money.

You're causing problems for USATF and other groups that have more important things to do. i don't like it, and because of it I wont wear your shoes.

anyway, i don't need springs to run. I'll do it on my own.

I will NEVER run in Spira.

Try making REAL running shoes. Try making your way into the running market the RIGHT way.

Not all publicity is good publicity. All of the publicity your product has received has been negative. THAT WON'T WORK.

There's a difference between being creative and creating controversy. Try being creative WITHIN the rules of the sport in which your product aims to serve.

Can you define a "REAL running shoe" ?Do all REAL running shoes consist of only blown rubber? Were air pockets considered cheating when they were first introduced?

indycar wrote:

I will NEVER run in Spira.

Try making REAL running shoes. Try making your way into the running market the RIGHT way.

Not all publicity is good publicity. All of the publicity your product has received has been negative. THAT WON'T WORK.

There's a difference between being creative and creating controversy. Try being creative WITHIN the rules of the sport in which your product aims to serve.

It would be more interesting to me if the spring mechanism had some advantage in injury prevention. I doubt there is any significant performance advantage. However, the mere hint that the shoe could be considered cheating would keep me, and every other runner I know, from wearing it. It seems to me that distance runners, for the most part, are about good honest hard work and cheating through drugs and other means is abhorrent. A shoe that would give me the benefit of training with less injuries is desireable. A shoe that would taint my accomplishments is to be avoided. Perhaps Spira's target market should be the minority of runners who take performance enhancing drugs or cut sections of their marathon's out. They are predisposed to cheating and would be enticed by the current marketing approach.

Where can you buy Spira shoes in the Toronto area? I hate buying shoes on-line particularly if I haven't tried them on before.

i know joseph and jared (guys from boston) personally and they thought the product wasn't all that great. they are brooks fans. aside from that, they were pretty pissed to be thrown into that situation and ended up leaving foot solutions and spira. shows the integrity of spira and foot solutions if you ask me.

Don't the Nike Shox have a spring in them?

Will Spira be at the NYC Marathon expo???

I don't understand how if you used these there even might be a consideration of cheating??? Do lighter shoes give you a racing advantage? Doesn't air pockets provide better cushioning than blown rubber (debatable) ? A technical tank top is better than a cotton tank and won't get as heavy.Where is the line between technical advancement and cheating? Like someone else said should Shox be banned?

tigerox wrote:

It would be more interesting to me if the spring mechanism had some advantage in injury prevention. I doubt there is any significant performance advantage. However, the mere hint that the shoe could be considered cheating would keep me, and every other runner I know, from wearing it. It seems to me that distance runners, for the most part, are about good honest hard work and cheating through drugs and other means is abhorrent. A shoe that would give me the benefit of training with less injuries is desireable. A shoe that would taint my accomplishments is to be avoided. Perhaps Spira's target market should be the minority of runners who take performance enhancing drugs or cut sections of their marathon's out. They are predisposed to cheating and would be enticed by the current marketing approach.

[quote]someone wrote:

Can you define a "REAL running shoe" ?

Do all REAL running shoes consist of only blown rubber? Were air pockets considered cheating when they were first introduced?

I define a "REAL running shoe" as being, simply, a shoe constructed within the USATF rules.

To my knowledge, air pockets were not considere cheating when they were introduced.

[quote]someone wrote:

I don't understand how if you used these there even might be a consideration of cheating??? Do lighter shoes give you a racing advantage? Doesn't air pockets provide better cushioning than blown rubber (debatable) ? A technical tank top is better than a cotton tank and won't get as heavy.

Where is the line between technical advancement and cheating? Like someone else said should Shox be banned?

REAL SIMPLE:

Technical advancement is anything within the USATF rules. (Ex. lighter shoes, air pockets, shox, etc.)

Cheating is an advancement which VIOLATES USATF rules. (Ex. any type of spring that PROVIDES ASSISTANCE IN PROPULSION)

You can argue and question rules, laws, regulations all you want; but, it all comes down to this: A RULE IS A RULE.

By the way (really, come on people), Nike Shox ABSORB SHOCK and, in no way, provide assistance in propulsion. Sprira uses SPRINGS that (you guessed it), SPRING YOU FORWARD.

Andy,

The fact that you felt it necessary to come on here and post your thoughts show the lack of maturity that obviously surrounds your company. No CEO of any company should be coming on here trying to post their thoughts on matters. A press release would be fine and I am sure Wejo would post it.

Gorilla tactics in the running community, especially ones focused on fighting the national governing body, won't work. You guys pissed a lot of people off at the Boston Marathon last year, including hundreds on these boards. There is a reason your company isn't taking off. I dealt with one of your reps last year and he was immature in his presentation and how he carried himself in our store. It was disrespectful.

Grow your company the proper way. Provide great shoes at a reasonable price, get some top athletes wearing them, and market them in a proper manner.

MAYEROFF wrote:

I also happen to be a 2:18 marathoner.

When was the last time you happend to run 2:18?

Steve Jones hasn't done 2:07 in quite a few years.

He still is and always will be a 2:07 marathoner

You could try the Running Room. Thi shoe would most likely help you finish your first 5km in under an hour. Sounds like the perfect shoe for John Stanton.

Andy

Is it true that who ever was at Detroit went against the wishes of the coach of the Women's winner and promised her $ if she wore your shoes and won? I read that on another website.

Pretty classless if you ask me.