The rule:
Rule 143: Clothing, shoes and athlete bibs
- Any type of shoe used must be reasonably available to all in the spirit of the universality of athletics. Shoes must not be constructed so as to give athletes any unfair assistance or advantage.
Is her shoe of a type not reasonably available to all? Type, not exact model.
You're ignoring both the actual language of the rule and the posts that called you out on it.
The "type" of shoe must be reasonably available to all. Not necessarily the exact shoe.
Moreover, prototypes and custom shoes have been the norm in elite running for literally the entire history of running. At one point you couldn't get track shoes that were NOT custom. It is implausible that the IAAF intended to totally revolutionize shoe practices with a vaguely worded rule and no interpretive guidance.
No such paragraph in the USATF 2018 rule book. The IAAF rule book, yes, but not in USATF. I would think that Peachtree would be under USATF jurisdiction since it is the US 10km Championship.
I believe they removed mention of things like wheels and springs specifically because they cannot predict all the wild technologies that might be used, so they found it more prudent to cast a wide net. I think they want to leave more to interpretation and common sense. Unfortunately this is not federal law where we have a supreme court and years of precedence and decisions; this is a sports governing body who will be asked to make rulings with very little case law to support their opinions.
If I'm any coach or agent on the market right now (please one of you be reading), then I would immediately send a letter to every major shoe company with one of these prototype shoes seeing use and demand a quote for the shoe. If the companies are smart, they will respond with an offer on how to get the shoe within a matter of days. Any company that responds they won't sell you the shoe will have just given out perfect evidence to disqualify their runners.
It's petty, but these rules were made for a reason. You should not be able to compete with equipment not available to others.
Please somebody from Brooks still be running in a T-series Racer so I can demand they sell me more of the shoes.
Regarding point #1, is the PeachTree an IAAF sanctioned event, such that Stephanie Bruce subject to IAAF rule 143 on July 4th? I didn't find any refernece to IAAF regulations at the Atlanta Track Club website, nor did I find PeachTree on the IAAF Calendar.
zoomzoomzoom wrote:
not sure what I expected on LR but it's predictably resulted in these camps so far:
1. photo proof is not photo proof (aka you are imagining it)
2. rules are for suckers and losers
3. the rule is there but somehow the violation doesn't count
4. the rule is meant for someone else or doesn't say something obvious
5. it's not an important rule (aka you can pick which rules to violate or not)
so I appreciate the few who get my point, realize it's not off-the-cuff and not meant to be spiteful
1. Rule 143 must be followed by competing athletes in sanctioned events, it's not optional
2. The June 2018 revision indicates any shoe used must be "reasonably available to all"
3. The shoe used by Stephanie Bruce on July 4th is not "reasonably available to all", it's a prototype or pre/non-production model
That is a disqualification by a competitor under the rules.
(unless I am mistaken and that shoe can be bought online or in stores somewhere)
800 dude wrote:
You're ignoring both the actual language of the rule and the posts that called you out on it.
The "type" of shoe must be reasonably available to all. Not necessarily the exact shoe.
Moreover, prototypes and custom shoes have been the norm in elite running for literally the entire history of running. At one point you couldn't get track shoes that were NOT custom. It is implausible that the IAAF intended to totally revolutionize shoe practices with a vaguely worded rule and no interpretive guidance.
thank you for that reasonable post
I believe the OP's actual intent is not to get anyone DQ'd, but to make cutting edge shoes available to the public quicker.
Shoebacca wrote:
I believe they removed mention of things like wheels and springs specifically because they cannot predict all the wild technologies that might be used, so they found it more prudent to cast a wide net. I think they want to leave more to interpretation and common sense. Unfortunately this is not federal law where we have a supreme court and years of precedence and decisions; this is a sports governing body who will be asked to make rulings with very little case law to support their opinions.
If I'm any coach or agent on the market right now (please one of you be reading), then I would immediately send a letter to every major shoe company with one of these prototype shoes seeing use and demand a quote for the shoe. If the companies are smart, they will respond with an offer on how to get the shoe within a matter of days. Any company that responds they won't sell you the shoe will have just given out perfect evidence to disqualify their runners.
It's petty, but these rules were made for a reason. You should not be able to compete with equipment not available to others.
Please somebody from Brooks still be running in a T-series Racer so I can demand they sell me more of the shoes.
Found you one, provided you have Carni feet:
https://poshmark.com/listing/Brooks-T7-Racers-5ada462e2ab8c51bc9de6ef8?utm_source=gdm&l_con=PREOWNED%2FUSED&gdm_bottom=false&campaign_id=975812101&utm_campaign=975812101&enable_guest_buy_flow=true&gclid=CjwKCAjwg_fZBRAoEiwAppvp-fYZBNmWbZ7USxSt4TGCM0vGjFOS3GhW-BMQ0crPDqFhzaHV-3UpZRoCSdAQAvD_BwE@zoom wrote:
Rule 143: Clothing, shoes and athlete bibs
- Any type of shoe used must be reasonably available to all in the spirit of the universality of athletics. Shoes must not be constructed so as to give athletes any unfair assistance or advantage.
This is the actual text of the rule?
If so, OP are you SERIOUS coming in here arguing this and having the balls to say "it upsets you"? This rule is so vaguely written as to be asinine and non-enforceable, anyone looking to enforce it is either a mega turd or someone who has a vendetta against someone and wants to see them fail.
those that are arguing about the word "type" and that it somehow doesn't mean "make and model" in their own interpretation but just somehow maybe "shape?" or what? give me an example of "type" of shoe WOULD violate the rule in your special interpretation?
theJeff wrote:
I believe the OP's actual intent is not to get anyone DQ'd, but to make cutting edge shoes available to the public quicker.
well, it's interesting to note in cycling competition their rules do not allow any equipment that isn't available or won't be made available shortly, like anything you see in "Tour de France" in theory you should be able to buy later that season - not a bad idea for the running universe too?
but seriously I just want the original Rule 143/144 back, that's all:
This new rule prohibits:
(e) Use of any technical device that incorporates springs, wheels or any other element that provides the user with an advantage over another athlete not using such a device.
however the current language is all we have to deal with now, so we have to enforce their seemingly-engineered vagueness
vivalarepublica wrote:
OMFG. How big of a tool do you have to be in order to care about something like this? You can't even be sure if these are special edition shoes from all those grainy photos. It's a phony accusation based on insufficient evidence.
This sport has real issues. This isn't one of them. Focus your energy elsewhere, please.
10/10
Can’t believe you’d think someone wearing Hokas is at any kind of advantage. Their shoes suck.
zoomzoomzoom wrote:
those that are arguing about the word "type" and that it somehow doesn't mean "make and model" in their own interpretation but just somehow maybe "shape?" or what?
They can't be talking about specific make and models. A different make shoe would not be reasonably available to all, unless you think it's reasonable for a professional runner to deny their ability to earn a living by wearing a shoe from a competitor of their own sponsor. And, no, it's not reasonable for professional runners to switch sponsors all the time hit whenever a new shoe comes out. They might not reasonably expect to be able to get sponsored by a different brand other than their current one too.
Vaporfly Elite wasn't reasonably available to all when Rupp wore it at the Olympics.
zoomzoomzoom wrote:
those that are arguing about the word "type" and that it somehow doesn't mean "make and model" in their own interpretation but just somehow maybe "shape?" or what?
give me an example of "type" of shoe WOULD violate the rule in your special interpretation?
theJeff wrote:
I believe the OP's actual intent is not to get anyone DQ'd, but to make cutting edge shoes available to the public quicker.
well, it's interesting to note in cycling competition their rules do not allow any equipment that isn't available or won't be made available shortly, like anything you see in "Tour de France" in theory you should be able to buy later that season - not a bad idea for the running universe too?
but seriously I just want the original Rule 143/144 back, that's all:
This new rule prohibits:
(e) Use of any technical device that incorporates springs, wheels or any other element that provides the user with an advantage over another athlete not using such a device.
however the current language is all we have to deal with now, so we have to enforce their seemingly-engineered vagueness
Okay, now I'm convinced you're a troll.
If you are so dead set about enforcing this rule, sue the enforcement authority if they don't enforce it.
True but that was prior to this rule revision.
I'm sure University of Georgia T&F will file a protest if there is a hint of wrong doing.
OP is correct but the runners want these shoes and would be upset if the unfair advantage shoes were banned.
Distance running had their EPO era, steroid era, and presently their artificial shoe era.
It might be good if everybody ran barefoot on the bouncy tracks of today.
This would be fair for everybody.
baseball hitters can't go to the plate with a corked bat. It gives the hitter an unfair advantage.
Runners also should not be able to go to the starting line with these carbon plated catapult shoes.
wild is the wind wrote:
baseball hitters can't go to the plate with a corked bat. It gives the hitter an unfair advantage.
Runners also should not be able to go to the starting line with these carbon plated catapult shoes.
You’re dumb as dirt.