Track and field's shoe rule needs to be rewritten

Has Rojo even run in these shoes before? Or run in a pair that uses the ZoomX? It's not like it is unobtainable technology. Don't you think it'd be better investigative journalism if you tried ZoomX?

UCI wrote:

UCI regulates bikes way more tightly than running does shoes, so the tech/stuff improves with time argument doesn't work well. They'll go as far as weight of the bike, angel of the bars/seat, certain configurations, tires etc. are banned. If the UCI does all that, IAAF having stricter rules on shoes makes sense.

The UCI does regulate, but I can assure you that doesn't stop certain teams from having inferior equipment simply due to the fact they have to run what their sponsor gives them. It's not uncommon to see guys at the TT World Championships using unbranded or rebranded equipment so they can use the best stuff without it being a total slap in the face to their sponsors.

rojo wrote:

that's why the rules need to be changed to something along the lines of , "No one can compete in a shoes that hasn't been out on the market for XX amount of time (3 months, 6 months etc)."

Besides the bad grammar and terrible punctuation, that would be a completely ridiculous rule.

rojo wrote:

I think everyone at LRC is tired of trying to figure out who is wearing what shoes after a race and whether it provided them some sort of massive advantage or not. Running is supposed to be about who is the best athlete, not who has the best shoe designer on their team.

I reached out to the IAAF for clarification about their shoe rule and they told me they won't investigate any shoe unless they have evidence the shoe is unfair. I'm not sure how that's possible. How is someone supposed to test an unreleased shoe and prove it's unfair?

https://www.letsrun.com/news/2019/07/track-and-fields-shoe-rule-makes-no-sense-might-sifan-hassans-wr-need-to-be-invalidated/

With zero followup on a massive drug bust in Sabadell with one of the most prolific coaches at the time, significant positives coming out of Kenya, Diack's bribery trial, major lapses in testing in other countries, the dissolution of 5/10k in the DL, and the institution of IAAF rankings, I'd say that there are many more pressing matters than worrying about shoes. Of course, you're not really journalists at all, are you? Your knowledge of the sport only extends as far rumours propagated on your message boards or posters contacting you through email. You do virtually zero research or legwork on your own regarding the above subjects.

Put on your thinking cap. wrote:

rojo wrote:

that's why the rules need to be changed to something along the lines of , "No one can compete in a shoes that hasn't been out on the market for XX amount of time (3 months, 6 months etc)."

Besides the bad grammar and terrible punctuation, that would be a completely ridiculous rule.

It's surprisingly poor for a grown man, isn't it?

Imagine if you are able ... these athletes running on cinders and in 1967 footwear. Now imagine how fast Jim Ryun would’ve run if he had carbon plates and floating over the rubberized carpets of 2019 ...? 3:29.9 & 3:47.6

rojo wrote:

I think everyone at LRC is tired of trying to figure out who is wearing what shoes after a race and whether it provided them some sort of massive advantage or not. Running is supposed to be about who is the best athlete, not who has the best shoe designer on their team.

I reached out to the IAAF for clarification about their shoe rule and they told me they won't investigate any shoe unless they have evidence the shoe is unfair. I'm not sure how that's possible. How is someone supposed to test an unreleased shoe and prove it's unfair?

https://www.letsrun.com/news/2019/07/track-and-fields-shoe-rule-makes-no-sense-might-sifan-hassans-wr-need-to-be-invalidated/

How are we supposed to take you seriously? You reach out to IAAF about shoes but you give the biggest drug cheat in the history of athletics a podium to spew his lies and rewrite history. What a joke

rojo wrote:

I think everyone at LRC is tired of trying to figure out who is wearing what shoes after a race and whether it provided them some sort of massive advantage or not. Running is supposed to be about who is the best athlete, not who has the best shoe designer on their team.

I reached out to the IAAF for clarification about their shoe rule and they told me they won't investigate any shoe unless they have evidence the shoe is unfair. I'm not sure how that's possible. How is someone supposed to test an unreleased shoe and prove it's unfair?

https://www.letsrun.com/news/2019/07/track-and-fields-shoe-rule-makes-no-sense-might-sifan-hassans-wr-need-to-be-invalidated/

I'm just gonna leave my two cents here.. anonymously.

I've worn some unreleased shoes by Nike way before I tried the 4%. After putting them on my first words were these shoes are illegal as F###. Kipchoge isn't wearing freaking 4%'s or Next%'s.... non of the big pro's are. The "Air Bag" shoes are not a myth... they really work. After wearing them for a few workouts I quit wearing them... It was ridiculous. Rojo is right... the rules need to be rewritten.

wear_tester_gumby wrote:

... It was ridiculous. Rojo is right... the rules need to be rewritten.

Your punctuation looks familiar.

rojo wrote:

I reached out to the IAAF for clarification about their shoe rule and they told me they won't investigate any shoe unless they have evidence the shoe is unfair.

FYI...the long pause after you asked the question lasting until you received a response was the IAAF person who picked the phone up gathering everyone at the IAAF around the phone in a "you guys have to hear this clown...." moment.

Jzs wrote:

Flyyy wrote:

Seriously? You actually reached out to them about shoes?? They're just shoes...unless they have rocket boosters on them it shouldn't matter. Everyone is so worried about the type of shoes, grow up. You still have to be in incredible shape to set records and run fast, yes as technology and designers make shoes better it will help, but it surely isn't taking away from the fact that as athletes get stronger and faster, records will fall. Stop wasting time worrying about stuff like this.

Imagine if you are able ... these athletes running on cinders and in 1967 footwear. Now imagine how fast Jim Ryun would’ve run if he had carbon plates and floating over the rubberized carpets of 2019 ...? 3:29.9 & 3:47.6

Okay, I imagined it, now what? Are we going to change all tracks back to cinder and crappy shoes to make it all equal? Are we going to disregard all records from 2017 onward? Same things apply for other sports as well (cycling, skiing, etc)..

Flyyy wrote:

Jzs wrote:

Imagine if you are able ... these athletes running on cinders and in 1967 footwear. Now imagine how fast Jim Ryun would’ve run if he had carbon plates and floating over the rubberized carpets of 2019 ...? 3:29.9 & 3:47.6

Okay, I imagined it, now what? Are we going to change all tracks back to cinder and crappy shoes to make it all equal? Are we going to disregard all records from 2017 onward? Same things apply for other sports as well (cycling, skiing, etc)..

That’s the fvckibg point ... are the people better or is it just better sh!t ..?! Yes, better shoes, better understanding of training, better tracks, better understanding of nutrition... Then the topic of better drugs. You’re not watching better athletes ... many of the late 60’s performances are as good as today’s technology and drug abusing times/performances. Shoes matter as much as anything. Move the World Champs to sh!t shoes and dirt tracks, would any of these athletes run any better than Billy Mills or Ron Clarke..?!...doubtful.

John Clendon wrote:

Has Rojo even run in these shoes before? Or run in a pair that uses the ZoomX? It's not like it is unobtainable technology. Don't you think it'd be better investigative journalism if you tried ZoomX?

He hates NOP and presumably Nike by association so probably not.

I for one hate my 4% and am all but convinced the elite of the elite are running in a shoe that is nothing like the production models. Salvatore Stitchmo has convinced me of this in the spike threads.

doot doot wrote:

John Clendon wrote:

Has Rojo even run in these shoes before? Or run in a pair that uses the ZoomX? It's not like it is unobtainable technology. Don't you think it'd be better investigative journalism if you tried ZoomX?

He hates NOP and presumably Nike by association so probably not.

I for one hate my 4% and am all but convinced the elite of the elite are running in a shoe that is nothing like the production models. Salvatore Stitchmo has convinced me of this in the spike threads.

He should hate NOP and Nike and so should you.

The simple answer is to limit the depth of the midsole. If you say that midsole cannot be more than 20_25mm then you know that the leaf spring can only have a limited effect. If you look at the shoes Kipchoge is preparing for his 2hr attempt they are maybe 50-60 mm thick. This would allow them to accommodate a much more aggressive spring than the one currently in the next %. If the 4% is acceptable what about the 8% or the 16%... Because all Nike needs to do is keep adapting the spring.

The new track shoe that Nike Elites are wearing has a taped thick look g forefoot to hide the technology. This is clearly not within the rules. Nobody knows what it is? I've already seen a shoe with a supposed microchip midsole that can measure plant and pressure. This is only the beginning.

Nike's current plate technology, which someone above correctly noted is resulting in incredible stack-height shoes, is clearly in violation of the rule, which states that a shoe can't assist or boost mechanics in a runner.

As such, Kipchoge and Rupp should be stripped of marathon medals, two of our women shouldn't have even gone to the games, and DK is the world record holder.

They outlawed the early-80s Mariah, didn't they?

Flyyy wrote:

Imagine if you are able ... these athletes running on cinders and in 1967 footwear. Now imagine how fast Jim Ryun would’ve run if he had carbon plates and floating over the rubberized carpets of 2019 ...? 3:29.9 & 3:47.6

Ryun ran as fast as he could. Period.

Your spurious calculations don't help him to run any faster.

Go away Ventolin wrote:

Flyyy wrote:

Imagine if you are able ... these athletes running on cinders and in 1967 footwear. Now imagine how fast Jim Ryun would’ve run if he had carbon plates and floating over the rubberized carpets of 2019 ...? 3:29.9 & 3:47.6

Ryun ran as fast as he could. Period.

Your spurious calculations don't help him to run any faster.

WRONG. The Swedes were actually the first to go sub 4 in like the 40s.

tarckstar wrote:

Nike's current plate technology, which someone above correctly noted is resulting in incredible stack-height shoes, is clearly in violation of the rule, which states that a shoe can't assist or boost mechanics in a runner.

As such, Kipchoge and Rupp should be stripped of marathon medals, two of our women shouldn't have even gone to the games, and DK is the world record holder.

They outlawed the early-80s Mariah, didn't they?

*cough* Pistorius *cough*