Reports: Vaporfly to be banned

Mencken1976 wrote:

True and it ignores something which owners of the shoe have noticed (Disclosure, I own a pair), it really helps mitigate injuries, that's invaluable to older runners.

The technology would still be available, just not to race in. Nike could turn out a Vaporfly Trainer and make all sorts of claims about the reduction in injuries and muscle fatigue.

They could use the ban for marketing. Audi did that sort of thing a few decades back. "Our shoes are so fast no-one wants to race against them." "So fast they had to ban them."

It'll be Messy wrote:

The real problem was access. Runners using prototypes to give themselves an advantage others didn't have.

No the “ contentious issue is the foam and carbon-fibre composition of the sole, which acts like a spring to help runners get the most forward push from each stride.”

Access is a stupid foot half in half out argument. Either the shoes contain unfair technology or they don’t. If they do, they should be banned regardless of access, if they don’t, they who cares about access.

Personally think the accessibility issue is becoming less of a thing. I do agree that prototypes that have an advantageous modification (not small stuff like this upper with this shoe or w/e) should be strictly regulated from now on.

So uhhh would it be a bad idea to buy a pair of vaporflys now? Im a D3 runner but will be moving on to road racing in the next couple months.

About time.

Spikes and synthetic tracks are next. And don’t get me on those performance enhancing enhalers gor asthmatics. You all are cheaters damn it!

RunRaider wrote:

PIK wrote:

Do some athletes have to drink oil instead of water because of contractual obligations?

World Athletics could easily regulate the brand competitiveness issue without banning particular shoes or technologies outright. For example:

* Require shoes used in competition be made publicly available for ~3-6 months. (Yes, this would also apply to prototypes, which many non-Nike pros receive!)

* Prohibit the use of patented/restricted technology from shoes used in competition.

* Alternatively, require that brands supply their competitors with patented components at a fair market rate. (See: Samsung selling components to Apple.)

I agree with your second two points on patented (and patent pending) technology, and have said that in past threads. That's been my main concern about the Vaporfly - fairness of equipment between runners with different sponsors. I'm not too concerned about the step jump in performance compared to past results because that's already out of the bag, and would be tricky and controversial to reverse. History will point out the shoe difference contribution to records, just like history points out the difference in track quality.

I think prototypes should be OK though, if only to allow for custom fitting shoes. For example, I can't wear a lot of Nikes or Salomons because they are way too narrow. If I were a pro sponsored by them, I'd expect to be able to train and race in a shoe that fits. Reading about Salomon prototype shop for example, they have a foot form/last for each of their pro runners like Kilian. If the prototypes have some fancy new sole tech, they will likely have some protection in the form of a pending patent, so the restricted tech restriction should be enough.

Thank god can we be honest.

4000260 wrote:

Thank god can we be honest.

Everyone get your asterisks ready! Your marathon PR will soon be a PR*.

sheep will be sheep wrote:

What a complete joke. Nike's marketing was so good that they killed their own shoe.

+1*

Mencken1976 wrote:

True and it ignores something which owners of the shoe have noticed (Disclosure, I own a pair), it really helps mitigate injuries, that's invaluable to older runners.

There is Peg Turbo. Almost same cushioning.

I don't think these articles are reliable.

The Times article is speculative, and uses 'may be banned' whenever it makes a claim. It also makes what I think is a wrong claim. Is there any evidence that Kosgei's shoe was modified or customised? I recall Kosgei saying in an interview that she only chose to wear the Nexts the night before Chicago, since she had been inspired by the pacers at Kipchoge's INEOS 1:59 Challenge. I think it's just hyping up the decision rather than leaking anything of substance. The article also seems to suggest that there will be a stack height regulation that will then lead to the prohibition of the shoe; I don't think the shoe will itself, as a specified product, be banned in the review, but a new regulation may effectively ban the shoe. Other people have reported that the proposed stack height regulation -- proposed here:

https://blogs.bmj.com/bjsm/2019/10/14/shoes-and-sub-2-hr-marathon/

-- will be accepted by the panel. I am guessing that this will be the case.

As for the Daily Mail article -- it's just a rehash of The Times article without the credible use of speculative language.

Did Paula forget to update her website? It still says she has the women's marathon world record.

Mencken1976 wrote:

That's a little bit of clickbait (not blaming you) as the headline isn't "to be" but rather "likely to be".

They're both sensationalist, it's unlikely the Vaporfly will be banned and certainly no records will be erased. According to more credible rumors there may be a stack height limit of 36mm which would allow the Next% but not the alphaFLY.

Not happening and if it is, anytime soon, it'll be only at the ELITE level only, or in very limited scope... No sane race director of mass start marathons would even think of checking and banning Vaporflys... Can you imagine Boston marathon checking for the VFs at the starting line??? Everybody would just laugh them off... BTW, Boston doesn't even care about all the downhill qualifiers and some of you are already "hoping" they will want to ban runners wearing VFs in all the BQ qualifiers... Seriously???

Like I said, in the worse case, it'll be only at the elite level, with all the runners competing for prize money... Don't worry hobby joggers, you are still going to have fun in your VFs;)

The best they could do is mandate that the midsole needs to be a single material and single density. That way you get rid of all the “super” materials that really don’t support running and require, duel midsoles or shanks which provide “stability“ or other like zoom air pods that “bounce” as act like a spring but pretend is cushioning.

This way you still could have prototypes, custom shoes, different outside or grip and uppers for comfort.

This would also apply to spikes where the spike plate extends further than the last spike... in fact you could ban spikes too as they really are not needed for modern tracks

Is there a modern shoe that doesn’t have a dual-density midsole? Even Pegs would be out of the question

Nice distinction (between training shoe and racing shoe), hadn't thought of that option.

RunRaider wrote:

Is there a modern shoe that doesn’t have a dual-density midsole? Even Pegs would be out of the question

That’s the point, the usual suspect that talk about asterisk or bouncing along train and race in shoes that act as springs.... only single density midsole solve the issue.

Think the Nike react is a single density midsole though. Then the insole can act as the cushioning then talk about

I would be OK with banning all above 36 mm stack height.

Though I haven't yet ran in Next% I would be opposed to banning them even though they seem to be faster shoes.