I think over all the 4 month rule isn't bad. The only problem is bringing the rule forward this close to the Olympics. There should've been an exception for the games that allows shoe companies whose planned release date is inside the 4 month window, but still reasonably before the opening ceremonies, to supply prototypes for technical approval. For the purposes of this scenario I'll 6 weeks is a reasonable amount of time.
Why is it Nike's fault they innovate better than everyone else? Why do they and their athletes need to hold themselves back? There will always be an era effect comparing races from different eras, as all sports get better with newer technology. Going as far as to say 2016 should be invalidated is insane.
wejo wrote:
Very quick takeaways.
This is not what I want. Ideally I want a 1) level playing field 2) where athletes can run in a shoe made from their sponsor. This meets #1 but not #2.
Saucony's shoe which Jared Ward uses was supposed to release after April 1. So he's out of luck at the Olympics. The Brooks Hyperion may release before that date, but I've also seen after. What about HOKA's rumored shoe that I assume won't be here until after April 1.
We at LetsRun had advocated on the LetsRun podcast that one fix would be to mandate that shoes have to be on the market for a set period of time before they can be used in competition. This rule has adopted this proposal, but I am against it now at least for the first year.
The shoes have to be on market for X many days before they can be used was designed from a shoe company dropping a new shoe that was superior to anything else right before a competition. I was operating under the assumption the IAAF wasn't going to put in concrete rules on what is legal and what isn't.
If there were no concrete rules in place, if a shoe was out for 4 months in advance at least athletes from other companies would have the opportunity to decide to run it and cover up the logo or break their contract and just run in it. They would at least have the option of being in equal technology regardless of the shoe sponsor.
Now 1) with clear rules on what is allowed and what isn't allowed I'm not sure we need any time limiting window. If the shoes meet the rules, anyone can use them. Why should other shoe companies playing catchup be penalized for not having a shoe out now? It's highly unlikely the shoe they drop is superior to anything out there. World Athletics could put in some caveat if after the fact a new shoe is deemed unfair because of some unknown technology we don't know of, they could be retroactively banned. The shoe companies then would essentially be on board with 40mm, one plate, if you try and do anything crazy new it might be banned retroactively.
Getting rid of the 4 month window would address my concern #2 above and let athletes run in shoes by their sponsors which is the ideal situation.
Having said all of this, this rule is pretty good but needs to be tweaked just a little bit.
You cannot make a rule that improves the management of a shoe company. Brooks,ASICS,new balance, make shoes that are “ worse” than Nike. They are also slow to change , the designs are dated ,and the long term planning from these other companies range from slow to not caring. Look at Brooks , there shoes you could put a “ designed in 1990” tag on them.
How is this "unfair" to other brands? I cannot believe VF's have been out for YEARS and brands like Saucony/Brooks were still planning on releasing theirs in the SUMMER. Releasing during all of the Nike backlash from July-December would have been brilliant. What are they even doing at those other companies??
THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:
Wejo, I think you're misreading. I think the 4-months rule begins April 30. So, as long as a shoe is released by April 30, it is OK to be used provided it isn't illegal and World Athletics has deemed it so. Thus, every shoe company will rush to beat this deadline and ensure pros can use their best model in the Olympics. Would imagine Saucony et al will react accordingly.
You are correct. I said April 1 because it was 4 months before the Olympics but the detailed rules says anything before April 30th doesn't have to wait the 4 months., " To meet that requirement, any shoe that is first introducedafter 30 April 2020 may not be used in competition unless and until it has been available for purchase by any athlete on the open retail market (i.e. either in store or online) for at least four months prior to that competition."
wejo wrote:
It might be anything released before April 30th is allowed to be used without the 4 month window. Eitherway it doesn't make much of a difference in terms of the Olympics, but that companies have to have their shoes out by April 1 or April 30 to be used in Olympics.
Hopefully the other companies can meet the deadline so we have a level playing field but I'm not sure we need the 4 month thing at all, but definitely don't think we need it in year 1. If they all rush and make a "public release" and like 5 shoes are available to try April 30 (whichever date is the legal one) and meet the letter of the law, what's the point? Someone misses by 2 weeks or a month and they can't be used at the Olympics? They are just trying to play catch-up.
This is my understanding. Shoe brands will have to play catch up, but they do have 3 full months and you'd think have been working on this pretty dutifully. Probably not ideal for all, but I'm not sure I have a problem with World Athletics getting everything on the table a few months before the Olympics and changing the conversation.
It's really a PR thing, you could understand Wejo if they didn't have the 4 months rule, that a brand could release something their Vaporfly answer a week before the Olympics promoting some hysteria as everyone tested it and generating headlines.
The way the rule is written the shoe convo goes away with everyone's cards on the table before the Summer.
wejo wrote:
Saucony's shoe which Jared Ward uses was supposed to release after April 1. So he's out of luck at the Olympics. The Brooks Hyperion may release before that date, but I've also seen after. What about HOKA's rumored shoe that I assume won't be here until after April 1.
We at LetsRun had advocated on the LetsRun podcast that one fix would be to mandate that shoes have to be on the market for a set period of time before they can be used in competition. This rule has adopted this proposal, but I am against it now at least for the first year.
The shoes have to be on market for X many days before they can be used was designed from a shoe company dropping a new shoe that was superior to anything else right before a competition. I was operating under the assumption the IAAF wasn't going to put in concrete rules on what is legal and what isn't.
.
"On the market" is a fairly loose term. Couldn't Saucony just list the Endorphin Pro on their website next month, sell ten pairs per month (to Saucony employees), show it as perpetually sold out and fall within the guidelines?
Most people couldn't get their hands on a pair of the Vaporfly 4% when it came out either. It took a good year before those were actually readily available.
On the other hand.. I don't feel bad for the other brands. The Olympics will be 37 months after the public release of the Nike Vaporfly. There's been plenty of time to catch up.
trialssss wrote:
so the alphafly can be used at the trials, then
Editor's note: No. The way we wrote it up top may not be clear. Any shoe over 40mm is banned as of today. Alphaflys are out.
What is the height of AlphaFly then?
WA should’ve released this sooner. Like it or not, T&F needs shoe company $$, and they’re screwing a bunch of them with the late release of these rules.
Prince Valiant wrote:
trialssss wrote:
so the alphafly can be used at the trials, then
Editor's note: No. The way we wrote it up top may not be clear. Any shoe over 40mm is banned as of today. Alphaflys are out.
What is the height of AlphaFly then?
It reportedly has overlapping plates, so even if they aren’t over 40mm they’d be out (if those reports are correct)
If the VFs are so far superior to the other shoes, shouldn’t only Nike athletes be able to qualify for the olympics? So what would it matter if shoes from other companies can’t be used, the entire Olympic field should be Nike athletes
DietBacon wrote:
Prince Valiant wrote:
What is the height of AlphaFly then?
It reportedly has overlapping plates, so even if they aren’t over 40mm they’d be out (if those reports are correct)
Recent prototypes have only one plate.
I’m just glad that Nike will be forced to release to the public soon the carbon plated track spikes all the elites have been racing and training on for 1500 to 10k. It’s bull that we can’t get our hands on them. I mean I been trying to get the LT4 spike flats and even those our no where to be found most of the time.
rojo wrote:
Basically Nike athletes had a huge advantage in 2016 with secret shoes. In 2020, they'll have that same advantage unless a) the other shoe company's move up their release dates or b) allow their athletes to puchase the Nike shoes and maybe customize the upper or black them out.
Companies might just have a very limited early run of their new shoes to comply with these rules
The brojos will settle for nothing short of a rule that punishes Nike for innovating faster than their competition and levels the playing field through force via policy.
When did you two become such staunch socialists?
50mm heel I believe
Prince Valiant wrote:
DietBacon wrote:
It reportedly has overlapping plates, so even if they aren’t over 40mm they’d be out (if those reports are correct)
Recent prototypes have only one plate.
+1
https://www.facebook.com/1882863668612344/posts/2529807290584642/There's a few threads. Some are saying the Alpha's are banned some are saying they are not.
What is the actual deal?
Can someone wear them in a race?
track79 wrote:
I’m just glad that Nike will be forced to release to the public soon the carbon plated track spikes all the elites have been racing and training on for 1500 to 10k.
Carbon fiber plates and shanks have been available in spikes for at least 8 years at this point. Athletes have been racing in prototype spikes for much much longer than that. This was never an issue on the track