Riley made the team because he wore Alphaflys. Linden lost out because she didn't.

the doped shoes wrote:

prevarications wrote:

Nike has literally hundreds of people in the testing pool. Did those shoes give cragg Epstein Barr virus? Shalane and Rupp have had problems with their knees and achilles since around 2010/11. Dathan is just a chronically injured person, since even his time in Boulder. You’re attributing negative outcomes where they don’t fit or make sense because of your bias.

Shoes can definitely factor into injuries. That is one of the reason the pendulum had swung heavily over into minimalism 10 years ago.

Of course, you’re correct; but it’s disingenuous to cherry pick non-applicable examples.

It is silly to think that if you just add foam and a carbon plate to a shoe, it will make it faster. Design becomes paramount. Even an alpha-fly can have designed-in obsolescence; as the materials age over time, the spring-restitution characteristics of their plastic bag will change.

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

Riley got 2nd because he had a damn good race.

Yep, and has he stated in his pre-race interview, he knew he needed to make adjustments in his stride when using the alpha-fly's.

7 of the top 8 women didn't wear Nike shoes. Yet about 90% of the women in the whole dang race had Nike shoes. You all are idiots.

Same with the guys, 90% of them had Nike shoes. I'd say this race was more proof that the shoes don't suddenly make you great than evidence that they do because of how many non Nike women were at the front.

Some don't have the intelligence to understand, just as those that did not attributing the deflate-gate debate in pro football to a form of actually 'bending the rules' (cheating).

prevarications wrote:

the doped shoes wrote:

Shoes can definitely factor into injuries. That is one of the reason the pendulum had swung heavily over into minimalism 10 years ago.

Of course, you’re correct; but it’s disingenuous to cherry pick non-applicable examples.

Well, it only makes sense that anytime 'instability' is introduced into a shoe, whether due to incompetent design, or due to purposely trying to introduce 'mechanical advantage', it is going to subject athletes to greater chances of injury.

This picture is great. Hope the link works.

Gregg on the left wearing the prototype Brooks that Des Linden also wore. Then Butler on the right, wearing the "all new" Hyperion Elite that went on sale late last week.

https://scontent-den4-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/89251563_1116388955401714_3023329472242778112_o.jpg?_nc_cat=111&_nc_sid=e007fa&_nc_ohc=1YSrBV4ZRH8AX-L2wHp&_nc_ht=scontent-den4-1.xx&oh=a7d03ec330b75121bba450ec37f233a9&oe=5EFA4DF6

the doped shoes wrote:

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

Riley got 2nd because he had a damn good race.

Yep, and has he stated in his pre-race interview, he knew he needed to make adjustments in his stride when using the alpha-fly's.

In what way ?

Baltsu wrote:

Top men wore Nike shoes but in women two best runners didn't. Molly Huddle says that carbon plate shoes don't help her. Maybe there isn't such a big difference between shoes in women because of their lower weight and power. Some female runners have won major marathons wearing adidas Takumi-sens.

Oh the woman who dropped from lead pack then dropped said the shoes didnt help her? She must be right.

Linden would have made the team if Brooks had better options. Their shoe is not the same.

if you went to one of the Des panels you'd know exactly what she was wearing out there. just bc you're not paying attention doesn't mean people are keeping secrets from you.

1. Rupp, Alphafly

2. Riley, Alphafly

3. Abdi, Next%

4. Korir, Next%

5. Maiyo, Next%

6. Hehir, Next% (Reebok sponsored)

7. Albertson, Hyperion Elite

8. Hampton, Next% (adidas sponsored?)

9. Bennie, Next% (Reebok sponsored)

10. McDonald, Next% (Mizuno sponsored?)

11. Pennel, Next% (on sponsored)

12. Fauble, Hoka Trials Dagger

13. H. Lagat, Next%

14. Gregg, Hyperion Elite

15. Mckow, Alphafly

16. Kibet, Next%

17. Izewski, Next% (on sponsored)

18. B. Lagat, Next%

19. Smith, Trails Dagger

20. Montanez, I can't find a picture

FigureOutYourLife wrote:

if you went to one of the Des panels you'd know exactly what she was wearing out there. just bc you're not paying attention doesn't mean people are keeping secrets from you.

Yes, you are right. I should have flown to Atlanta and attended every press conference for every athlete. I will try that in 2024 so i have my facts straight!

So what? are we really supposed to feel bad here? They all have advantages. Linden gets more money, better resources, etc than a lower-rung Brooks runner. Huddle probably gets 10 the resources Seidel does. It's not like there's Nike shoes, and then everything else is equal footing.

If they only care about winning, don't get sponsors. Or challenge your sponsors to do better. Or drop your sponsor so you can run in better shoes. Or get a sponsor, like Linden does, who will make you the face of their brand, give you every possible training and publicity opportunity, and in return, you have to run on prototypes all the time. Linden gets opportunities that 99% of the omen in this race don't get, that are worth a lot more than 11 seconds.

It's such a moronic argument. Linden couldn't catch a girl running her first marathon, not wearing Nikes, and all anyone wants to do is point at the evil Nikes in 3rd place. I wanted Linden to make it too, but she didn't because she got outrun.

Get a new tune. This one is played out.

So out of the top20, we have Nike wonder boy, then Riley "we will sponsor you but you have more value for us if people believed you choosed the alphafly while discovering them the day of the race so that's the story you gonna tell" and Mckow (15th) wearing the new alphafly, and we are supposed to believe it is oh so much better than the next%?

My belief is that Nike needed a more proprietary technology inside their marathon shoe in order to sell more air max and similar to the masses. I think this results prove the alphafly performs at best like the next%, which is already great.

WTKenyan?

How massive do you believe Kipchoge is? Look at Abdi geez.

These dudes are featherweight.

Do we have evidence of anyone wearing Adidas in the trials?

ALL these high-profile plate shoes are pronation machines, it seems.

Butler's achilles, it was good to know ya'.

JustGonna SayIt wrote:

This picture is great. Hope the link works.

Gregg on the left wearing the prototype Brooks that Des Linden also wore. Then Butler on the right, wearing the "all new" Hyperion Elite that went on sale late last week.

https://scontent-den4-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/89251563_1116388955401714_3023329472242778112_o.jpg?_nc_cat=111&_nc_sid=e007fa&_nc_ohc=1YSrBV4ZRH8AX-L2wHp&_nc_ht=scontent-den4-1.xx&oh=a7d03ec330b75121bba450ec37f233a9&oe=5EFA4DF6

This is an interesting photo. But look at Abdi's Vaporfly - same effect. And some were saying the Hype Elite 2 was blown out on some athletes (I think Des? But not sure) by the end of the race. So could also be an upper issue. I've run in version 1 of the Elite and quite like it, specifically because it is more stable than your top-end marathon racer.

The Next % is a great shoe. But your list is what it is for a bunch of reasons. First of all, there aren't that many men's marathoners who have a major shoe sponsorship to begin with (unlike on the women's side). Nike dominates the ranks especially with the US Army/WCAP team. Basically every sub-elite wore a Next%/Alpha as you've documented. You could argue that two guys based on resume who should be in the top 10 were hurt by their shoes (Fauble, Ward). But those two guys also ran 2:09 in Boston and had objectively worse races yesterday that can't be explained by shoes.