World athletics not counting marks in certain races at NCAAs

several years ago this came out (as I recall) that WA would not accept NCAA race results or something due to this enforcement issue.

btw this just came out.

ncaa.org

Rules committee makes proposals regarding shoes, track and field lane violations - NCAA.org

The NCAA Men's and Women's Cross Country and Track and Field Rules Committee on Friday recommended rules for shoes competitors can wear and a modification to lane

Link:www.ncaa.org/news/2024/6/14/media-cent...

"Under the proposed shoe rule, the committee wanted to bring the NCAA in line with the current language of the World Athletics rules regarding eligible shoes worn in cross country and indoor and outdoor track competition.
If approved, it would allow student-athlete performances to be accepted for eligibility for world competitions.
"The shoes really came up two years ago, but we didn't have enough information to move forward," said Jack Hoyt, committee chair and director of men's and women's track and field at Azusa Pacific. "We knew a lot of college programs had purchased shoes, and we didn't think it was financially fair to make that rule at that time. Since then, there has been more communication from World Athletics about the shoes."

The “or something”, per LRC’s interpretation discussed several times since Natty’s, was that a specific athlete’s NCAA race results would not count for WA qualification if they specifically were not wearing legit stack height shoes in a specific race.

Nobody, until now, has said WA is going to start throwing multiple races out on both the male and female side, here or there, apparently randomly in NCAA meets, if one athlete wears high stack shoes in one of the races in that meet, regardless if legit stack height shoes were worn in some of those races.

I have too much time on my hands today, in the women's 5000m race, at least one athlete, Grace Hartman of NC State had her stacked addidas on. It looks like Tyler Berg possibly had them on for Notre Dame in the Men's 10k, possibly others. I didn't see anyone in the Men's 5k.

Well who is to say that the NC State athlete could be in cahoots with the agent that wanted to see Valby’s race thrown out, just in case? This demonstrates the jankiness (and lunacy) of selectively picking and choosing when or when not to throw out athlete performances based on this rule, even if an athlete was wearing legit shoes. Obviously this is something new in the interpretation and enforcement of the rule. Janky.

If you read that link, they were talking about banning athletes outright, meaning they would not be able to compete. At least, in that case, an athlete would know what is and and what is not acceptable. Particularly in Valby’s case, how was she to know there was going to all of a sudden be a hard-line interpretation of the rule, particularly when it was her shoe sponsor (probably the biggest stakeholder in WA) that was the one providing her those shoes specifically?

Someone (not me) posted in that thread that no marks would count which seems to be what is now happening. I have no idea what triggered it now.

So now you seem to be backing up saying Samuels and Valby’s race rankings were thrown out because someone else in their race was wearing illegal shoes (rather than it due to Valby wearing a high stack in a different race.)

Well someone earlier said it was not right to have an athlete going for a high ranking (wearing legit stack shoes) being paced by a teammate wearing high stack shoes. On the other hand, it is not right to throw the whole race results out if an opponent is wearing high stack shoes, potentially nullifying ranking results from a legit opponent.

Instead of doing what they did here, why did WA not simply come out beforehand, and make it clear that absolutely no results from NCAA meets will be accepted if the NCAA does not enforce WA shoe rules?

See here from 2020

worldathletics.org

Rule 5 reminder issued to meeting organisers and Member Federations as more athletes return to the track | PRESS-RELEASES | World Athletics

As more athletes around the world return to the track for National Championships, one-day meetings and other record-breaking attempts, World Athletics has issued a reminder to Area Associations and Member Federations today ab...

Link:worldathletics.org/news/press-releases...

”In the case of National Championships and other domestic competitions, for results to be validated and recognised by World Athletics for statistics purposes, such competitions must be held under World Athletics Technical Rules and Competition Rules.
This means that Rule 5 of the Technical Rules must be applied in full for the competition results to be recognised by World Athletics as valid.”

I don’t think Gault was wrong so much as he was referring to how the rule had been enforced in practice. By the letter of the law all race results should have been invalidated as world athletics seems to be doing now.

I love a good conspiracy but I think the NC State athlete was just wearing what gave her the best chance to score points in both the 5 and 10 double. There isn't a Tuohy connection, she has no incentive to get Parker's ranking to not reflect NCAAs as she almost certainly can't qualify on ranking alone and really shouldn't have an expectation of earning an Olympic spot.

The target of the complaint would have been Valby's 10k where the shoes were explicitly shown. Her time plus the 60 point 1st place bonus on a WA B category meet 10k would have boosted her ranking score to 1215-1220 just below the current cutoff for the rankings likely making her a lock with a top 3 finish since Kelati, Izzo, and Henes are already locks with a top 3 finish, possibly still good as 4th if one of the top 3 isn't in the rankings quota.

By dropping the NCAA time, she needs to go NCAA time or faster with the B category bonus at trials and be in the top 3 to get into the rankings quota for the 10k. If she gets top 3 but in a slower race, there is the possibility that Klara LUKAN, Samantha HARRISON (with Warner Judd possibly out), Natosha ROGERS, Joan Chelimo MELLY, Amanda VESTRI, Camilla RICHARDSSON, Laura GALVÁN, Federica DEL BUONO, Miriam DATTKE, and Keira D'AMATO in that order would be able to slip into the rankings quota ahead of her.

Basically a slow 10k race but Rogers, Vestri, or D'Amato finish 4th and Valby doesn't get her ranking high enough then one of them could possibly slip in over Valby. And the most infuriating part of all of that, for Valby fans, is that Vestri and D'Amato have 10k road races contributing to their rankings that allow them to wear the shoes that Valby couldn't on the track!

Well then, why would that not include results from the steeplechase?

Beats me, it seems like the enforcement is still somewhat haphazard. Will probably be enough to get the ncaa to ban the super shoes though.

Imagine the scenes at next NCAA championship when some 20th ranked 5k'er gets on the track and you see they have a pair of their homemade 50mm stack stupid shoes with extra long spikes.

NCAA needs to get their stuff together here to avoid drama when this is used as a legitimate tactic to dq some results of a competitor to your own Worlds qualifying chances.

There are a lot of words in an amendment to rule 5 about "new shoes" and "development shoes". Perhaps that is related to this new decision?

I found the loophole technicality, written directly in WA rules, that allows looking specifically at one athlete’s legit shoes, without throwing out everyone else’s results due to a different athlete wearing high stack shoes.

“Whenever the competition is declared as being conducted according to World Athletics Rules, all organisers are to notify all participating athletes that Rule 5 of the Technical Rules apply and wearing non-approved shoes will mean that competition results will not be valid (i.e.' UNC TR5.5 Uncertified’) and that spot checks may still be conducted.

“In case organisers wish to allow specific events within the competition and / or athletes within a specific event, not to comply with the Rule (i.e. allow them to wear non-compliant shoes), then the results of those events or athletes must be clearly listed separately and their performances will not be considered legal by World Athletics.

That rule can be interpreted to mean that the organizers (the NCAA) can look at non-complying athletes separately. This is the way LRC and everyone else have been interpreting the rules for the NCAA: only in the case of an athlete wearing non-legitimate shoes should their results be thrown out. Don’t throw out the good with the bad. Therefore, the NCAA will not be required to perform expensive shoe check at every competition.

eap-circuit.eu

Shoe Rules and Declarations (World Athletics)

Link:eap-circuit.eu/shoe-rules-and-declarat...

5.2 Athletes may compete barefoot or with footwear on one or both feet. The purpose of
shoes for competition is to give protection and stability to the feet and a firm grip on the
ground. They must not give athletes any unfair assistance or advantage. Any type of
shoe must be reasonably available to all in the spirit of the universality of athletics. To
meet that requirement, for any shoe first introduced after 31 January 2020, the
transition note (Note ii.) below shall also apply, any shoe that is first introduced
on or after 9 August 2021 may not be used in competition unless and until it has been
available through ‘‘the Athletic Shoe Availability Scheme’’ as referenced in Note
ii. (a) below. The use of a Development Shoe (defined in paragraph (f) below) or
any other similar type of shoe is set out in the transition note (Note ii.).
5.2.1 A shoe that meets the criteria set out in this Rule 5 may be customised to suit the
characteristic of a particular athlete’s foot. However, one-off shoes made to order
(i.e. that are only ones of their kind) to suit the characteristics of an athlete's
foot or other requirements are not permitted.
5.2.2 Where World Athletics has reason to believe that a type of shoe or specific
technology may not comply with the letter or spirit of the Rules, it may refer the
shoe or technology for detailed examination and it may prohibit the use of such
shoes or technology in competition pending examination.
Note (i): At least four months prior to an International Competition at which an
athlete proposes to wear a shoe that has not previously been used in International
Competitions, the athlete (or their representative) must submit to World Athletics
the specification (i.e. size, dimensions, sole thickness, structure etc.) of that new
shoe; confirm if the new shoe is to be customised in any way; and provide
information about the availability of the new shoe on the open retail market (i.e.
either in store or online). After reviewing this information World Athletics may
request that samples of the shoe be submitted by the manufacturer for further
examination. If the shoe is requested for further investigation, World Athletics will
use reasonable efforts to complete its examination as soon as practicable (if
possible, within 30 days of receipt of the shoe by World Athletics).
Note (ii): Transition Period 31 January 2020 to 8 August 2021. This note has
been inserted in recognition of the fact that on 15 July 2020 a Working Group
on Athletic Shoes has been established by Council which by the end of the
year 2020, in collaboration with manufacturers, will review the entirety of this
Rule 5 as it applies to shoes by the end of the year 2020. The following notes
(a) to (t) will assist in guiding all stakeholders with the practical application
of this Rule 5 as it applies to all shoes (unless otherwise specified, meaning
road, cross-country or track and field shoes) until and including, 8 August
2021. This Rule 5, as it applies to shoes, covers International Competitions
and competitions sanctioned by Member Federations where it is decided the
Rules and Regulations shall apply.
(a) Any new shoe introduced after 31 January 2020 that, as at 28 July
2020 has already been confirmed by World Athletics as meeting the
requirements of Rule 5.13 may be used immediately (‘the Approved
Shoe’). As from 28 July 2020, new road shoes must also be made
available through the Athletic Shoe Availability Scheme, as referred to
in paragraphs (n) to (r) below, unless otherwise stated in writing by
World Athletics. The use of a Development Shoe or any other similar
type of shoe is set out in paragraphs (f) to (t) below.
(b) As from 28 July 2020 where an elite athlete proposes to wear a new
shoe, the athlete (or their representative) must submit to World
Athletics the specification (i.e. size, dimensions, sole thickness,
structure, etc.) of that new shoe; confirm if the new shoe is to be
customised in any way, or whether it is intended that the new shoe be
used as a Development Shoe or any other similar type of shoe. After
reviewing this information, World Athletics may request that samples
of the new shoe be submitted by the manufacturer for further
examination. If the new shoe is requested for further investigation,
World Athletics will use reasonable efforts to complete its examination
as soon as practicable (if possible, within 30 days of receipt of the new
shoe by World Athletics). The shoe must be confirmed by World
Athletics as meeting the requirements of Rule 5.13 prior to use.
(c) As from 28 July 2020 where an elite athlete proposes to wear a new
road shoe in a Designated International Competition and it has been
approved in accordance with paragraph (b) above, the athlete (or their
representative) must submit to World Athletics information that
confirms that the manufacturer will make it available to the Athletic
Shoe Availability Scheme unless the shoe is a Development Shoe or
any other similar type of shoe, in which case, paragraphs (f) to (r) below
apply.

(d) Subject to compliance with paragraphs (b) and (c) above, any new
shoe) introduced on or after 28 July 2020 may be worn, except that for
a road shoe, the Athletic Shoe Availability Scheme applies, and for a
Development Shoe or any other similar type of shoe, paragraphs (f) to
(t) below apply.
(e) For the avoidance of doubt, the opening paragraphs of Rule 5.2 and
Rule 5.2.1, 5.3, 5.4, 5.6 and 5.13 apply only during the transition period
described in this note.
(f) ‘‘Development Shoe’’ means a shoe which has never been Available
for Purchase but which a sports manufacturer is developing to bring
to market and would like to conduct tests with their sponsored athletes
(who agree to test the shoe) on issues such as safety and performance
before the shoe is Available for Purchase.
(g) Development Shoes are not permitted to be worn at the World
Athletics Series and the Olympic Games.
(h) Development Shoes are not required to be made Available for
Purchase or subject to the Availability Scheme provided that, prior to
being worn for the first time, the Development Shoe meets the
following conditions:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
the athlete (or their representative) must submit the
specification to World Athletics in accordance with paragraph
(b) above and, where requested, provide a sample of the
Development Shoe for further examination which includes, if
necessary, cutting up the shoe;
confirm the latest date upon which the sports manufacturer will
make the final version of the Development Shoe Available for
Purchase; and for road shoes only, comply with the
requirements of the Availability Scheme;
the date referred to in paragraph (h)(ii) above must not be later
than 12 months after the first time the Development Shoe is
worn. The Development Shoe must only be worn within this
period;
the athlete (or their representative) submits to World Athletics
a list containing the dates and names of the first and all
subsequent competitions at which the athlete proposes to wear
a Development Shoe within the 12 month period. The athlete (or
their representative) must notify World Athletics of any
changes to that list;
the athlete (or their representative) has received prior written
approval from World Athletics that the Development Shoe
complies with the requirements of Rule 5 of the Technical Rules
and is approved for use.

and it goes on....

Couldn’t you also read this as saying they have to be listed separately in the official results and thus couldn’t both be competing for a ncaa title. The NCAA would have to be officially conducting two separate races at the same time, not just submitting a separated list to world athletics, but considering it one race for ncaa purposes. It’s definitely unclear.

This will probably give Valby extra motivation to run a fast race anyway. Her competitors would have been better off had it counted.