Oleg Strijakov Masters Winner at Boston Is a Spira Shoe Guy

wejo wrote:(1) And if the shoes do not give an unfair advantage then much of the marketing behind Spira seems to be thrown out the window. So Spira in some ways likes being banned- ie more publicity.

(2) But even worse I believe is if the athletes were instructed to go out front with no intention of finishing and were doing it solely for marketing reasons and the other athletes did not know this. This could ruin the race and affect its competitive outcome. (I've received an email about this today). It makes a joke out of the event. The Boston Marathon first and foremost is a race not a marketing event for Spira or some shoe store chain.

(1) Hey..... that ivy league edumacation didn't go to waste after all! ;-) Of COURSE they like the publicity.

(2) I can sympathize with you on this point, and don't like what Spira appears to have done with this race, possibly influencing the outcome for their own purposes (although I doubt they had a real effect, since none of the legitimate racers bothered going with the two guys out front, and they both died as expected). BUT, I don't like that you've started this thread as a personal accusation against a specific runner, after the fact. I don't like that at all. Maybe he was wearing those silly shoes, maybe not. But the time to check that was BEFORE the race. It's unfair of you to accuse him of something after the fact.

Once again, let me say. I am not condoning the way they have decided to go about their marketing. Also, just to clarify, I have no issues with Letsrun talking about it editorializing on it - the company is probably not trying real hard to reach "the serious runner" anyway. I also am not disputing that sports have rules re: equipment. Obviously, they could impose a lot more unecessary rules if they wanted, but it would not be in their interest to do so.

They are just breaking into the scene as far as I am concerned as I believe I may have heard of them a couple of years ago, but now I know I have heard of them. I am actually curious now as to whether their claims warrant banning from a race because it actually makes you run faster. Dependeing on how you define "scene", a company could take over a decade to "break into the scene". They are teeny compared to the real players.

The question Pete (if I can speak for him, which is doubtful, I know) and I have are: 1) Do the shoes actually do something that warrants banning? This has yet to be answered very well, IMO. And 2) if you're going to have a rule, how should you enforce it so that other people in the race don't get screwed up (as Wejo contended) and so that the exposure the rule-breakers get is minimal?

He was wearing them. This link is from Spira's site.

http://www.businessportal24.com/en/SPIRA_FOOTWEAR_RUNNER_OLEG_STRIJAKOVA_171916.html

ATTENTION!!!

spira shoes DO GIVE alot of extra energy return.

in my own opinion, spira shoes are very similar to steroid usage, only not near as detrimental to your health. the are very similar to steriod usage because like steroids, THEY ARE AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE. anyone who is a marathoner could and should get their hands on a pair of spiras. i do NOT think that they sould be banned becuase if you are a competitor like me, you do EVERYTHING possible in order to have the advantage over your opponent.

also, spiras are very bouncy, and its not the same type of energy return as in a normal cushioned shoe. many of you have severly misinterpreted my drift about energy return.

i want to put a strong emphasis on the fact that hard plates such as feedback DESTROY any energy that the foot has because of the strong pounding each step. this is also the sause when you are running in a minimal racing flat such as the zoom streak xc for an ENTIRE HALF MARATHON OR MARATHON. THIS IS TOO FAR TO BE RACING IN THIS SHOE, THEREFORE YOU WILL HAVE NO ENERGY RETURN DURING THE 2ND HALF OF THE RACE.

the main element of cushioning is shock absorption, therefore all energy is lost when you are weaking a shoe with insufficient ammount of cushioning for a certain distance. the spiras will of UPMOST BENEFIT to your physiological career when they are worn. they are perfect for any distance, and you will not have to worry about slapping the track OR road when running in a pair of these puppies because they are like running on a trampoline.

whoever invented them is not only a physiological genius, but also an expert in health/competitive podiatry because obviously they know that running is a shoe with insufficient cushioning/energy return is not only detrimental to your performance because it slows you down due to slapping and lack of energy return, BUT IT IS ALSO HARMFUL TO YOU FEET, BACK, AND LOWER EXTREMITIES AND CAUSES HEMATURRIA AND BLOODY URINE when a hard plate is thus run in.

OK, I guess Spira says he was wearing them, so it would seem wejo's accusation is founded. I would hope Boston doesn't pay him, in that case, and that his results get yanked from the official results, and the next guy gets the $$.

For info, USATF Rule 143 expressly prohibits "incorporation of any technology which will give the wearer an unfair advantage, such as a spring or similar device."

I still think that's a silly rule, and I think the lawyers could have a field day with it. As nyloco pointed out, any sole acts as a spring - would Mizuno's wave technology, as an example, be considered a "similar device" or not? Slippery slope I think, but perhaps it's just me.

Anyway, this was an interesting diversion. No doubt no net harm has been done to Spira, and I imagine their Russian runner is being looked after by them just fine, and won't miss the $10k.

As a friend of my said, if someone invented a device that returned significantly more energy then was put into it, they probably wouldn't be selling it in running shoes.

Hahahahaha.... thanks, t4m! Spira needs to hire you to write their press releases my friend.

I remember these from the mid 90s:

http://www.zcoil.com/company_history.html

The question then and I think the question now is does the technology actually improve performance. Does the energy return translate to forward propulsion. I doubt there has been any concrete analysis of this. Take 100 runners of any ability. Have them run a 5k time trial in their regular racing shoes and then in these shoes. Compare. Is the difference statistically relevant?

Alan

txRUNNERgirl wrote:

He was wearing them. This link is from Spira's site.

http://www.businessportal24.com/en/SPIRA_FOOTWEAR_RUNNER_OLEG_STRIJAKOVA_171916.html

According to the linked press report, the shoes have been submitted for approval to the IAAF, but have (my words) neither been approved nor disapproved. Have these things actually been disapproved by any sanctioning body or is the purported "ban" just Spira's interpretation of rule 143? In other words, has the IAAF or USATF actually said you can't use this specific shoe or is Spira fabricating the entire controversy for publicity purposes?

This newspaper article is linked from the Spira website, with the runner stating that his times are not any faster when wearing Spiras. He says he likes them because of their light weight, while the sentence below the picture only mentions that they cushion the feet and reduce wear and tear on leg joints. That I can buy - any shock-absorbing material or system will offer that benefit.

I'm staying away from giving my opinion on whether Spira is justified in challenging the USATF and using Boston as the venue in which to do it. That's a whole 'nother can of worms.

That is one approach, another is to break the dumb rule (and it's dumb)and force them to change it. There is nothing different about their technology than other shoe makers and they have a right to challenge the rule. Maybe they are getting tired waiting for a decision? How long has the ban been in place? Seems like a while now. Is that because the IAAF\USATF bureaucracy moves at a snails pace? How long should they wait?

Boston has always been a race that breaks the rules. People run in costumes, bandits flood the route, qualified and unqualified charity runners run, there are unqualified celebrity invites every year that are well publicized, people have been married at the finish line by shoe sponsors. Marketing is everywhere and accepted openly by race sponsors. Why can't Spira grab a piece of that? If they had interfered with the race or runners in any way, I would agree with you, but all they did was draw attention to their shoes in an unconventional way.

My point about your editorial - I apologize for calling it dumb, you made some good points - was that is exactly the response Spira was after. viral marketing is all the rage now and companies like Spira will use it to capture public attention. Write any editorial you like, but keep in mind that you may be helping the very people that you are criticizing.

According to David Monti's latest release: USATF has not banned the shoes. This is a non-issue. Give the guy his check assuming he passes doping control.

tusker wrote: According to David Monti's latest release: USATF has not banned the shoes.

Gotta linlk...?

That's an interesting twist in the story. Or it's not a twist and much ado has been made about nothing. Curiouser and curiouser...

David's releases are subject to copyright laws. The below paragraph is from the release. It is from USATF.

But in a brief written statement, USATF confirmed today that the shoes aren't

banned: "Because of pending litigation, USATF cannot comment on Spira shoes

beyond confirming that USATF has not examined or 'banned' the shoe, as we have

publicly stated multiple times over the last year-plus," wrote USATF

spokesperson, Jill Geer, in an e-mail message.

Beter yet:Have them run at the same pace on a track and measure oxygen consumption. Does efficiency improve? That'll remove the placebo effect.The other problem of course is that there is a statistical difference with weight of shoes so should we ban light shoes? And if the answer is "No, everyone can use light shoes," then shouldn't the spring shoes be legal because everyone can wear them too?

Runningart2004 wrote:

Take 100 runners of any ability. Have them run a 5k time trial in their regular racing shoes and then in these shoes. Compare. Is the difference statistically relevant?

Alan

USATF is saying the shoes are not banned:

http://www.letsrun.com/2007/sprianotban4187.php

Which means this was purely a publicity stunt. Spira just shows itself to be a joke of a company if this is true.

Ok and it seems like the legal minds that be are clearly in charge at USATF. How about stating the fact the shoes were not banned, perhaps last year or even this year when the lawsuit was announced? (other athletes were under the impression the shoes were banned and this could affect the outcome of the race). It seems like in American no one says anything or does anything becuase there is a fear of getting sued. Well USATF was alreayd being sued. Seems like they might want to get the public on their side. They could even stick to the facts. Call me naive but I think the truth is the best defense. Runnersworld threatened to sue us, we exposed their lawyers' ignorance, and without ever hiring a lawyer were in the clear (they were under the impression we spent a lot on lawyers).

So I have a question: 1) assuming the shoes aren't banned, can Spira be forced to pay for USATF's legal costs. I know this doesn't happen too much in America but this is a frivolous lawsuit if I've ever heard of one if the shoe is not banned. Or does USATF have to waste thousands of dollars on this BS. Perhaps the only solution in America will be to come up with a way to sue someone for starting a frivolous lawsuit.

Assuming the shoes aren't banned, I'm even less impressed with Spira. Not only were the exploting a controversy for financial gain, they were making it up in the first place.

As someone previously posted, the USATF rule is: Rule 143 expressly prohibits "incorporation of any technology which will give the wearer an unfair advantage, such as a spring or similar device." It'll be up to the court to decide what a spring is, but thefreedictionary.com defines a spring as "1. An elastic device, such as a coil of wire, that regains its original shape after being compressed or extended." Since rubber is an elastic material, this rule also applies to any shoe with a rubber midsole. Holy cow, the USATF has banned wearing shoes, that is, if it can be proven that the shoes give the wearer an unfair advantage over not wearing shoes.

This is from the Spira press release

The IAAF rule, as amended in December, 2005, requires that shoes for competition be submitted for approval to the IAAF's technical committee. Spira alleges it followed the IAAF guidelines by submitting its shoes for approval in September, 2006. Despite repeated requests for a determination of its legality, Spira has yet to be provided with a response.

So I guess that is what Spira will say that the IAAF has not said anything about their shoes so they are banned. Who knows.

I added this to my piece after clarifying the shoes aren't banned:

"I received an email from someone who wishes to remain anonymous who was in contact with the Foot Solutions runners who led Boston for the first half of the race and he was told they "had" to go Boston for publicity reasons (the implication being not to finish the race) and were not happy about it."