Looks like an "Evo" style of Tracer or something. Probably see it out soon.
Walmsley wore the Evo Mafate at Western States. I guess he should be DQed because it wasn't officially released yet.
Need to take back Michael Johnson's medals. I don't think you could buy those gold shoes in stores.
(the weirdo OP will probably come back with WS is not IAAF and Johnson was before the current rules)
elephino wrote:
(the weirdo OP will probably come back with WS is not IAAF and Johnson was before the current rules)
Which are both valid points, no?
Да
zoomzoomzoom, This has been brought up twice. Why do you believe Stephanie Bruce was subject to an IAAF rule at Peachtree? Is Peachtree an IAAF sanctioned event, or otherwise subject to IAAF rules? It looks like a USATF sanctioned event. If not, this whole thread makes no sense.
zoomzoomzoom wrote:
those that are arguing about the word "type" and that it somehow doesn't mean "make and model" in their own interpretation but just somehow maybe "shape?" or what?
...
Are you high?
So, after three pages in this thread, the OP has managed to stir up emotions but not actually provide the three pieces of information we should have:
(1) does the rule cited apply to Wednesday's race?
(2) what "type" of shoe was she wearing?
(3) who are you and what is your relationship to those involved?
Without answers to all three questions, there is no point to this discussion.
I agree that it's a non issue, but i think if the brand was nike this thread would have a different tone.
zoomzoomzoom wrote:
This greatly conflicts and upsets me because it's Nike I want to see punished, personally I think Stephanie and all of NAZ Elite rocks, but I would be a hypocrite to keep silent.
Peachtree's 1st place needs to be re-awarded to Aliphine.
Unless someone can find Stephanie's shoes in the current or previous Hoka catalog, I believe they are some kind of updated variant on the never-released Hoka Carbon Rocket which like the Vaporfly and the new Brooks contain a shaped carbon leaf spring layered between the foam.
https://imgur.com/IV9lQbO.jpgSo while Rule 143 had language removed banning wheels and springs and we can depressingly argue and disagree about that all you want, you cannot argue about this language in the June 2018 ratified version:
Rule changes as of June 2018
Rule 143: Clothing, shoes and athlete bibs
- Any type of shoe used must be reasonably available to all in the spirit of the universality of athletics. Shoes must not be constructed so as to give athletes any unfair assistance or advantage.
Stephanie's shoes are not "reasonably available to all" in fact they are not available to anyone else. Even Aliphine was wearing stock Hoka Tracers.
It's interesting to note that Desiree Linden barely escaped the June 2018 Rule 143 when she used Brooks carbon spring prototypes for Boston Marathon in April. A month later Desi should be disqualified. Now Brooks is rushing them into production and has started distribution to their sponsored runners - but public still can't buy them so that's also a Rule 143 violation every time their pros race in them.
Additionally, athletes like Molly Huddle, another elite I greatly admire, runs in custom prototype non-production shoes from Saucony (a hybrid of their Type A and Fastwitch models) now risk the same disqualification in future races because those shoe are not "reasonably available to all".
So Nike, who has now poisoned the running world with leaf springs in the vaporfly and zoomfly, escapes punishment because those are production models and despite the high price tag, skirt the rule by being "reasonably available" if you have enough income to buy them (btw average east african income is $800 per YEAR). All the prototypes they gave their athletes like Shalane in 2016 beat the rules since the "wheels and springs" language was removed - makes you wonder who is writing these rules or whispering in the ear of those who do.
https://www.iaaf.org/news/iaaf-news/competition-rule-amendments-june-2018for reference, this is the men's Hoka Carbon Rocket they only displayed once at a trade show in 2016
https://imgur.com/TmbAvj6.jpgStephanie's shoes can be easily seen from all the Peachtree race video and in endless photos afterwards like this twitter .com/ajc/status/1014472738734575616
Your mom is reasonably available to all.
I'll bet the ladies find you fascinating wrote:
Your mom is reasonably available to all.
Only people of his mom's "type."
the only way to create freedom for all is to discipline everybody, set the bar.
as a longtime IAAF official, i would DQ stephanie right now, and we can investigate later, as our busy schedules allows.
she has 2 shoes, enough for an A and B sample.
this example shows that we need to get tougher on enforcing the rules, be more aggressive,
i have a list of athletes that i believe might violate the rules into the future, and we should ban those people right now,
and save track and field great harm that comes with people who violate the rules.
be proactive, nip the problem in the bud, so everyone can be free.
And the award for most effective "Low-Cost Guerrilla Marketing Tactic" goes to...
Well played, Hoka Marketing Team, well played.
rekrunner wrote:
This has been brought up twice.
Why do you believe Stephanie Bruce was subject to an IAAF rule at Peachtree?
Is Peachtree an IAAF sanctioned event, or otherwise subject to IAAF rules? It looks like a USATF sanctioned event.
sorry I missed your message
USATF is a sub-set of IAAF, essentially being the country-level enforcement of a world-wide organization of rules
USATF and athletes under it's rules must obey all IAAF rules
USATF can create even more specific rules for US athletes but not ones that violate IAAF rules
a classic example is the domestic validation of point-to-point races which cannot qualify for world records under IAAF rules but are accepted in the US as qualifiers for various championship races
USATF cannot then go claim a record is a world record, they are beholden to IAAF
you may notice that IAAF and USATF use the same rule numbering and sub-numbering system
for example here is the USATF rulebook as a subset attempting to maintain parity with the IAAF rulebook
http://google.com/search?q=USATF+Rule+143+wearer+any+unfair+advantage+such+as+a+springzoomzoomzoom wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
This has been brought up twice.
Why do you believe Stephanie Bruce was subject to an IAAF rule at Peachtree?
Is Peachtree an IAAF sanctioned event, or otherwise subject to IAAF rules? It looks like a USATF sanctioned event.
sorry I missed your message
USATF is a sub-set of IAAF, essentially being the country-level enforcement of a world-wide organization of rules
USATF and athletes under it's rules must obey all IAAF rules
USATF can create even more specific rules for US athletes but not ones that violate IAAF rules
a classic example is the domestic validation of point-to-point races which cannot qualify for world records under IAAF rules but are accepted in the US as qualifiers for various championship races
USATF cannot then go claim a record is a world record, they are beholden to IAAF
you may notice that IAAF and USATF use the same rule numbering and sub-numbering system
for example here is the USATF rulebook as a subset attempting to maintain parity with the IAAF rulebook
http://google.com/search?q=USATF+Rule+143+wearer+any+unfair+advantage+such+as+a+spring
jeezus nobody cares dude
Can you provide a supporting link, that shows 1) the USATF is a sub-set of the IAAF and 2) is bound by all IAAF rules for domestic athletes in domestic USATF sanctioned races? In the USATF rules 2018, I find this introduction: "The rules applicable to domestic competition in Athletics -- track and field, race walking, road running and cross country -- are approved by USA Track & Field. These rules generally conform to those of the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF). " "General conformity" makes it sound like specific compliance is optional. In the 2018 USATF Competition Rules, the "SUMMARY OF 2018 RULE CHANGES" indicates Rule 143.3 was updated to includes an update on "legal shoes". There is no language in the USATF Rule 143.3 requiring shoes to be "reasonably available to all".
zoomzoomzoom wrote:
sorry I missed your message
USATF is a sub-set of IAAF, essentially being the country-level enforcement of a world-wide organization of rules
USATF and athletes under it's rules must obey all IAAF rules
USATF can create even more specific rules for US athletes but not ones that violate IAAF rules
a classic example is the domestic validation of point-to-point races which cannot qualify for world records under IAAF rules but are accepted in the US as qualifiers for various championship races
USATF cannot then go claim a record is a world record, they are beholden to IAAF
you may notice that IAAF and USATF use the same rule numbering and sub-numbering system
for example here is the USATF rulebook as a subset attempting to maintain parity with the IAAF rulebook
The IAAF clearly doesn't think that prototypes are against the rules.
To be clear, perfectly clear, the IAAF, USATF have absolutely no way in the world to determine on wether a shoe could be in violation or not. They don't have shoe testing labs, they don't have a formula that would show enhanced performance from a shoe, just assumptive reasoning.
The marketing hype the brands put out is just that on enhanced performance.
Prototypes are a test shoe, its a risk on the athletes part to try them out, they just don't have miles on them to prove them out or wether it could hurt an athlete or help. Prototypes have been around forever in the industry. Nike is the only company to have a made a claim and gives data to back it up, their data.
Whats needed is an independent lab with a set group of standards that fall in the so called legal norm and prove out on wether a shoe is truly enhancing performance or just feels good.
Since Rule 143, the shoe companies aren't using Pros to test their shoes in competition anymore. Too much heat. Remember Kara publicly complained about them using the 4% for the 2016 trials? There's no way an "A" trial contender could wear a prototype again. There'd be an immediate challenge. "B" contenders yes. They ain't making the Olympics, so who cares.
If the new recently enacted Rule 143 meant nothing, Kipchoge would have used the same black 5% moonshoes that some runners used at CIM.
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&thread=9140818&id=9142513#9142513
Would Kipchoge break 2:01 with the 5%?
