Kipchoge, Rupp, & Flanagan Are All Guilty of Mechanical Doping in 2016 - Will Anything Be Done About It?

Yes, you did. You did miss something.

I think the big mistake here is assuming the prototype shoes worn in Rio were what became later known as the 4%. Has anyone validated this claim? How do we know that they aren't the precursor to the Zoom Fly? I believe that when the Zoom Fly was released Nike said it represented the early days of Breaking 2 research and testing. The shoes in the picture from the Rio finish don't look like they have as much stack height as some of the later shoes, therefore assuming they gave the advantage of the later shoes seems like a stretch to me.

I think it's unfair for only a few athletes to get the technological assistance.

The sport is about seeing who is the best runner. It's not about seeing who has the best shoes.

The bodysuits in swimming were banned, and I think there needs to be a limit on shoe thickness in running.

rojo wrote:

npurdy1112 wrote:

Better invalidate any athlete that has ever had custom shoes made for their foot. Meb had custom skechers. Why nothing on him?

It has nothing to do with custom shoes. If adidas wants to make a pair of rainbow shoes for Nikki Hiltz or if Nike wants to make a pair perfect for my foot, that doesn't change anything. None of those shoes are going to be minute(s) better than anyone else.

When multiple scientific papers get published saying Meb's shoes were minutes better than anyone else's, please get back to me..

You can’t have it both ways. You beat the drum on the availability and “secret shoes” argument. If that’s the rule you’re sticking to and trying to invalidate based upon, you can’t pick and choose when to apply it. If someone else has custom or secret/prototypes shoes that aren’t available, that violates the rule you’re complaining being violated. It doesn’t matter if they’re faster or slower.

Lol whats up with the article thumbnail

The fact that SHE maintained a 6:40 pace for any length of time in VaporFlys suggests that there is a huge unfair advantage provided by these shoes. And there's your dinner.

https://www.businessinsider.com/what-nike-vaporfly-shoes-are-like-to-wear-2020-1

Rupp Fan Boy wrote:

Ruojowrote:World Athletics should at least make a statement acknowledging that a rules violation took place but without a penalty being given. At least that way there is some sort of an asterisk attached to the results. This type of thing happens all the time in professional sports. Both the NBA and NFL issue statements after games saying officials failed to call fouls properly.

There's a difference here. The NBA and NFL issue these statements immediately after the game. Not 4 years later!

Nice job Rojo getting everyone riled up.

Rojo's response: Yes, but World Athletics often invalidates stuff years after the face in doping as in track and field it takes time to realize stuff.

I was critical of rojo making such a big deal of this but when I read the article I was pleasantly surprised with it.

1) I did not know how they styled the shoes like other ones . Just found it interesting but it was clear this was a new technology not available to others and in my book a violation of the rules.

2) the Houston Astros analogy was one I hadn’t thought of. Baseball acted way after the fact but let the titles stand. I think an acknowledgment that it was a violation of the rules would be a good compromise

stackheight wrote:

The stack height on these prototypes certainly doesn't look anywhere near as beefy as the 4% no doubt it is using the zoom x foam - but obviously somewhere between Rio and Monza they worked out more foam was better. I mean look at the Next% and Alphafly for where they ended up going. So I'd suggest there was significantly less benefit in wearing this shoe in Rio than the studies have suggested especially given the race only started in the last 7k.

Also you sure one of the women isn't wearing the prototype or is she wearing a Lunaracer? She certainly isn't wearing a Streak.

+1

Not just Nike 4% but there are all kinds of prototypes being worn at the professional level. Saucony, Brooks and Adidas had their athletes wearing carbon prototype shoes before they were available at retail. And there are many track spikes being worn on the professional circuit that are still in the prototype phase, The governing bodies have got to get a handle on this.

Leave the results alone but put an asterisk beside them, just like DJT's 'presidency', however long it lasts.

rojo wrote:

This is a sport that bans people for 4 years for eating tainted beef (Jarion Lawson).

Lol. No it's not. This is a sport where some drug cheats get away with lame excuses, for example roided Wilson, but others do not, for example roided Lawson.

Drug cheats out!

I certainly agree that competitors wearing the Vaporflys had an advantage over the rest of the field. I also would have no problem with them banning carbon-fiber plates from here on out, and I'd even have no problem with them resetting the WRs that were set in such shoes.

However, setting a new rule and then going back and retroactively applying it to vacate Olympic medals would be f*cking lunacy, especially if such a decision was based on research that occurred well after the event took place. That's an embarrassing suggestion.

It's an unfortunate situation, but at this point the best you can do is set rules to prevent it from happening again and move on. Perhaps some sort of a rule where all footwear must be approved by IAAF before races would be practical.

You really think Kipchoge’s 2:01:39 is equivalent to his 2:04 in “normal” shoes??? Seriously!? He wouldn’t be able to get close to Kimetto??

Get. Over. It. Ive never seen anyone so against progression of a sport and so blatantly anti-Nike. My first real running shoes back in the dark ages were, I believe, Adidas Marathon Trainers...a great shoe at the time. Today, its akin to strapping some cinder blocks to your feet. Should We still be running in those? Maybe football should still be using leather helmets? Hockey with no helmet? Certainly, we must do away with boxing gloves and go back to bare knuckles fighting. All of those equipment improvements give a huge advantage because it allows you to hit someone harder with less risk of personal injury. Stop being a hater, look forward and train a little harder yourself. Just sayin....

... and in other news, Abebe Bikila's estate has been retro-actively awarded the 1960 Rome Olympic Marathon Silver and Bronze Medals for racing barefoot and at a disadvantage to the modernized footwear won by his competitors...

Mr Anderson wrote:

Yes, you did. You did miss something.

Whatever it was, I'm pretty sure it wasn't anyone taking a shot at the 10,000m WR in the new 2% miracle shoes. And four years later, they still haven't. Except one guy on the roads who's probably just as fast on the track in spikes.

OK now we're getting somewhere. Good points here. Sure, you could argue any shoe improves economy, so the VF isn't any different there.

But this is what the rule says: the purpose of shoes for competition is to give protection and stability to the feet and a firm grip on the ground.

I think a high stack counts as giving protection. Foam is absorbing shock and protecting the foot. I think whether the carbon plate provides propulsion is the more important question. I can't remember what the research said about that, if anything? I know I have seen people go back and forth on whether it's the plate or the foam that gives more assistance... If the plate is providing propulsion, then that doesn't follow the rule. If the physics of it suggest it is also somehow protecting the foot, though, then the above poster is on the right track.

This is an awful take.

Old School Frank wrote:

To quote Frank from Old School "Everybody's doing it"

https://www.wired.com/story/exclusive-brooks-hyperion-elite-could-beat-nike-vaporflys/

ps. I think all their records and victories, including Des's, are valid.

2-years later and the shoe is still not available to public.

I think Sara Sellers should be 2018 winner according to Rojo's logic (Not).