Because your extrapolating your argument. Vaporflys don’t do that.
Because your extrapolating your argument. Vaporflys don’t do that.
I don't get the hysteria surrounding this. As long as a shoe is not a prototype, meets certain standards of being a running shoe, and is publicly available, it's not unfair to wear them. If someone CHOOSES to be limited by accepting a sponsorship from a brand they feel is inferior, that's their own decision to be an unethical 'rep' of a brand they resent. Also I wasn't a fan of the Vaporflys and actually ran faster in Streak Lt4s over several comparison tests. If someone else wants the high stack bouncy shoes, I don't care.
sizz wrote:
Vaporflys have always been legal mate.
... They do not provide unfair assistance or advantage because there is no mechanism that allows the shoe to create forces that propel the runner beyond their means.
...And my previous argument wasn’t a strawman. I was responding to this grass jogger who believes that vaporflys somehow create extra energy and should be illegal because of that. I had to explain to him that it’s physically impossible for that to happen
It's a strawman that you set up that a shoe would be illegal only if they break the laws of physics.
I already cited the IAAF Rule 143 that was in place when the Vaporflies were used in the Olympic Trials marathon in 2016. They were illegal according to the rules then.
Here it is again.
"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."
In fact World Athletics admitted as such after the research on the Vaporflies were released in 2017. They were behind the ball, and got Nike'd:
From the article linked below:
World Athletics has recently acknowledged, “It is clear that some forms of technology would provide an athlete with assistance that runs contrary to the values of the sport.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2020/01/21/on-par-with-doping-the-first-person-to-miss-the-olympics-for-wearing-the-wrong-shoes/#7d30714a4a08streak wrote:
If someone CHOOSES to be limited by accepting a sponsorship from a brand they feel is inferior, that's their own decision to be an unethical 'rep' of a brand they resent.
The thread title addresses "elite runners". Elite runners don't all have a choice to be sponsored by Nike. Nike can't sponsor everyone, nor should they. The Jake Riley situation of not having a sponsor for a big race isn't a sustainable CHOICE for "elite runners". That's not a way forward for sport at the pro level. After all "pro" means being paid. Sure it doesn't matter for the hobby joggers, but that's not the point.
sizz wrote:
Vaporflys have always been legal mate.
I pointed out IAAF/WA acknowledging they missed it in 2016 above.
Shalaya Kipp, one of the researcher that found the Vaporfly had a 4% efficiency advantage also said that what happened in 2016 was mechanical doping (according to the rules in place in 2016):
Kipp talks about how she believes Kara Goucher would have been an Olympian in 2016 had she had the Vaporfly prototypes
I remember knowing when we watched the [US] Olympic [Marathon] Trials that the shoe was [worth] about a 4% savings…I was training with Kara Goucher at the time and she had just signed with Skechers and I kind of remember thinking that if that hadn’t happened and she had stayed with Nike, she’d be making a third Olympic team but she’s running for wrong company right now.
Even though Kipp says “mechanical doping” in 2016 took place, she doesn’t think it’s beneficial to look back. She is interested in how the new rules will be implemented moving forward
https://www.letsrun.com/news/2020/01/olympian-and-key-vaporfly-researcher-shalaya-kipp-talks-to-lrc-about-world-athletics-new-shoe-regulations/So some researcher believes it’s mechanical doping. She is not world athletics. Does not make a difference.
sizz wrote:
So some researcher believes it’s mechanical doping. She is not world athletics. Does not make a difference.
You seem to be skipping over posts, second or third time already. I pointed out what World Athletics said above that. They acknowledged they missed it.
zzzz wrote:
sizz wrote:
So some researcher believes it’s mechanical doping. She is not world athletics. Does not make a difference.
You seem to be skipping over posts, second or third time already. I pointed out what World Athletics said above that. They acknowledged they missed it.
In fact, the IAAF/WA missed it so bad (didn't recognize it until1.5 year later when the Vaporfly study was released), they had to change the rule because the cat was already out of the bag. The old rule was no longer enforceable because they didn't enforce it for so long. That's excellent evidence that the Vaporflies were illegal before the rule change.
And yet the results still stand. Olympic medals have been taken from athletes before post Olympics. I’m not here to defend the blunders of World Athletics but if they are legal now then there is no need to argue over insignificant rules from 2016. None of the American women were a threat to medal anyway. The fact that World Athletics have officially legalized and regulated the shoes should tell you that they are 100 percent legal. None of your silly opinions will make a difference
zzzz wrote:
streak wrote:
If someone CHOOSES to be limited by accepting a sponsorship from a brand they feel is inferior, that's their own decision to be an unethical 'rep' of a brand they resent.
The thread title addresses "elite runners". Elite runners don't all have a choice to be sponsored by Nike. Nike can't sponsor everyone, nor should they. The Jake Riley situation of not having a sponsor for a big race isn't a sustainable CHOICE for "elite runners". That's not a way forward for sport at the pro level. After all "pro" means being paid. Sure it doesn't matter for the hobby joggers, but that's not the point.
I didn't realize that runners were signed to companies against their wills. It's absolutely ridiculous to complain about wearing what you think is an inferior product, when you chose to be paid to wear the product. Life doesn't have to be set up to be ideally supportive to aspiring pro runners. If they're really good, they can make quite a lot in prize money wearing whatever they want.
Also..I think y'all are missing something here. These are the shoes worn by the top 12 women at the Trials:
1. Hoka rocket X
2. Saucony Endorphin Pro
3. Nike Vaporfly Next %
4. Brooks Hyperion Pro V2
5. Saucony Endorphin Pro
6. Hoka rocket X
7. Asics metaracer
8. Hoka rocket X
9. Nike alphafly
10. Nike Next %
11. Nike alphafly
12. Asics metaracer
That seems like quite a mix of brands! Only one person in the top 8 was wearing Nike, and zero in the top two btw. Nike's innovation inspired other brands to step it up. That's how innovation and capitalism work. We can't expect shoe brands to try to NOT be better than other brands.
zzzz wrote:
The thread title addresses "elite runners". Elite runners don't all have a choice to be sponsored by Nike. Nike can't sponsor everyone, nor should they. The Jake Riley situation of not having a sponsor for a big race isn't a sustainable CHOICE for "elite runners". That's not a way forward for sport at the pro level. After all "pro" means being paid. Sure it doesn't matter for the hobby joggers, but that's not the point.
Look at Maurten. They are so popular that they created an unbranded version so those with pro contracts could have their products, even if they had a deal with another company. Reality is, athletes will use the best of what they can get their hands on. A friend of mine is on a professional race team. They are sponsored by XXX nutrition - they all use Maurten or SIS in their bottles rather than XXX.
The men's trials went: Alphafly, Alphafly, Vaporfly, with 9 of the top 10 in Alphafly or Vaporfly. The women's field is more spread out, more chance for individual ability to overcome technology disadvantage. I know the other companies are coming closer, but they aren't caught up yet. That spoon shape plate patent is the factor keeping the others at a lower level. The patent workarounds don't look quite as good at keeping the ankle push off moment low. If you doubt that Nike is ahead, do a poll here of what people would race in a marathon.. It won't be a contest. Better yet, see what they were actually wearing in road races last year. That's voting with their money.
I didn't say runners were signed to companies against their wills. They mostly have to make a living or get support to stay in the sport at a top level, and the can't all be signed by Nike. The Vaporfly is a recent thing. Lots of pros were already signed to other companies. That's why have have pros racing in disguised Nikes or getting permission from their sponsors to wear Nikes against their sponsor's interests. That is obviously not sustainable.
zzzz wrote:
The men's trials went: Alphafly, Alphafly, Vaporfly, with 9 of the top 10 in Alphafly or Vaporfly. The women's field is more spread out, more chance for individual ability to overcome technology disadvantage. I know the other companies are coming closer, but they aren't caught up yet. That spoon shape plate patent is the factor keeping the others at a lower level. The patent workarounds don't look quite as good at keeping the ankle push off moment low. If you doubt that Nike is ahead, do a poll here of what people would race in a marathon.. It won't be a contest. Better yet, see what they were actually wearing in road races last year. That's voting with their money.
I didn't say runners were signed to companies against their wills. They mostly have to make a living or get support to stay in the sport at a top level, and the can't all be signed by Nike. The Vaporfly is a recent thing. Lots of pros were already signed to other companies. That's why have have pros racing in disguised Nikes or getting permission from their sponsors to wear Nikes against their sponsor's interests. That is obviously not sustainable.
So what that the men wore those shoes?
First of all, Galen Rupp would have won no matter what he wore.
Jake Riley wore alphaflys. Then he signed with 'On'. Clearly the man made a choice to rep a different brand completely of his own free will after running well in the alphaflys. It seems we need not weep for him.
We know literally every runner got a free pair of alphaflys in both the men's and women's fields, and yet only one woman who finished top 10 was wearing them. It was a hilariously failed pr stunt for nike on the women's front! I hope they gave Jake Riley something, because he saved face for the launch of the shoe more than anyone.
You are a very nice person to feel so bad for the pros who sign a contract to represent a certain brand. They chose to do so for money, and if they prefer to wear a different shoe they can break that contract, lose out on that money, and pursue the dream however they choose. Or they can choose to have no integrity and try to have it both ways, in which case their sponsors should drop them for being so slimy and the fans should judge them for trying to false advertise products they actually refuse to wear.
Every single runner in that race could have worn nike's shoes if they wanted to. You assume some only didn't because they were paid not to. Even if that's true, there ya go. They were paid not to. By their own choosing.
streak wrote:
zzzz wrote:
The men's trials went: Alphafly, Alphafly, Vaporfly, with 9 of the top 10 in Alphafly or Vaporfly. The women's field is more spread out, more chance for individual ability to overcome technology disadvantage. I know the other companies are coming closer, but they aren't caught up yet. That spoon shape plate patent is the factor keeping the others at a lower level. The patent workarounds don't look quite as good at keeping the ankle push off moment low. If you doubt that Nike is ahead, do a poll here of what people would race in a marathon.. It won't be a contest. Better yet, see what they were actually wearing in road races last year. That's voting with their money.
I didn't say runners were signed to companies against their wills. They mostly have to make a living or get support to stay in the sport at a top level, and the can't all be signed by Nike. The Vaporfly is a recent thing. Lots of pros were already signed to other companies. That's why have have pros racing in disguised Nikes or getting permission from their sponsors to wear Nikes against their sponsor's interests. That is obviously not sustainable.
So what that the men wore those shoes?
First of all, Galen Rupp would have won no matter what he wore.
Jake Riley wore alphaflys. Then he signed with 'On'. Clearly the man made a choice to rep a different brand completely of his own free will after running well in the alphaflys. It seems we need not weep for him.
We know literally every runner got a free pair of alphaflys in both the men's and women's fields, and yet only one woman who finished top 10 was wearing them. It was a hilariously failed pr stunt for nike on the women's front! I hope they gave Jake Riley something, because he saved face for the launch of the shoe more than anyone.
You are a very nice person to feel so bad for the pros who sign a contract to represent a certain brand. They chose to do so for money, and if they prefer to wear a different shoe they can break that contract, lose out on that money, and pursue the dream however they choose. Or they can choose to have no integrity and try to have it both ways, in which case their sponsors should drop them for being so slimy and the fans should judge them for trying to false advertise products they actually refuse to wear.
Every single runner in that race could have worn nike's shoes if they wanted to. You assume some only didn't because they were paid not to. Even if that's true, there ya go. They were paid not to. By their own choosing.
You must be a Nike shill not to recognize that the choice for most pro runners is to take a contract or become a hobby jogger. You are telling those runners not offered a Nike contract to quit. Otherwise you would call them slow because they weren't fast enough to get offered a Nike contract, stupid because they chose a non-Nike sponsor, or slimy because they don't want to be disadvantaged and want to wear Nikes anyway. It's a no-win all around.
zzzz wrote:
streak wrote:
So what that the men wore those shoes?
First of all, Galen Rupp would have won no matter what he wore.
Jake Riley wore alphaflys. Then he signed with 'On'. Clearly the man made a choice to rep a different brand completely of his own free will after running well in the alphaflys. It seems we need not weep for him.
We know literally every runner got a free pair of alphaflys in both the men's and women's fields, and yet only one woman who finished top 10 was wearing them. It was a hilariously failed pr stunt for nike on the women's front! I hope they gave Jake Riley something, because he saved face for the launch of the shoe more than anyone.
You are a very nice person to feel so bad for the pros who sign a contract to represent a certain brand. They chose to do so for money, and if they prefer to wear a different shoe they can break that contract, lose out on that money, and pursue the dream however they choose. Or they can choose to have no integrity and try to have it both ways, in which case their sponsors should drop them for being so slimy and the fans should judge them for trying to false advertise products they actually refuse to wear.
Every single runner in that race could have worn nike's shoes if they wanted to. You assume some only didn't because they were paid not to. Even if that's true, there ya go. They were paid not to. By their own choosing.
You must be a Nike shill not to recognize that the choice for most pro runners is to take a contract or become a hobby jogger. You are telling those runners not offered a Nike contract to quit. Otherwise you would call them slow because they weren't fast enough to get offered a Nike contract, stupid because they chose a non-Nike sponsor, or slimy because they don't want to be disadvantaged and want to wear Nikes anyway. It's a no-win all around.
Dude you're the one insisting Nike is the best for everyone and that all other pro runners are sad they can't wear Nike, and yet I'M the Nike shill? Haha. I literally posted that only ONE woman in the top 10 wore Nike's supposedly best ever shoes. I'm sure Nike doesn't exactly love that factoid.