The nonsense of the rule regarding racing shoes not allowed on track

I don't whine, I only point out that the rule is very stupid. Do you think athletes running on track One Hour are specialists of short distances ? All the athletes running One Hour this year were runners of HM and full marathon, using validated shoes for road races everytime.

So, if everybody was allowed to compete with racing shoes (the same they use for the SAME DISTANCE on the road), do you think somebody could have some unfair advantage ?

I repeat again : if you run One Hour, the common denominator is not the TRACK (that is the place where you run : track is the same thing for Bolt and for Mosop during the WR of 30000 meters in Eugene, but the events are a little bit differente...), but the DISTANCE. This means that is not possible to impose the athletes to run with spikes, and, if an athlete has a contract with a Company that doesn't produce shoes with thickness under 25mm, can't run in a distance that normally can run with racing shoes, so is not allowed to run (knowing the prohibition 3 days before the race only).

The ridiculous of the case is that :

a) If WA thought athletes running on track with Vaporfly or similar shoes had advantage looking at the Olympic Standard (and for that reason didn't allow from August to use those shoes in a track competition), where is the "par condicio" since athletes achieving the standard BEFORE August 2020 had their times officially validated ?

b) in June, in Oslo, Sondre bettered th AR of 25000m during the "Impossible Meeting", and the record was validated by the European Federation. Two months later, the same shoes are no more permitted, but NOW we can see athletes bettering WR on track with PROTOTYPES that still are not available for normal athletes. So, an Area Record achieved with "validated" shoes that everybody can find in a normal shop is not validated, instead a WR achieved with prototypes not still validated and issued to somebody only can be approved ?

It's very clear that WA didn't have any "line" in the decision, that was only smoke in the eyes of people complaining against new technologies, in many cases for personal interests.

At the end, what remains is the stupid rule that doesn't allow athletes running on track with shoes LESS PERFORMING than spikes, and this is really absurd.

EXACTLY! Stay out of the kitchen! .......

There is no use to behave like a spoiled little child and try to convince the audience that it has to be the Canova proper way, lol ! And EPO doesn't work on Kenyan elite runners at high altitude....

just give me a break, lol !

Sebulon Cooe wrote:

EXACTLY! Stay out of the kitchen! .......

There is no use to behave like a spoiled little child and try to convince the audience that it has to be the Canova proper way, lol ! And EPO doesn't work on Kenyan elite runners at high altitude....

just give me a break, lol !

No, a spoiled little child has no ability to make such clear arguments that the rule is simply stupid.

And the out of context statement of yours "And EPO doesn't work on Kenyan elite runners at high altitude..." points exactly who needs to grow up before posting anything on this forum.

Renato the one hour world record holder has run one the fastest 1500m performances in history. So although I know he is not a 1500m specialist, one would not say one could be the one hour or half marathon world record holder currently without being able to run about 3:33 for 1500m.

Like a spoiled little child......we all know it's about a grown man,lol.

Now to the point! Why WA took this decision to limit the stack of track shoes is of course

a corrupt expression to try to stop a development that was going out of their hands completely.

Then it was easy to limit stack of track shoes because that's not the large main market when it comes to running shoes. The big elephants must be pleased and then that limit at the roads stayed at 40 mm.It's basically the well known world problem , money makes the world go round!

I train and race barefoot and I feel I am at an advantage over shod runners as the barefoot is the lightest most responsive and accurate way to run over any shoe. If one can run barefoot in a race on the track one should be able to wear any shoe.

need more information wrote:

Les wrote:

No, I believe last year there were no thickness rules, so it was legal to use road shoes on the track. That was changed when World Athletics set limits for road and track shoes thicknesses.

The original rule had 30mm limitation for spiked shoes:

https://www.worldathletics.org/news/press-releases/modified-rules-shoes

"For a shoe with spikes, an additional plate (to the plate mentioned above) or other mechanism is permitted, but only for the purpose of attaching the spikes to the sole, and the sole must be no thicker than 30mm."

They could have changed it to 25mm and have the same spikes we have now, and keep allowing road shoes for those who want to use them.

This. World Athletics (even back in the IAAF days) has always had limits for the thickness of track and field shoes. There were no rules for road shoes until the Vapor flies came along and then it was too late to add a restriction less than 40 mm because that was how thick the original Vapor flies were. Let's be honest, 40 mm is a ridiculously thick midsole, it's over an inch and a half! They should have never allowed shoes that thick for record purposes on any surface. Beyond the issue of the carbon fiber spring and super foam that they can squeeze into this 4 cm thick space, there's the issue of adding an inch and half of length to the length of the runner's legs, with almost no additional weight, which surely increases stride length with little extra energy cost.

This. World Athletics (even back in the IAAF days) has always had limits for the thickness of track and field shoes. There were no rules for road shoes until the Vapor flies came along and then it was too late to add a restriction less than 40 mm because that was how thick the original Vapor flies were. Let's be honest, 40 mm is a ridiculously thick midsole, it's over an inch and a half! They should have never allowed shoes that thick for record purposes on any surface. Beyond the issue of the carbon fiber spring and super foam that they can squeeze into this 4 cm thick space, there's the issue of adding an inch and half of length to the length of the runner's legs, with almost no additional weight, which surely increases stride length with little extra energy cost.

Totally agree. It is a joke. While I can understand that not everyone can handle spikes on track, especially in long races, there are still few models of racing flats out there, even within Nike, well within the rules. Yet another new normal....

I agree with the rule if regards every distance and every surface. I had athletes bettering WR (Florence Kiplagat HM twice, Moses Mosop 25000m and 30000m on track, Paul Kosgei 25 km on road...) using racing shoes with thickness under 20mm, and they found very comfortable. Athletes like Jonathan Maiyo, strong but not exceptional, were able running 59'02" and 2:04'56" wearing Mizuno practically flat (the difference of thickness was 5mm from the fore of the sole and the heel).

But, if the problem was a "war" among the Companies, obviously regarding the market, the solution was to not allow shoes with thickness superior 25mm for road races (99% of the market), not for the track, creating a lot of confusion among runners who have their first goals on the road.

Last Sunday, for example, Salomè Rocha, athlete running 10000m with spikes in 32'05"82 in 2016, but now marathon runner (2:24'47" in London in 2019), won Portuguese Championships of 10000m on track wearing the "illegal" Vaporfly, and the Portuguese Federation accepted the result.

What I say is very simple : since now we have official WR on the road, every type of shoes can be accepted (or not accepted) not depending on the surface. I can, for example, accept a limitations of 25mm (with or without spikes) for all the Olympic Distances on track (till 10000m), and shoes with thickness till 40mm for every longer distance (road or track).

What is important, is to have uniformity in the decision. This is not a problem of "whining", is a problem of confusion and illogicality.

You still overlook the real problem that created this in your opinion illogical situation.

Running shoes shouldn't have been allowed with more than 25 mm stack from the beginning.

When the tiger was already loose, WA felt compelled to act( in order not to lose the reputation completely) and at least give it a stunning shot.

You write : Beyond the issue of the carbon fiber spring and super foam that they can squeeze into this 4 cm thick space, there's the issue of adding an inch and half of length to the length of the runner's legs, with almost no additional weight, which surely increases stride length with little extra energy cost.

It's correct that with shoes like Vaporfly the length of every stride can be a little bit longer. However, the contact time with the surface is also longer, and, because the speed is the combination of length and frequenty of the strides, the loss in frequency doesn't allow any athlete running faster, IF THE SPEED OF THE RACE IS FASTER THAN AROUND 2'45" PER KM.

These shoes give some advantage in a full marathon (in any case not superior than one minute), depending on the individual technique (in some case, there is no advantage at all), and some smaller advantage in HM. But, speaking about Elite athletes, absolutely there is no advantage at the speed of a 10000m of high level.

Of course, athletes running 10 km at 3'30" pace have very slow frequency, and in this case they can find advantage because there is more stride length, at the same frequency. So, can be common for athletes of 38' to run under 37' in 10 km. All the researches were carried out with this kind of athletes, and to transfer the statistical results at the level of top athletes was a big mistake, showing lack of specific knowledge about what happens at the speed of the best athletes.

Athletes with very reactive feet (for example, Haile Gebrselassie) needed hard surface for using in the best way their quality, and for that reason always preferred spiked shoes with small thickness. For them, the reactivity depended on the characteristics of their Achille's tendons and their calves, not on the thickness of the shoes. The big advantage of shoes like Vaporfly is not in the active phase of running, but in a better phase of absorption that can save the integrity of the legs when they become tired. This means the advantage running a marathon starts after about 25 km, because the athletes can run the last part of the race with fresher legs, how demonstrated looking at a lot of negative splits in the marathon of the last 2-3 years.

You write :

When the tiger was already loose, WA felt compelled to act( in order not to lose the reputation completely) and at least give it a stunning shot.

This is the real factor : IN ORDER NOT TO LOSE THE REPUTATION COMPLETELY.

For not losing the reputation, they created something without any logic.

I repeat again : the height of the thickness MUST regard the length of the competition, not the surface (like already the difference between thickness for spikes used for sprint or for middle distances). If for 100-200-400m the allowed thickness is 20mm only, and from 800m to long3er distances 25mm, why not to authorize the shoes already validated for road races in all the distances (on track) longer than 10000m ? It's the duration, and the speed of the race requiring different limits, not the surface where athletes run.

Oregon had an unfair advantage in the 60s and 70s. Best shoes in the sport and no one else had access to them.

Your logic ( based on self-interest regarding Sondre and your very good knowledge about the running sports different demands when it comes to biomechanics and other physiological aspects, mostly....) is not the same as the 'logic' of WA. Their interest was only to find a constraint

that balanced between appeasing those who invoked a prevailing rule violation and still left

sufficient room for the big money stakeholders.

I don't think we will get further in this discussion with more than that we don't agree, based on

different perceptions of causes.

Merry Christmas!

Only because they don't have spikes on. Hiw long until they stacked up spikes.

On a different subject just spoke to one of the top haematology consultants in the UK. He confirmed EPO would work on a highly trained High altitude native. The haemoglobin can increase way beyond what natural levels are its still a low % of the overall blood volume which is largely plasma.

It's pure laymans guesswork on your part that it does not work on them.

A very good point there! And really hot stuff you presented there about Renato's claim

EPO doesn't function on Kenya native altitude training top runners.Thanks!

I would love to see the research around this if you have it. Basically you are saying these shoes fundamentally change the biomechanics of running. Allowing for longer ground contact times mean less energy has to be expended to produce the vertical force required to support the athletes weight during each stride and create the hang time during the swing phase. It's interesting the similarities between these shoes and the research the [then] IAAF did around Oscar Pistorius that led to him not being allowed to compete against able bodied athletes. Allowing for less energy expenditure is exactly the reason WA ruled that the running blades gave an unfair advantage:

You're correct, but now Renato feels compelled to post again.

Renato Canova wrote:

You write :

When the tiger was already loose, WA felt compelled to act( in order not to lose the reputation completely) and at least give it a stunning shot.

This is the real factor : IN ORDER NOT TO LOSE THE REPUTATION COMPLETELY.

For not losing the reputation, they created something without any logic.

I repeat again : the height of the thickness MUST regard the length of the competition, not the surface (like already the difference between thickness for spikes used for sprint or for middle distances). If for 100-200-400m the allowed thickness is 20mm only, and from 800m to long3er distances 25mm, why not to authorize the shoes already validated for road races in all the distances (on track) longer than 10000m ? It's the duration, and the speed of the race requiring different limits, not the surface where athletes run.

I think we all agree that WA created this stupid rule to try and save what little integrity their world records have left (at least on the track). But I don't think this rule is that confusing, if you are on a track, you can't wear the 40mm thick shoes. Not if you want your effort to count as a record, anyway. Officially there isn't a track race longer than 10,000 meters, not in the Olympics or World Championships anyway so according to your statement above anyone who achieved the Olympic standard wearing Vaporflys shouldn't have been helped by them. It's doubtful that anyone that slips into the Olympics next summer that qualified using a 40mm shoe will have any effect on the outcome, most countries will still have their trials next summer and they will [presumably] follow the new rules. Exhibition type events like the 1 hour record that are run on the track are pretty inconsequential, I thought it was pretty well understood that Mo Farah went after that "record" because it was soft and fairly obscure. If someone wants to wear some ridiculous shoe for events like that and call it a record, I don't think too many people really care. Nick Symmonds sets records like that almost weekly on youtube: