Track and field's shoe rule needs to be rewritten

Okay. So you were talking about running sub four minute miles in the 1940s. Got it and it did not happen.

They should ban all shoes. Might as well ban shirts and shorts too. Minimalist is the way to go, the Ancient Greeks had the right idea.

How many of you anti-Nike dopes run in super cushioned or corrective shoes or use orthotics?

Or is that not “cheating” because your mental gymnastics somehow distinguishes basic running from elite performance?

If your specialty running shoes keep you running more often as opposed to not being able to run what’s that % benefit? — 20, 30, 99%?

Extremely ironic that a website with a very conservative bent is now calling for greater regulation.

If 5th place at the Rio Games is upset that the top three have prototype 4% shoes ,then 5th place needs to file a protest. Same way drivers in NASCAR or F1 protest when someone has questionable equipment. Isn't there a process for this?

Otherwise, who cares? Why limit ourselves to old equipment, just because certain people think running needs to stay "old school".

UA Runner wrote:

If 5th place at the Rio Games is upset that the top three have prototype 4% shoes ,then 5th place needs to file a protest. Same way drivers in NASCAR or F1 protest when someone has questionable equipment. Isn't there a process for this?

Otherwise, who cares? Why limit ourselves to old equipment, just because certain people think running needs to stay "old school".

totally agree.

rojo wrote:

I think everyone at LRC is tired of trying to figure out who is wearing what shoes after a race and whether it provided them some sort of massive advantage or not. Running is supposed to be about who is the best athlete, not who has the best shoe designer on their team.

I reached out to the IAAF for clarification about their shoe rule and they told me they won't investigate any shoe unless they have evidence the shoe is unfair. I'm not sure how that's possible. How is someone supposed to test an unreleased shoe and prove it's unfair?

https://www.letsrun.com/news/2019/07/track-and-fields-shoe-rule-makes-no-sense-might-sifan-hassans-wr-need-to-be-invalidated/

Let's evaluate shoes, tracks, and anything else that creates false world records!

Oh, actually it's too late isn't it?

Lots of false world records and I get slower every time someone sets one.

word to UA Runner wrote:

UA Runner wrote:

If 5th place at the Rio Games is upset that the top three have prototype 4% shoes ,then 5th place needs to file a protest. Same way drivers in NASCAR or F1 protest when someone has questionable equipment. Isn't there a process for this?

Otherwise, who cares? Why limit ourselves to old equipment, just because certain people think running needs to stay "old school".

totally agree.

Totally disagree, check the shoes before the meet the way you do shot puts.

doot doot wrote:

How many of you anti-Nike dopes run in super cushioned or corrective shoes or use orthotics?

Or is that not “cheating” because your mental gymnastics somehow distinguishes basic running from elite performance?

If your specialty running shoes keep you running more often as opposed to not being able to run what’s that % benefit? — 20, 30, 99%?

But the average Joe/Jane is not setting world records.

The above is false.

Put on your thinking cap. wrote:

rojo wrote:

that's why the rules need to be changed to something along the lines of , "No one can compete in a shoes that hasn't been out on the market for XX amount of time (3 months, 6 months etc)."

Besides the bad grammar and terrible punctuation, that would be a completely ridiculous rule.

Actually, that is THE solution. That's why Rojo is in charge of Let's Run and the rest of us are not.

Kickapoo wrote:

doot doot wrote:

How many of you anti-Nike dopes run in super cushioned or corrective shoes or use orthotics?

Or is that not “cheating” because your mental gymnastics somehow distinguishes basic running from elite performance?

If your specialty running shoes keep you running more often as opposed to not being able to run what’s that % benefit? — 20, 30, 99%?

But the average Joe/Jane is not setting world records.

Ok...

Why not? Is it because they’re not wearing the 4% shoes? Do they not have effectively every advantage available to them?

My point is about anti-Nike bias being rebranded as sports integrity when it comes to these shoes. (You dopes realize you’re boosting their sales right?)

But let’s use your example. What’s more beneficial to the average runner? A corrective shoe with orthotics that has a greater impact on their performance (by enabling them to train due to reducing likelihood of injury) versus a shoe that alleges to have a (comparatively) marginal impact that maybe benefits those at the extreme end of the performance distribution?

+1

Amazing video shows me it's the carbon plate that makes the shoe spring, not the foam. But it exaggerates the extra stride length from the shoe, looks like 100% not 4%!

Rojo, the Vaporfly has a catapault effect, like no other shoe I have ever worn, so yes, a cheater shoe.

Question tho - why is Vaporfly ($250) so much more expensive than Zoomfly ($99) when they both have the magical plate?

Another giver of +1 wrote:

+1

Amazing video shows me it's the carbon plate that makes the shoe spring, not the foam. But it exaggerates the extra stride length from the shoe, looks like 100% not 4%!

Oh, you’re one of those runners whose foot snaps their metatarsals completely in half every time they hit the ground?

It’s troglodytic idiots like you who think videos like that represent running who offer nothing of value to the sport and should be banned from ever attempting to contribute to adult conversation.

Another giver of +1 wrote:

You all know I'm right, because I am wrote:

The foam makes the shoe spring?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGtcCeTvtYk

+1

Amazing video shows me it's the carbon plate that makes the shoe spring, not the foam. But it exaggerates the extra stride length from the shoe, looks like 100% not 4%!

It's probably the foam in that carbon fiber golf club also. Steel shafts? = so Sam Snead.

All of the people crying that Vaporflys are a cheatershoe are the same people who are to poor to buy them. Quit being poor and u will stop getting left in the dust!

rojo wrote:

I think everyone at LRC is tired of trying to figure out who is wearing what shoes after a race and whether it provided them some sort of massive advantage or not. Running is supposed to be about who is the best athlete, not who has the best shoe designer on their team.

I reached out to the IAAF for clarification about their shoe rule and they told me they won't investigate any shoe unless they have evidence the shoe is unfair. I'm not sure how that's possible. How is someone supposed to test an unreleased shoe and prove it's unfair?

https://www.letsrun.com/news/2019/07/track-and-fields-shoe-rule-makes-no-sense-might-sifan-hassans-wr-need-to-be-invalidated/

This is one of the best ideas I've read from you.

Yes, they should figure it out!

I thought there already was a rule in place about this that basically stated a result could be invalidated if the shoes used in it were not available to other competitors. Measuring whether a shoe gives an unfair advantage is difficult and subjective, so they got around that by simply saying the shoes needed to be available to the other athletes. This means there already is a "prototype rule" in effect. The problem is nobody is enforcing it.

Rule 143 states, "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."

Too much focus is being put on the second sentence. The first sentence is how we avoid the challenges of the second. If this ever went to some kind of a judge, I don't think they would require that the shoe had been made commercially publicly available, but that Nike or whatever shoe company would be able to respond to a specific request within a reasonable amount of time to sell and ship the shoe.

I'm pretty sure I've emailed Nike before requesting access to a shoe and gotten zero response. You would need to have a better athlete than me get turned away, though, because I have no real claim to damages since I'm not on elite starting lines. Any elite athlete out there reading this (or LRC who does sponsor elites on occasion) should be contacting Nike or others the instant they catch wind of these shoes and demanding "reasonable availability." Try to solicit and buy the shoe. If they fail to do so, that is when they become in violation of the rule.