Track and field's shoe rule needs to be rewritten

Shoebacca wrote:

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."

Again, as a non-Olympian, I don't see what difference it makes. It's on the 4th~100th or so placed finishers at Rio to complain officially, as there's nothing I can do while watching the race from my living room. Same way Sara Sellers could have complained and perhaps "won" Boston if they had the balls to DQ Linden due to non-legal equipment. Or Ward's 2:09 at Boston, Flanagan and Cragg from the 2016 Olympic Trials and so on.

Kara Goucher even made a fuss about their shoes at the Trials, but to my knowledge, didn't do anything about it officially. If Phelps showed up on the blocks at the Rio games with a skin suit on, you better bet every other swimmer would be protesting his result.

IMO, it's really on the competitors to say something. Until that happens... nothing will happen.

Shoezoo wrote:

People can say whatever they like but the plate in the 4% is registered under patent as a spring device. If it isn't as such then can someone explain.

Good point, sitting alongside the fact that Nike aren't exactly hiding that as a selling point as to why they will make you run faster!

It's easy - just ban hybrid footwear from running events.

Rollerblades - hybrid footwear with mechanical devices, ie. Wheels.

Vaporfly - hybrid footwear with mechanical devices, i.e. carbon fiber springs.

One allowed one not even though if you take the passion out of it both of the forms of hybrid footwear give the wearer the same mechanical device driven benefits.

Vaporfly Asterisk wrote:

Vaporfly - hybrid footwear with mechanical devices, i.e. carbon fiber springs.

One allowed one not even though if you take the passion out of it both of the forms of hybrid footwear give the wearer the same mechanical device driven benefits.

There hasn't been a study, to my knowledge, breaking down the different components of the Vaporfly to actually isolate what is helping. They claim between 2.7~4% improvement in efficiency. Is it the plate, the foam, the height of the foam or the overall weight of the shoe?

Build a Vaporfly midsole without the plate and test it. Then, test the Zoom Fly Flyknit (same plate, same upper, different foam) in the lab the same way the Vaporfly has been tested. Report back with individual results, then decide what to ban... and be sure to include all the other companies that have similar products.

I agree with Rojo and think he should start a separate thread on the topic for registered users only. I can't believe that the chorus of outrage at the notion that springs should be available to everyone or no one is coming from more than a few Nike shills.

This reminds me of the issues they had in the World Rally Championships back in the 1970s. Originally all the cars had to be stock standard, bought from the dealers. Then the auto manufacturers quietly pressured the series authorities to change this and suddenly the cars had the shell of a standard model but the insides were hollowed out and turbo charged four wheel drives took over. Interestingly, spectators were used to cheering on the cars, like they do on the TDF mountain climbing stages, we're being killed watching as the cars were just so much faster and uncontrollable.

Never mind the outrage, what about the ridicule of those who believe springs can make you run faster, which they can't? Why would Nike send shills to slam their own marketing gimmick?

I think banning technological improvements is a bad idea for track and field.

Shoes should probably be limited in stack height and have no device that allows greater than 100% energy return. This would eliminate motors, etc., but it would allow various spring-like approaches, such as Nike's carbon fiber plate.

My only beef with the 4% is that it is WAY too expensive. The carbon fiber plate probably only adds a dollar or so to production cost. It should be $100 less expensive.

doot doot wrote:

Kickapoo wrote:

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?

The average runner does not run in international competition. What's your point? I'm not saying the average runner cannot use them!

We are not talking about shoes making it into production. It's keeping springy shoes out of INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION! HAVEN'T YOU GUYS SEEN THE SHOES PEOPLE WITHOUT LEGS USE? THAT WOULD BE AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE FOR THE ABLE-BODY RUNNERS TO USE. BUT NO ONE CARES IF YOU USE THEM IN ORDINARY TRAINING AND RACING.