Ryan Hall Deletes his faceBook rant against "ProtoType Nike Shoes "

Yup ^^^^

The proof is in the pudding. If it were truly cheating, she would be DQed. "Cheating" per the standards that live only inside your head doesn't matter in the real world.

It's worth noting that he still has up this on Instagram (at least as of right now, when I'm posting). The following points are notable to me:

1. Ryan Hall claims that the Alphafly is a multiple plate shoe. This is not the case and never was. Nike does hold a patent for multiple carbon fiber plates in a shoe, but from what I've gathered, it was incredibly unstable and testers thought it was terrible, so that's why we've never seen it in a shoe. (And let's be honest... the Alphafly is already pretty damn unstable, which is probably why almost nobody was wearing it at London).

2. He wants Olympics and WM Majors to be "fair playing fields for athletes of all brands", and yet has no issue with his wife running in prototypes available to nobody else.

3. Jared Ward (@Jwardy21) likes this post. This is somewhat interesting considering that Jared has been helping develop and running in prototype Saucony versions of the Vaporfly for years. Jared liking this post is, in effect, him supporting the idea that Alphaflys are an unfair advantage over Saucony, Asics, etc. This is a little odd considering that the Alphafly is just bouncy rubber and a single, curved carbon fiber plate, just like the Saucony shoes that Jared runs in, unless you buy that having responsive air pockets inside the shoe is performance enhancing or somehow an advantage, despite pretty much every brand doing this in some shoes for decades. Is Jared Ward essentially admitting that Nike's racing shoes are superior to Saucony's racing shoes despite Saucony's best attempts to create something similar?

Regardless of her shoes, Sara ran a great race and at the age of 37, it's even more impressive. The shoe issue will work itself out, the question is if Sara can stay healthy another year and make an Olympic Team. I don't think Nike has invented a shoe that makes you younger....YET!!

The "Nike EPO-Super Juice X" ????

"Go Run One"

Did you even look at the date on that post? ??‍♂️

He spoke out against something when it put his wife at a disadvantage and now she has equipment that puts her on a more level playing field. He may not be the smartest guy around yet it's full-on idiotic to think he'd keep the same opinion with new information in significantly changed circumstances. He's not a hypocrite, these critics are all numbskulls who probably only hate RH and come after him by extension of their hatred for women like SH.

It's not at all ridiculous to oppose the use of spring-like shoes that have the likely effect of making a mockery of all previous records in the distances, at least on the roads. Prior to this, you could essentially compare all races on the roads from the 1970s or earlier to today reasonably.

rojo wrote:]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^This.

Nike came out with a secret shoe, camouflaged it to look like old shoes, and only gave it to select pros. Cheating may be too strong for some but certainly against the spirit of the sport. Th eproblem was most shoes were probably technically in violation of the shoe rule.

"Athletes may compete barefoot or with footwear on one or both feet. The purpose of shoes for competition is to give protection and stability to the feet and a firm grip on the ground. Such shoes, however, must not be constructed so as to give athletes any unfair assistance or advantage. "

https://twitter.com/glencottingley/status/1218153060100464640

If you think that’s camouflage then you’re an idiot.

1) They used the same shoes at the LA trials but with white uppers.

2) The midsole was CLEARLY different.

3) If you actually pay attention to what brands do at the olympics (thought maybe a “journalist” would do this but I guess not) you’ll notice that they use uniform color branding to denote the occasion. This was called the Rio colorway. All of the racing shoes (road and track) plus Pegasus and others all had this coloring. And other brands did the same thing.

When Paula wore the Zoom Marathoner upper with a modified midsole (you know, they way many many pros have special shoes from their brands), was that camouflage?

Nope.

Rojo, I think the answer is that you have never paid attention to footwear in your sport and now you’ve decided that spouting your ignorance is a good idea.

You could always try being an objective journalist who does some research about the whole footwear world, but I know that’s asking way too much of your severely limited skill set.

At least Weldon and Gault try. You’re just useless.

Another Dime for the Cursed Jar wrote:

As for Sara... She too was whining about "unfair" super shoes... now she has one no one else has so it's totally fine.

Lol. She had Next% with an Asics upper sewn on, hence it was approved for use.

In Ryan's "rant" (which was not deleted, the OP is just an idiot) he asked WA to come up with rules for shoes... now they did.

No controversy here.

Hardloper wrote:

Another Dime for the Cursed Jar wrote:

As for Sara... She too was whining about "unfair" super shoes... now she has one no one else has so it's totally fine.

Lol. She had Next% with an Asics upper sewn on, hence it was approved for use.

In Ryan's "rant" (which was not deleted, the OP is just an idiot) he asked WA to come up with rules for shoes... now they did.

No controversy here.

As someone who owns multiple pairs of them, I am positive that midsole is not the Next%. It does not flare out in the forefoot like the Next%. If it is a different manufacture I it looks most similar to the Adidas midsole but not sure why we are under the assumption that it is not a new version of the Metaracer.

World Traveler wrote:

Deletes it today , after Sara runs in new "uninspiring" cushioned shoes.

Replaces it with photo of himself with no shirt on

rojo wrote:

mouse wrote:

it was cheating when it was hidden or when there was not an equal playing field.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^This.

Nike came out with a secret shoe, camouflaged it to look like old shoes, and only gave it to select pros. Cheating may be too strong for some but certainly against the spirit of the sport. Th eproblem was most shoes were probably technically in violation of the shoe rule.

"Athletes may compete barefoot or with footwear on one or both feet. The purpose of shoes for competition is to give protection and stability to the feet and a firm grip on the ground. Such shoes, however, must not be constructed so as to give athletes any unfair assistance or advantage. "

https://twitter.com/glencottingley/status/1218153060100464640

Thank you Rojo. I have not seen any other running publication defend the truth like Letsrun.com

World Traveler wrote:

Deletes it today , after Sara runs in new "uninspiring" cushioned shoes.

So ???

Every single one of you are missing a huge point: You still need to put in the training and dedication and be not just good, but extremely talented. If you suck at running, not even a Bionic Runner elliptical bike will save you, the shoes are just a tool.

I agree. I agreed with what Kipchoge said. Technology moves as time moves on. Nothing stays the same. As long as there are rules and everyone stays within the guidelines. It doesn’t matter what sport. You can’t compare 2020 to 2004 to 1972 to 1942. Things develop and time marches on

I think rojo is just trolling. If it gets you triggered, then the arguments are good for the site, generating more interest.

I think rojo is just trolling. If it gets you triggered, then the arguments are good for the site, generating more interest.

Hardloper wrote:

Another Dime for the Cursed Jar wrote:

As for Sara... She too was whining about "unfair" super shoes... now she has one no one else has so it's totally fine.

Lol. She had Next% with an Asics upper sewn on, hence it was approved for use.

No, she didn't. Anyone saying so is either stupid or they're lying.

Hall claims his pr as the 204:58 (actually calls that a 204 lol) run with a 25 mph tailwind on a point to point at Boston so he needs to stop. Nobody upfront that day ran within three mimutes of their time again elsewhere.....

Gwalkerruns wrote:

Nobody upfront that day ran within three mimutes of their time again elsewhere.....

Except for Mutai....and except for Mosop....and except for etc. etc.

michiganrunner55 wrote:

I agree. I agreed with what Kipchoge said. Technology moves as time moves on. Nothing stays the same. As long as there are rules and everyone stays within the guidelines. It doesn’t matter what sport. You can’t compare 2020 to 2004 to 1972 to 1942. Things develop and time marches on

I disagree. And I think Kipchoge is just hugely biased because the shoes have worked out so well for him. I wouldn't expect him to come out with an anti-Vaporfly argument.

Of course you can compare 2020 to 2004 - we do it all the time! That is (or was) part of the beauty of track and field - the timelessness of it. Take the 1500m/mile for example. In the mid-to-late 80's, breaking 3:30 for 1500 was absolutely top-notch. 30 years later - same thing. We don't have to wonder "what could Coe, Cram, etc., have run if only they'd had access to modern track shoes?" (the answer: about the same as they actually ran). But in the marathon (and other road events), that's far from the case. To many of us, something vital is lost when you can no longer directly compare times that were run even within the span of one's own running career. What's not to like about a sport where all the equipment and clothing is basically a non-factor, and you can, to a fair degree, compete on even terms against everyone, everywhere, through long spans of time?

That is dumb..