Former marathon WR holder Tegla Loruope slams super shoes - says those that use them are "Cheating...It's almost like doping."

The Unkle wrote:

truth be told. wrote:

Opinions are moot. The shoes have always been legal and are no different than innovation in tennis rackets, golf clubs, and pole vault poles.

The old head in the sand worldview.

The shoes allow people to go materially faster than in past years. It is like they are doing some of the work. As if a bicyclist had a small engine doing some of the work.

I try not to be too rude on here, but this is so demonstrably stupid.

If you take a bike with a motor, put stabilizers on it, and turn on the motor, it moves.

If you put a pair of vaporflies on the road, even a sharp downhill, they're not going to move an inch.

I think road running has been transformed by these shoes, but the "it's like using a motor in cycling" and "there's no human energy crowd" look utterly ridiculous.

rojo wrote:

Wow

Loroupe wrote:

"I'm not a fan of that because there is no human energy," she told BBC Sport.

"You are cheating, you are not a hero because you don't use your own strength.

"You can have a faster shoe [but] what about those who cannot afford, it's almost like doping, for me there is no difference between doping and having a faster shoe."

https://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/56927028

But sadly she just epitomizes "emotional vs rational" on this topic and those three comments alone are just too easy too intelligently rebutt.

1) The shoes do not generate a single joule of energy therefore the simple fact is that in this energy system it's still all human energy.

2) You aren't cheating and you do use your own "strength". Your strength may be utilized more efficiently, but it's still your own strength.

3) Tegla would have hard time showing me any evidence that this situation fundamentally is new or has been created because of these shoes. I'm guessing she is referring people who have to buy shoes (ironic because I'm guessing for 90% of her career she never had to) - rewind 10 years, go to a fun-run and look at the spectrum of shoes on display. Some people had better shoes than others based on economic factors then and they do now. How does this differ from a round of golf, or a cycling race, or anything that involves the purchase of an item of sporting equipment? It doesn't. Next flawed point please...

It's a little tragic really. Tegla shouldn't feel that her legacy is infringed on because her former WR is now over 5 minutes slower than the current one and that many women now break the 2.20 mark that I would guess was her dream benchmark. Are shoes contributing to this - yes of course they are. But Grete Waitz probably could have had the same argument vs Laroupe and so on and so on.

The reality is high performance running product (namely footwear) was simply stagnant in terms of new innovation for decades and what was "pioneered" by the 4% was simply a release of a backlog of tech that could have been put in the market in pieces over those 15 or so years where we saw very little except "weight savings" and then "nominal increase in energy return at the detriment of weight". The same would "outrage" would have happened in cycling had that industry made a jump from 11 speed steel framed bikes to 21 speed carbon framed bikes in the space of 6 months.

Bottom line, just because Tegla Laroupe is offended doesn't mean she is right. And she isn't.

rojo wrote:

Wow

Loroupe wrote:

who? what a silly hot take from a cold body.

Top runners from the 1990's - early 2000s should not call the shoes, cheating. As most of those runners were on EPO.

coW2 wrote:

Top runners from the 1990's - early 2000s should not call the shoes, cheating. As most of those runners were on EPO.

Yes, this is also one of the great ironies in amongst all this whining.

"I'm not a fan of training because it requres more calories to be consumed to replace the extra calories burned. You can do lots of training but what about those who cannot afford extra food? It's almost like doping, for me there is no difference between training and doping."

Carbon fiber bikes should be considered doping as well. Only records ridden on old school steel frames should count.

Gears are doping as well, it gives you too much of a mechanical advantage. Same as free wheels.

All bike races will now be ridden in steel frames fixed gear bikes.

Anything else is doping.

LOL and what do you epitomize?

1. It doesn't generate a joule of energy but it does reduce energy loss, which would be equivalent to generating energy in an ordinary shoe (the same way reducing drag on a bike is universally discussed in terms of equivalent watts saved).

2. If everyone has access to the same tech then the playing field is even. If they don't then it's uneven. Cheating implies rule-breaking and I don't think it's that, but it is unfair in a similar sort of way.

3. Wow yeah you're right Tegla Loroupe is SO privileged. She was raised on a farm with no electricity or running water and had 24 siblings. Get the f out of here man. How does this differ from the past? The new shoes provide a much larger benefit to runners than the old ones and they're double the cost of other running shoes. You don't have to be a genius to understand this. How does this differ from a round of golf or cycling race? The average person in Kaptagat has never played a round of golf or bought a carbon framed bike and could never afford to. Next flawed point please...

It's a little tragic really that a letsrun poster decides to call one of the greatest distance runners of all time "emotional" and "offended" rather than arguing against a charitable interpretation of her thoughts.

I epitomize someone who ran as a professional athlete as well that now works in the industry with not just knowledge of how the shoes work but to what degree. That's what I epitomize.

"LOL".

Your first point here maybe the single most stupid thing I've had to read on these boards surrounding these shoes - and I've read a lot from "spring plates" to the magic of "carbon fiber" and what its role allegedly is - but this is all time.

"It doesn't generate a joule of energy but it does reduce energy loss, which would be equivalent to generating energy in an ordinary shoe (the same way reducing drag on a bike is universally discussed in terms of equivalent watts saved)."

Wow. Just wow. "It doesn't generate a joule of energy - but it's "equivalent" to generating energy". You sure about that pal? "generating" vs "saving" are two completely different concepts and there is not a single context that makes them the same thing. Go away you laptop "scientist"

Your second point - so you also don't agree with Laroupe. Okay glad we agree on that.

Third point - not about Laroupes privilege but again I'm happy you are such a fan of hers. Her statement about "not affording" isn't really relevant in the world of professional runners where this matters most. Because this is only where it matters. Nobody cares, for example, that you might take your 5km PR from 22min to 20min30 if you wear a pair of Vaporflys, sorry. But they care that Kipchoge is beating the marathon WR by 90 seconds and running close to 2 hours. Kipchoge has free access to product his sponsor gives him - the same way Kimetto did, the same way Kannouchi did. So if the issue is actually that some brands are better at providing "access" to the best products this isn't an issue of "being able to afford". So in case this didn't get past your idiot shield I'll explain it this way. Any athlete for whom these shoes might make a difference that anyone cares about, can afford the shoes. And I get "but some athletes are sponsored and they can't" - then refer to my point above.

This isn't about respect for Laroupe and her athletic career - it's about her comments now which are non-factual and in some cases irrelevant. She is entitled to her opinions, I'm entitled to my opinion of those comments she made.

"LOL" - are you 16 years old? What the f-ck?

Then why are you so insecure?

I mean I do have a PhD in physics but I work on a desktop, not a laptop. My point was that most people discuss physics concepts in terms of colloquialisms rather than technical language, and even physicists aren't usually super harsh on people who use terms slightly improperly. And we're talking about someone who grew up on a farm without water or electricity with 24 siblings. I think you know what she meant, and if you don't then that really just says something about you.

They are very similar concepts. Compare two bikes, one with a more aerodynamic frame than the other. Colloquially we'll say the more aerodynamic frame "saves 40 watts". Technically what that means is that it takes roughly 40 fewer watts to travel at the same speed (benchmarked at say 25mph) on the more aerodynamic frame. What it could also mean is that a person on the slower frame would need a 40 watt motor to keep up with the more aerodynamic frame. We don't really have motors we can put in shoes so it's more difficult to form an analogy in running, but you know that's what she meant.

For hundreds of east Africans the difference between a 2:13 and a 2:15 is a life-changing amount of money. Don't be daft. You know this is what she was trying to say.

I saw Tegla in the Nairobi airport one time. That is all.

I think fibreglass pole vault poles are cheating too.

Agree with this. It misses the point to just say it's fair because everyone has access - running has always been about the 'race' on-the-day, and the 'time'; so two factors that are both considered important.... the race aspect is obvious - which guy or girl wins etc.... but on the 'time' aspect, a performances 'worth' is judged against not only other current performances, but also against those which have come befor over years and years. We've always been able to compare reasonably well over generations, and then assign merit to a performance based on that comparison.... now with the super shoes, that cross-generation compatibility has been lost.

We can no longer frame performance, and the sport is poorer for it.

Looking at it another way, what is the benefit of the super shoes? Times artificially drop by a minute or two; but why is that inherently a good thing? I'd argue it's a bad development and that the sport has lost something (as above), and gained basically nothing.

Also, on the argument that 'technology always develops' etc.... It is accepted that there is technological creep over the decades; so the further you go back the less comparable things become; but the changes in the last 5 years are more akin to a revolution rather then an evolution.

I think there is also the undersold issue of responders Vs non-responders to the new technology. Studies have shown not everyone gets a benefit, or if they do, not to the same %. Ross Tucker's point on this (maybe slightly misquoted) was along the lines of "I don't want to watch Federer Vs Djokovic and wonder if the result would be different if they swapped rackets"

Just the fact that you think all these people who are now running faster than they ever have setting records left and right all while wearing these shoes is a sheer coincidence means you are denying the obvious.

Tegla may not have had the scientific background to explain it properly but we know what she meant.

Now if you don't want to call them cheater shoes thats fine, but the reality is they are definitely a huge factor in these faster times.

And she is right in saying that.

My guess is also that if a smaller unknown shoe company had come up with the concept, copyrighted the tech and the materials, Nike would have called them cheater shoes too.

The bigger companies own track.

Tommy2Nutz wrote:

Just the fact that you think all these people who are now running faster than they ever have setting records left and right all while wearing these shoes is a sheer coincidence means you are denying the obvious.

Tegla may not have had the scientific background to explain it properly but we know what she meant.

Now if you don't want to call them cheater shoes thats fine, but the reality is they are definitely a huge factor in these faster times.

And she is right in saying that.

My guess is also that if a smaller unknown shoe company had come up with the concept, copyrighted the tech and the materials, Nike would have called them cheater shoes too.

The bigger companies own track.

Well, SS works or worked in the development of those shoes, so there's that.

Again, opinions are moot- they are legal. Innovation is always going to happen in sports, and of course science supports they help you go faster.

God these debates are stupid. If you don't like the new shoes because they make past records irrelevant then let's go back to cinder, or even dirt tracks and no spikes. Instead of starting blocks, give each runner a shovel and dig footholds. That would make things "fair" again. I doubt Jesse Owens would be crying that it's unfair that people on mondo tracks, wearing modern spikes are running faster than him.

If Tegla was still competing at world class level, she would be in them

a dude with tiny calves wrote:

God these debates are stupid. If you don't like the new shoes because they make past records irrelevant then let's go back to cinder, or even dirt tracks and no spikes. Instead of starting blocks, give each runner a shovel and dig footholds. That would make things "fair" again. I doubt Jesse Owens would be crying that it's unfair that people on mondo tracks, wearing modern spikes are running faster than him.

So much this. People were getting excited about new running shoe technology in the 1930s. And nearly a century later, a shoe (that's really fun to run in, by the way) that lowers the time of a multi-hour event by a couple minutes is ruining everything?

Hard-to-swallow pill: $250 is exactly what you'd expect a consumer-range, widely available product attractive to a broad range of enthusiastic hobbyists to cost.