Vienna marathon winner gets disqualified for 50mm sole thickness: https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000129589084/falsche-schuhe-vermeintlicher-marathon-sieger-hurisa-disqualifiziert
Vienna marathon winner gets disqualified for 50mm sole thickness: https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000129589084/falsche-schuhe-vermeintlicher-marathon-sieger-hurisa-disqualifiziert
Well that was stupid. Adidas have a legal super shoe.
Yeah that’s kind of weird. Why would they even be making a shoe that doesn’t conform to the rules? I guess for the masses? Like “This shoe is so good it’s banned.”?
Apparently he produced a different legal shoe for officials in pre-race, then switched and ran with the illegal shoes in the race. That's on him.
Just wondering, did anyone notice what shoes Charlotte Purdue was wearing at GNR today? They looked quite similar to these ones that got the DQ…
https://www.instagram.com/p/CTuCiORojbS/?utm_medium=copy_link
Breakfast In Bed wrote:
Apparently he produced a different legal shoe for officials in pre-race, then switched and ran with the illegal shoes in the race. That's on him.
https://twitter.com/runwithcuan/status/1437035934403514371
Why did he need a thicker shoes? More or thicker carbon plates inside?
Seems like it's pretty well known this shoe isn't IAAF legal.
https://www.roadtrailrun.com/2021/06/adidas-adizero-prime-x-super-max.html
nbskis wrote:
Seems like it's pretty well known this shoe isn't IAAF legal.
Anyone think this was a publicity stunt?
adidas is an official sponsor of the race.
PS. I've changed the title of the thread to ask the question if it's a PR stunt or not.
rojo wrote:
nbskis wrote:
Seems like it's pretty well known this shoe isn't IAAF legal.
Anyone think this was a publicity stunt?
adidas is an official sponsor of the race.
"Hey, kids, buy the shoe that got this guy disqualified"?
No.
GFC wrote:
rojo wrote:
Anyone think this was a publicity stunt?
adidas is an official sponsor of the race.
"Hey, kids, buy the shoe that got this guy disqualified"?
No.
You don't understand the shoe doping mentality.
I think it very well may have been. I mean why would the guy risk it otherwise? Is the super thick shoe that much faster than the other one?
And think about how much free publicity they go worldwide.
https://twitter.com/letsrundotcom/status/1437110704897724423
Moo G wrote:
Breakfast In Bed wrote:
Apparently he produced a different legal shoe for officials in pre-race, then switched and ran with the illegal shoes in the race. That's on him.
https://twitter.com/runwithcuan/status/1437035934403514371Why did he need a thicker shoes? More or thicker carbon plates inside?
No, more foam.
It is more and more clear that the foam is more important than the carbon plate. The carbon plate is merely a lever, not a spring. The foam is what is responsible for cushioning and energy return.
Charlesvdw wrote:
Moo G wrote:
Why did he need a thicker shoes? More or thicker carbon plates inside?
No, more foam.
It is more and more clear that the foam is more important than the carbon plate. The carbon plate is merely a lever, not a spring. The foam is what is responsible for cushioning and energy return.
Can't they come up with a better foam that does this without the height. Is this really a technical advancement or a fashion thing?
rojo wrote:
nbskis wrote:
Seems like it's pretty well known this shoe isn't IAAF legal.
Anyone think this was a publicity stunt?
adidas is an official sponsor of the race.
PS. I've changed the title of the thread to ask the question if it's a PR stunt or not.
Here is why that is extremely unlikely.
1) I don't know many athletes agents that would sign up for a 2.09 effort knowing it wouldn't count. And I don't buy any "adidas compensated him (them) for that because...
2) He ran 2.09.22. So if this is such a super shoe - it clearly isn't - he ran 2.09. If he ran 2.02 and got DQ'd then I could see some legitimacy to that theory, but not at this level.
It's just more strange stuff from adidas alongside this weird "road to (obscure) records" thing they did in Germany today. The shoe is illegal but its a racing shoe so you need it to be legal so your best athletes can wear in a race and show that it's amazing. But not only is it not legal it's not even amazing unless Hurisa is a 2.16 runner that just lost 7min because of the shoes (he is not his PR is 2.08.09)
Clown shoes.
rojo wrote:
nbskis wrote:
Seems like it's pretty well known this shoe isn't IAAF legal.
Anyone think this was a publicity stunt?
adidas is an official sponsor of the race.
PS. I've changed the title of the thread to ask the question if it's a PR stunt or not.
Seems like Adidas being a sponsor would make it less likely, not more. The event organizers do not seem to be particularly happy about this.
i live in vienna and even ran the half marathon there today, so I've been following the media coverage quite closely. it seems that Hurisa decided last minute that he'd run in the shoes he has been using all the time in training and was used too. why he or his manager didn't know that they aren't legal is another question...
bttrail wrote:
why he or his manager didn't know that they aren't legal is another question...
Because it's a stupid arbitrary rule?
just say no wrote:
bttrail wrote:
why he or his manager didn't know that they aren't legal is another question...
Because it's a stupid arbitrary rule?
Yep. Just like wind aided times, really what is the difference between +1.9 and +2.0?
For those of you old codgers on here that can’t read sarcasm(most of you): there is no real noticeable difference in these arbitrary cutoffs, but they need to be somewhere. If you can run in the shoes then wind aided times should count for records. Downhill courses should count as qualifiers.