Mechanical doping: Vienna Marathon winner DQd as his adidas midsole was too thick. Publicity stunt?

spira all over again wrote:

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.”?

Kinda like every gd shoe on the market nowadays. Everyone realize that Kipchoge’s shoe during the sub 2-hour fiasco wouldn’t be legal by updated rules? IAAF really needs to look more closely at supershoes. Anyone have a count on how many World, Olympic, National, Collegiate, and age records were broke this year?

Nike maintains that Kipchoge ran the sub-2hr event in legal/stock Alphaflys.

Obviously we can’t go back in time to saw the shoe in half, but they say the blueprints showing multiple carbon plates were just a concept and not what they ended up making. The multiple plates created too much instability, per Nike.

Ho Hum wrote:

I think the issue here is that the rule doesn't really make sense, i.e. adding more stack doesn't make this shoe any faster. I mean, weight does matter to a point, and this weighs over 9 oz.

This is the old mentality of thought. How could a thicker sole improve times? The secret is in the improvement “cushioning “ material. It’s lighter and gives way more return than the old stuff. Couple that with added carbon fiber or pebax plate (or whatever they’re using) and you’ve got a shoe that significantly reduces leg fatigue and allows the athlete to work less. Kipchoge didn’t run sub 2 on just hard work and a moxie.

People will argue this isn’t the case but you can’t argue the fact that literally everyone is wearing them now.

Not arguing this isn't the case, but there's a limit to how much height you can add before this stops being true. Extra weight (~30% more than Next %), worse stability, likely poor around turns all have a cost, and the foam doesn't necessarily perform the same as it gets taller.

Who cares? How much better did runners get when they decided to stop making spikes out of leather with giant nails on the bottom? Or when they decided to stop making tracks out of dirt and cinder? Technology always advances, that's part of the sport.

More foam also feels better than a "traditional" minimalist racing flat. Why should World Athletics be requiring runners to pound their bones directly on concrete? Seems like the foam would also help prevent injury.

dawnrunner wrote:

Vienna marathon winner gets disqualufied for 50mm sole thickness:

https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000129589084/falsche-schuhe-vermeintlicher-marathon-sieger-hurisa-disqualifiziert

Who cares.. fvkc lol. Remember when Rodgers ran 2:09:55 in what would be considered slippers in 1975 over the hills of Boston or Ron Hill ran 2:09:28 in 1970 with again flats that were paper thin. Between the drugs and the shoes this sport is imho almost unwatchable.

King Chess podiums in Skechers amid sea of cheaterflys , no f's given.

Addidas athlete out 10k, for running in clown shoe.. Shoe is sold out on manufacturer web page , Total stunt. And this was the top article on my apple news feed. Totally a stunt.

RunRaider wrote:

Nike maintains that Kipchoge ran the sub-2hr event in legal/stock Alphaflys.

Obviously we can’t go back in time to saw the shoe in half, but they say the blueprints showing multiple carbon plates were just a concept and not what they ended up making. The multiple plates created too much instability, per Nike.

So they wanted to get even more of an artificial advantage but found it was ineffective. Kind of like the L-Carnitine.

midwest guy wrote:

Who cares? How much better did runners get when they decided to stop making spikes out of leather with giant nails on the bottom? Or when they decided to stop making tracks out of dirt and cinder? Technology always advances, that's part of the sport.

More foam also feels better than a "traditional" minimalist racing flat. Why should World Athletics be requiring runners to pound their bones directly on concrete? Seems like the foam would also help prevent injury.

The only reason there could have been an improvement in performance from leather to nylon is weight. Period. This is like saying “Athletes experienced an improvement in performance by switching to nylon running singlet instead of a heavy canvas shirt.” I know they never used canvas running shirt but you get the point. If times improved it was because of a reduction in weight the runner had to carry and not because of some revolutionary tech improvement that enhanced performance. I would even go so far as to say the only real advantage was comfort. I bet times really didn’t improve much initially but I could be wrong.

Ron Clarke raced on both cinder and synthetic. All of his PB were set on cinder. It took several years after the introduction of synthetic for his records to be broke. Jim Ryun raced on both cinder and synthetic and never ran a mile faster than he did on cinder. When synthetic was finally introduced in the late 60s Ryun’s WR was finally broken 6 years later by Bayi. The tracks were so revolutionary (sarcasm alert) that it it brought the record down by .1. It took 6 years and the record only dropped by .1. If there is something to be said of synthetic it’s that they’re easier to maintain and runners will generally run faster because, you know, they’re running on a more even surface and not because it offers some sort of magical performance enhancement. This is like comparing cinder to running on sand. Is cinder some revolutionary surface? Well… no… it’s just not sand.

You can justify the shoes all you want but running has never seen such a revolutionary improvement in technology since the development of anabolic steroids in the 70s or EPO in the 90s. How many WR and Olympic and National records went down this year? I mean you had some HS kid run 3:34 this year! Guess what shoes he was wearing?

Jzs wrote:

Who cares.. fvkc lol. Remember when Rodgers ran 2:09:55 in what would be considered slippers in 1975 over the hills of Boston or Ron Hill ran 2:09:28 in 1970 with again flats that were paper thin. Between the drugs and the shoes this sport is imho almost unwatchable.

Yes, I will agree that the sport is almost unwatchable at this point.

Jack Daniels did the original shoe weight studies. Back in 2012 he wrote how the most economical shoe they tested was a thick, heavy, sponge material.

“the most economical shoe we ever tested had a midsole over 1 inch think and was of a sponge material like you would wash your car with. Those shoes (we referred to as “marshmallow shoes”) we’re not so light, but absorbed so much landing shock that they were a joy to run in.”

https://runsmartproject.com/2012/02/06/how-much-does-shoe-weight-affect-performance/#more-4473

bttrail wrote:

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...

It seems very unlikely that they wouldn't know this. Anyone who could even identify this shoe by name and actually owned it would know that the main talking point about it is the stack height.

Is it likely (I suppose not 100% impossible) that he just runs in anything Adidas gives him and never actually sought out info on it or even took note of the fact the shoe is massive? I can't imagine that in a pro - especially if (going by the reason he provides as quoted) he gives any level of thought to the feel and performance of a shoe, and differentiates between several different pairs in his possession, according to his preferences. He's also a sub-2:10 runner, so he knows what he's doing, you'd imagine.

Side-note, is it wise to be training in these and did Adidas give them to him for that? That also seems odd.

GFC wrote:

"Hey, kids, buy the shoe that got this guy disqualified"?

No.

It worked in 1985. Not a DQ, but still a $5,000 fine.

I've read their press release and do not think it was intentional.

https://www.letsrun.com/news/2021/09/kenyans-leonard-langat-20925-and-vibian-chepkirui-22429-win-vienna-marathon-derara-hurisa-dqd-for-illegal-shoes/

rojo wrote:

I've read their press release and do not think it was intentional.

https://www.letsrun.com/news/2021/09/kenyans-leonard-langat-20925-and-vibian-chepkirui-22429-win-vienna-marathon-derara-hurisa-dqd-for-illegal-shoes/

Were the shoes he ran in actually illegal? Or was the issue more that he ran in different shoes to what he originally had down?

From that tweet you posted:-

"So it’s been confirmed that shoes were checked at the Pre race meeting. The athlete disqualified presented a different pair of shoes to the ones that he ran with on the day"

But yeah, just sounds like he simply didn't realise the rules.

First such disqualification in a Major ever. So maybe not exactly on everyone's radar? Especially 'foreign' athletes from Ethiopia who don't speak German! Probably best if we wait at least 24 hours before posting our definitive takes on incidents like this. Retreat, rethink & then react.

This should be RobJohn's dream come true

kmaclam wrote:

First such disqualification in a Major ever.

Vienna? A "Major"?

nike shill wrote:

GFC wrote:

"Hey, kids, buy the shoe that got this guy disqualified"?

No.

It worked in 1985. Not a DQ, but still a $5,000 fine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5QbV-wnhtY

"The shoe initially gained a great deal of publicity and interest because its vibrant black and red color violated the league's uniform rules and when Michael was fined five thousand dollars every time he wore the shoes during a game."

Not quite since they weren't considered illegal for increasing performance on the basketball court. But they because they violated archaic uniform rules.