I posted this on your offical thread. CNBC reported he was wearing those shoes but the rules require someone to ask that his shoes be checked. Seems very odd, but that's what On the Money on CNBC said. They did a peice on whether Spira won the advertising wars at Boston with those yellow shoes leading for so long or did Nike with both winners having the swosh on their singlets. Once he has taken his shoes off I have no idea how they verify what shoes he was wearing.
Wow. Well I guess Spira got what it wanted.
The thign is no one watching would know they were Spira shoes. It was not mentioned on the tv coverage and they were not in Spira jerseys. So clearly Spira got the word out. Just more support that their lead was more of a publicity stunt.
I'm writing an editorial on the mockery of the sport Spira is attempting at Boston but discovered that the master's champ is listed as a Spira athlete.
Hopefully, Boston checked his shoes after the race or will enquire as to what shoes he ran in or look at the tape. Then I assume they will disqualify him.
I have some sympathy for him and hope Spira and Foot Solutions honors his $10,000 first prize that Boston would give him if he is not DQd.
What's a "Spira Shoe Many"?
Could you translate this into English?
wejo wrote: Hopefully, Boston checked his shoes after the race or will enquire as to what shoes he ran in or look at the tape. Then I assume they will disqualify him.
Are the race organizers checking the shoes that were worn by all of the award winners (including age group medals), or do you expect them to check shoes based on an internet whisper campaign?
I can't personally see what the fuss is all about. They're just friggin' shoes. Who really cares if they have steel in them?
btw - I'll bet the430miler could run 429 in a pair of them spring-loaded shoes. I imagine they've got CRAZY energy return, eh?
wejo
I actually was thinking the same thing. How is this publicity? No one can see the shoes. It is not on their vests. They got great pub on CNBC. Maybe they were looking for investors!
But seriously, how do you have a rule that requires the other competitors to ask the meet to check his shoes. Can you imagine if drug testing worked that way. Hey I just finished 2089th please test that guy who finished 56th he looks like he may have cheated.
it's a dumb rule if the other competitors have to ask for it.
As for the shoes, if they're banned they're banned and the competitors need to respect it. I'm not a physicist but I respect the rules of competitiong by USATF. If the thinking is that springs give an unfair advantage then I'll take that at face value until proven otherwise. I'm writing an editorial on this tomorrow.
Wejo, watching the two Kenyans leading they sure looked like they were bouncing up and down a lot; not particularly efficient, like the Russian girl was. If the shoe is propelling them upwards versus forwards then how effective is it? Also, does the Spira shoe "throw off" their natural stride/form?
Wejo, opinion please.
Yeah, and pot gives an unfair advantage to T&F athletes, too. "Civil disobedience" isn't in your vocabulary, though apparently it's very much not alone in that distinction.
Your calling a company trying to tout its product as "civil disobedience?". I'm sure that's what Henry David Thoreau had in mind.
The PGA Tour has restrictions on what type of drivers can be used in competition. If some guy just tees it up at Augusta with one that is not allowed, I don't think I'm going to call it civil disobedience. I'm going to call it cheating. If his company beforehand tells everyone that he is going to do it beforehand then I'll call it guerilla marketing. But either way its against the rules designed to ensure fair competition and a level playing field.
Poor comparisons all around. What SCIENCE is the Spira ban based on? You come off as incredibly naive here and as an apologist for lazy bureaucrats.
I believe that the rule is based on a measurement and that the Spira shoes FAIL that measurement. I believe that the rule that covers this was 'fine-tuned' to be more explicit about the ability to DQ someone for taking advantage. Search the TrackandFieldNews site for a recent thread related to this.
Were they offering the $1 million this year, or was that just last year?
u fool wrote:
Poor comparisons all around. What SCIENCE is the Spira ban based on? You come off as incredibly naive here and as an apologist for lazy bureaucrats.
Spira can argue with USATF about the science. Currently that is not my concern. My concern is that the shoes are banned yet Spira purposely at Boston violates the ban for publicity reasons. The rules of competition that are designed for a level playing field need to be enforced. If I disagree with some drug being on the USADA bannedlist, that does not mean I can take it without repercussions. If Spira has a problem with the rule then they need to focus on getting the rule changed, not purposely breaking the rule.
Similarly, if athletes are being encouraged to race and just get as much tv time as possible that presents other problems as well for me. My article is up:
http://www.letsrun.com/2007/spiraban4167.phpI can understand the position you've taken, but I don't like the idea of you organizing an internet witch hunt against a specific runner based on your (perhaps valid) suspicion that he broke a rule. I like it where in your editorial you suggested a shoe check before the race. If Boston were serious about this rule, then they needed to enforce it before the fact, not after. And I don't think you should be making accusations after the fact either.
To take a relevant tangent... can anyone point me to some legitimate science one way or the other that shows if these shoes actually create an advantage? What is USATF's basis for this rule?
I'm with you on the idea of not letting people getting away with flouting rules, and this incident raises some interesting questions. One of the most interesting, to me, is whether or not USATF has imposed a legitimate rule, or pulled this one out of their asses to shut out a new shoe from the market. Boston's handling of their own rule may leave much to be desired, but unless this Russian dude comes out and admits he broke the rules, I think you should leave that be.
Wejo, is right, rules are rules.
We can all drive the roads at ease knowing Wejo never exceeds the speed limit, because if he wants to exceed the speed limit, he should work towards changing it . . .
Take it to an extreme. What's to stop someone from actually wearing those real spring shoes, that have those huge springs on them? Wearing something like that, you'll definitely be faster than not wearing them. If it offers a mechanical spring advantage, then they are outlawed by USATF. And the Spirea shoes offer that type of advantage.
wejo, read your editorial & agree...and not just because it might move a friend up in the money.
You can bet next year BAA officials will be on top of this kind of thing and get all national anthems in order.
L. Rawson wrote: What's to stop someone from actually wearing those real spring shoes, that have those huge springs on them? Wearing something like that, you'll definitely be faster than not wearing them.
That may be your opinion, but I'll believe that when I see it. Just because something seems intuitively correct doesn't mean it's actually correct.
Can nobody point to the science that supports the USATF rule? I'll be honest, my belief is the shoes have been outlawed because the manufacturers CLAIM that they give a mechanical advantage. Much like the POSEurs claim that gravity pulls you forward.
Where is the430miler when you really need him? This thread - all about energy return - would truly benefit from his learned insights. ;-)