Open letter from Spira

Andy,

I've trained in the Del Sol and I like them. I can't comment on the other shoes, but if they're as good as the Del Sol, you definitely have a viable product. That said, I realize that the "ban" is your best publicity angle, but it makes your company seem that it has to resort to subversive and cheap marketing. This undermines the credibility and quality of your product. You've done a good job in reaching out to sub-elites and post-collegiate running clubs to promotionally market your products, and I recommend that you continue to pursue that angle in getting the word out about Spira. Alos, consider donating shoes to relatively large races (300ish people) to be awarded as prizes. Odds are that a runner good enough to win a race with 300+ people will train at least enough miles per week to warrant a new pair of shoes every 7 weeks or so, and as such will more than likely try, and hopefully like, your product. My point is that even though you have a good product, you're dealing with distance runners, a group of people who tend to value honesty, reliability, and solid work ethic. Your current marketing scheme shuns those values, and is not likely to be endorsed by many serious runners. Jus tmy two cents, I still like the Del Sol, and am considering trying the Stingers for my next flat.

BOSTON PUBLICITY STUNT IS ULTIMATELY HOLLOW - SHOES ARE NOT BANNED

By David Monti

(c) 2007 Race Results Weekly, all rights reserved

BOSTON (17-Apr)-- At yesterday's 111th Boston Marathon, two Kenyan athletes with slim credentials appeared to be trying to steal the race, when in fact they were simply stealing television time, promoting a running shoe which is supposedly banned by USA Track & Field (USATF), the federation which governs athletics and road running in the United States.

The trouble is that the shoes, made by Spira Footwear of El Paso, Tex., aren't banned by USATF, despite Spira's recent filing of a lawsuit which suggests the contrary. In a press release circulated on April 9, the company said that they were suing the "International Amateur Athletic Federation," incorrectly naming the International Association of Athletics Federations, and the "United States Association of Track and Field," incorrectly naming USATF, over a technical rule which "purportedly bans spring

technology for competition." The suit involks the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and claims the company has been harmed because athletes are afraid of disqualification for wearing the shoes in competition which contain spring-like units called WaveSprings.

But in a brief written statement, USATF confirmed today that the shoes aren't banned: "Because of pending litigation, USATF cannot comment on Spira shoes beyond confirming that USATF has not examined or 'banned' the shoe, as we have publicly stated multiple times over the last year-plus," wrote USATF spokesperson, Jill Geer, in an e-mail message.

A spokesman for the Boston Marathon, Marc Chalufour, told RRW yesterday that the race is held under USATF rules and referred the question of the legality of the Spira shoes to USATF. The race, he said, has no specific ban on Spira shoes.

Although the two front-running Kenyans, Josephat Onjeri and Jared Nyamboki, dropped out of the race, the athlete who won the men's masters (40+) title at Boston, Oleg Strizhakov of Russia, was wearing Spira shoes. Calls from at least one message board that he be prevented from receiving the $10,000 prize because he wore the shoes would appear to be groundless.

Front runner publicity stunts in major marathons are nothing new, of course. Television producers are compelled to show the images of the race leader, no matter who they are or what their intentions. In one famous example, Paul Zimmerman led the 1996 U.S. Olympic Trials Men's Marathon for 15 miles wearing a singlet with an enlarged "Intel" logo before dropping out.

"It's unfortunate that a casualty of that is the viewing public and the race," said Phil Stewart, editor & publisher of Road Race Management, a running industry newsletter. "It's nothing new."

ENDS

I agree with boston dude. I understand that it is tough to get your name out there, but I do not agree with some of your marketing ideas, such as what happened at the Boston Marathon. If you want to market to serious runners, you need to be serious about running. You say you have trouble competing with bigger companies like Nike and that it's hard for people to accept a new technology, but how did Nike start out? Bowerman developed the waffle sole, guys like Pre ran well in them, and eventually everyone knew they were good shoes. Since then, Nike and the other big shoe companies have grown because of their *positive* reputations, advances in technology, advertising, sponsoring, and perhaps most important - branching out to other sports and products (clothes, watches, equipment, etc.).

Spira offered 1 million dollars to anyone who won the Boston Marathon in a world record in their shoes. The Kenyans were trying to win the marathon. They were not paid to "lead" or for media.

David Monti is getting full of himself. First he corrected Detroit journalists for referring to Haile as someone who competes in major world marathons, a very true statement.

Then David needs to correct the journalist with " Haile has not run New York, so that statement is incorrect"

There was a lawsuit regarding the ban, if USATF will not comment on it, the lasuit exists. So David accept the lawsuit, the ban and that athletes will win races or try to win races in Spira shoes. If an athlete is leading a marathon in any sponsor that is the sport.

David Monte, the trials are in 10 days, dont you have better things to do?

Andy,

Unfortunately you have misinterpreted the rule. The rule does not ban a spring. It bans a device such as a spring that would give an athlete an unfair advantage! The IAAF is in the process of researching many shoes to determine if any provide an unfair advantage. USATF follows the IAAF in such matters.

There are many shoes out there with all sorts of devices. It would be unwise to ban one shoe without looking at all of them to determine standards for which to establish rules for "unfair advantage". This is a huge task. So at this time there is no ban on your product.

It also appears that you again misinterpreted a rule thinking that your event could actually establish a record on a course that has a net drop of greater then 1 meter/ kilometer.

You may have a great product but in my opinion you lose a tremendous amount of creditability by making statements that are just false.

xxx wrote:

The rule does not ban a spring. It bans a device such as a spring that would give an athlete an unfair advantage!

um, what?

Do the Hansons carry them in their stores?

Again - the spring is not banned. Studies must be done to determine if a device such as a spring would provide an unfair advantage. Not every spring would.

if that's the interpretation of that rule, that's stupid. testing is a waste of time and money. if you're worried about springs and "a device such as a spring," ban springs. no one is going to put them in a shoe unless they provide an "unfair advantage" so what the heck is the point?

um, what??????????????????????????

no one is going to put them in a shoe unless they provide an "unfair advantage" so what the heck is the point?

The whole purpose of rules is to provide a "fair" playing field" If this is your train of thought maybe you should see if you could contact Conti and the Balco guys for a little juice as well. Or how about we start adding some devices to jav, discus, or maybe pole vaulters poles. Why don't we throw at the rule book all together and have the top finishers fight to the death.

If you like the founders of the website so much, why don't you buy some advertizing space instead of hijacking free space on the board?

you missed my train of thought. if they want to ban springs or spring like devices, ban them. don\'t leave a gray area. testing is a waste of time. bright line rules are best.

Just in case anyone forgot what happened at Boston, here's a "news" clip: http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-us&fg=rss&vid=d0fca501-1253-4df7-9421-fcc4ded93739&from=34

David Monti wrote:

The suit involks the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and claims the company has been harmed because athletes are afraid of disqualification for wearing the shoes in competition which contain spring-like units called WaveSprings.

Well that's certainly interesting. While the meaning of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act has been debated, I really see no possible way that it could apply to this situation. It is quite a stretch to say that the illegalization of a shoe that might give an athlete an advantage is acting "in restraint of trade." Even if you believe that it is, this really isn't the point of the act.

probably why the case why voluntarily dismissed last week. roy brandys, the nutjob enabling this, thankfully left my area. obviously he's up to his tricks down in san antonio.

Spira CEO wrote: Smaller start up companies like Spira, Newton, Loco and Vitruvian...

I hadn't thought about it before, but you guys make an interesting quartet. Loco and (especially) Vitruvian set themselves apart with the stance that most other running shoes are too gimmicky. You guys and Newton think the mainstream shoes aren't gimmicky enough. (And Newton believes all other shoes except the Kinsei are too damn cheap as well...)

Kinda fascinating how your marketing reflects your technological philosophy too. Loco and (especially) Vitruvian seem to keep a low profile. Newton, best I can tell/speculate, seemed to have hired shills (or done it themselves) to start hundreds of threads on the various 'net fora about their shoes, from around the time of their release. You've got the "banned in Boston" campaign with your insistence on there being, ooh, a controversy where of course anyone paying attention realizes that, yawn, nobody's paying attention.

Well, good luck anyway. I suppose just because I'm not interested in your shoes nor amused by your marketing doesn't mean that others aren't, and having some of you smaller companies around is probably a good thing for all.

For my money, boston dude closed this thread on the first reply. Regardless of the quality of the shoe, the company clearly has an insecurity regarding its product if it resorts to shock-value advertising, like the supposed "world-record road 10k" race last week, which wejo noted was run off the edge of a cliff. That's not real distance running. I think the running community can see through that stuff. Just like the letsrun community can see through this thread--the supposed CEO is arguing FOR a ban against his shoes...

boston dude wrote:

you're dealing with distance runners, a group of people who tend to value honesty, reliability, and solid work ethic. Your current marketing scheme shuns those values, and is not likely to be endorsed by many serious runners.

I couldn't have said it better myself.