New IAAF rules are out - Will Zoom Vaporfly 4% be banned for violating "spirit of the universality of athletics?"

That's awesome. I'm going to buy another pair.

Nike’s lightning shoes hint at power of technology to skew elite competition

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jul/22/nike-shoes-vaporfly-sport

I'm not sure why American men are getting so worked up about this shoe. We are so far behind the Kenyan's, Ethiopian's and Japanese that unless they put rocket's on the shoes of US men marathoners they will never catch up.

Focus more on training and less on shoes.

zoomzoomzoom wrote:

this three second video shows in a heartbeat why the vaporfly is a complete joke to be allowed in a race

this is ridiculous - try doing this with ANY other shoe:

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1007958930595565568/pu/vid/360x640/6Ohbn53rmY-O0p0Y.mp4

it's like running on a trampoline

IAAF has a lot of explaining to do, they are clearly in the pocket of shoe manufacturers

That is just hilarious.

This video deserves to be posted in direct response to any of moranic posts we see on here saying "no no, it's not the carbon fiber plate (that's just there by complete accident) it the magic space foam. Honest guv'nor!".

Morans.

I really wonder if Nike pays interns to bump these threads. If not they should. Poster above, never had posted before and decides to post on this thread.

Anyway, it got me to click. The IAAF should enforce the new rules. Prototype shoes with technology that is not available in commercially available shoes should result in a DQ.

The vaporfly technology now is widely available and athletes can buy the shoes and race in them.

However, when the shoe was just a prototype that wasn't the case. So if a new technology comes out before 2020 and athletes wear shoes that at the Olympics, they should be disqualified according to the new rules in my book. I don't want the winner of any race determined by who has access to a shoe that no one else has. And that was the case in Rio.

wejo wrote:

I really wonder if Nike pays interns to bump these threads. If not they should. Poster above, never had posted before and decides to post on this thread.

Anyway, it got me to click. The IAAF should enforce the new rules. Prototype shoes with technology that is not available in commercially available shoes should result in a DQ.

The vaporfly technology now is widely available and athletes can buy the shoes and race in them.

However, when the shoe was just a prototype that wasn't the case. So if a new technology comes out before 2020 and athletes wear shoes that at the Olympics, they should be disqualified according to the new rules in my book. I don't want the winner of any race determined by who has access to a shoe that no one else has. And that was the case in Rio.

This is already happening. I actually know an elite team near me that was thinking about dropping their team's shoe sponsor next year so that their unsponsored athletes could race in the 4%. The individually sponsored athletes on the team still wouldn't have that option but most of the athletes on the team are currently unsponsored.

olyrun wrote:

I'm not sure why American men are getting so worked up about this shoe. We are so far behind the Kenyan's, Ethiopian's and Japanese that unless they put rocket's on the shoes of US men marathoners they will never catch up.

Focus more on training and less on shoes.

its not the training, its the drug testing in these nations

wejo wrote:

I really wonder if Nike pays interns to bump these threads. If not they should. Poster above, never had posted before and decides to post on this thread.

Anyway, it got me to click. The IAAF should enforce the new rules. Prototype shoes with technology that is not available in commercially available shoes should result in a DQ.

The vaporfly technology now is widely available and athletes can buy the shoes and race in them.

However, when the shoe was just a prototype that wasn't the case. So if a new technology comes out before 2020 and athletes wear shoes that at the Olympics, they should be disqualified according to the new rules in my book. I don't want the winner of any race determined by who has access to a shoe that no one else has. And that was the case in Rio.

Correct.

Rupp, Cragg and Flanagan wore prototypes at the trials, and games in 2016.

Very few, if any, elite sprinters are wearing “off the shelf” spikes. They may look like an in-line product but the plates and lasts are highly individualiozed.

wejo wrote:

I really wonder if Nike pays interns to bump these threads. If not they should. Poster above, never had posted before and decides to post on this thread.

Anyway, it got me to click. The IAAF should enforce the new rules. Prototype shoes with technology that is not available in commercially available shoes should result in a DQ.

The vaporfly technology now is widely available and athletes can buy the shoes and race in them.

However, when the shoe was just a prototype that wasn't the case. So if a new technology comes out before 2020 and athletes wear shoes that at the Olympics, they should be disqualified according to the new rules in my book. I don't want the winner of any race determined by who has access to a shoe that no one else has. And that was the case in Rio.

Very few, if any, elite sprinters are wearing “off the shelf” spikes. They may look like an in-line product but the plates and lasts are highly individualized.

The shoe doesn't cost $10,000. It's made in limited numbers compared to some other shoes but the public can still buy it. Nowhere near as exclusive as altitude training or elite healthcare

If the intent had been to ban custom or prototype shoes, which have been the norm for the entire history of elite athletics (seriously, Roger Bannister had custom spikes for his 4 minute mile), then the rule would have said so explicitly. The rule was written to be ambiguously meaningless.

"Oops, the answer is......no! NIKE owns the IAAF"

Except that IAAF is sponsored by Adidas.

the IAAF is sponsored by Asics

The rule doesn't say that exactly that same shoe needs to be available to everyone, only that the "type of shoe" must be available to everyone.

IMO that means you can have some custom adaptations for the shoe, but it can't have any significant technology that's not commercially available

wejo wrote:

I really wonder if Nike pays interns to bump these threads. If not they should. Poster above, never had posted before and decides to post on this thread.

Anyway, it got me to click. The IAAF should enforce the new rules. Prototype shoes with technology that is not available in commercially available shoes should result in a DQ.

The vaporfly technology now is widely available and athletes can buy the shoes and race in them.

However, when the shoe was just a prototype that wasn't the case. So if a new technology comes out before 2020 and athletes wear shoes that at the Olympics, they should be disqualified according to the new rules in my book. I don't want the winner of any race determined by who has access to a shoe that no one else has. And that was the case in Rio.

What about custom shoes? Johnson's gold shoes are iconic. We've seen pros race with different combinations of plates and uppers from jasaris, vents, milers, kennedey's, those steeple shoes... They have been allowed, and are technically stock parts.

nop critic wrote:

IAAF wrote:

"Rule 143: Clothing, shoes and athlete bibs

- Any type of shoe used must be reasonably available to all in the spirit of the universality of athletics. Shoes must not be constructed so as to give athletes any unfair assistance or advantage."

I don't think it will be banned but I wish they used that rule for the rest of athletics thought. If they used the same phrase "spirit universality of athletics" it would result in the ban the NOP and Salazar. Salazar forgot about the spirit of athletics a long time ago.

https://www.iaaf.org/news/iaaf-news/competition-rule-amendments-june-2018

What about lighter shoes? They make me faster too...

zoomzoomzoom wrote:

this three second video shows in a heartbeat why the vaporfly is a complete joke to be allowed in a race

this is ridiculous - try doing this with ANY other shoe:

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1007958930595565568/pu/vid/360x640/6Ohbn53rmY-O0p0Y.mp4

it's like running on a trampoline

IAAF has a lot of explaining to do, they are clearly in the pocket of shoe manufacturers

You, again?

Go back to your mums milking teet and get some milk. I laugh at you each time I put my 4% on and PB. Laugh AT you.

You need to go into a coma... wrote:

zoomzoomzoom wrote:

this three second video shows in a heartbeat why the vaporfly is a complete joke to be allowed in a race

this is ridiculous - try doing this with ANY other shoe:

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1007958930595565568/pu/vid/360x640/6Ohbn53rmY-O0p0Y.mp4

it's like running on a trampoline

IAAF has a lot of explaining to do, they are clearly in the pocket of shoe manufacturers

You, again?

Go back to your mums milking teet and get some milk. I laugh at you each time I put my 4% on and PB. Laugh AT you.

I'm not the person you responded to but I am someone who is chasing the OTQ. I would be willing to bet that your response is very similar to how some people who take PEDs think.

I will say that even if I don't get the standard at least I will have comfort in the fact that I never resorted to equipment cheating like others did. But hopefully I will get the standard and it will be the ultimate satisfaction of achieving my goals without cheating.

And Boost wrote:

Now what about Adidas Boost? Wasn't their claim that boost improved running economy by 2% or something, more than any other shoe on the market?? That is until Nike one upped them?

Where do we draw the line?

Yeah adidas boost with those ball-bearings firing off the boost midsole material. And then what about the adidas proplate carbon fibre spring shoes which propelled Geb to his marathon world record? Will that be invalidated in the light of these new rules?