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

Pretzel Man wrote:

I'll chime in wrote:

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.

PEDs are cheating, 4% aren't banned wear them. Your heart and lungs make you a runner not the shoes.

Just because something isn't against the rules doesn't make it ethical. Blood doping wasn't against the rules but it was not ethical. Getting a doctor to help you get a TUE for something that you don't need a TUE for isn't against the rules but it is not ethical.

I run to challenge myself and push my own limits and because it's fun. I fully believe that once equipment gets even more out of hand than it already is that the IAAF will step in and make some stricter rules on what is allowed and what is not. I don't think the winner of a race should be determined by who they are sponsored by, but that is the direction the sport is heading right now. I actually know some runners who were chasing a shoe sponsorship and now aren't sure if they want to get sponsored because they likely won't be able to run in the 4% anymore. That is a problem if you ask me.

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.

surely not, instead they would be offered loaner shoes?

DQing someone for showing up with the wrong shoes vs DQing someone after they've raced having not been detected to be wearing wrong shoes???

I simply refuse to acknowledge that a full length plate is even ideal. I'd rather it be around 2/3 length and only rise to 1/2 the length, leveling out for the rest, and splitting into wings to leave the center of the heel as much room for compression as possible.

Traditional springs are stupid because foam does a better job, but a carbon plate is a really interesting idea that I must applaud.

People get this idea the using springs would somehow give an athlete a tremendous advantage when evidently Nike figured that you could accomplish a similar effect with a plate and engineered foam. It's sublime.

I have incredibly mixed feelings about the upper. I really want a semi-attached tongue and more structure around the ankle.

The winner of the race is only determined by who is sponsored by what company insolong as 1) Nike remains the only ones implementing foam-plate tech 2) people are unable to run in Nike's winning tech because their sponsors are garnering too much influence over an athlete's decisions.

Nike should hire me and I would give them my wonderful ideas. (I want a small amount of support in a racing shoe)