Stephanie Bruce unfortunately must be DQd for violating revised Rule 143 at Peachtree, using prototype/non-production shoes

Relax francis

Only on Let's Run would someone get so worked up over a pair of shoes.

Hard to believe given your noticeable glee at having something to complain about.

zoomzoomzoom wrote:

This greatly conflicts and upsets me ...

I fully agree with the OP. They can't institute this rule and then not enforce it. Maybe they should have been more clear on giving a certain time period where this does not apply. But if it was indeed an immediate change, then they need to enforce it. And they owe use a better explanation for reasonably available.

It says type of shoe, not specific shoe. That type of shoe is available to all. It’s just a running shoe that is essentially the same as all of the other shoes out there. No violation, other than you being a retard.

John Utah wrote:

It says type of shoe, not specific shoe. That type of shoe is available to all. It’s just a running shoe that is essentially the same as all of the other shoes out there. No violation, other than you being a retard.

Exactly, thank you. It's a running shoe made of rubber, foam, and mesh. Same as anything else out there. No violation.

Ridiculous thread is ridiculous.

Shoebacca wrote:

I fully agree with the OP. They can't institute this rule and then not enforce it. Maybe they should have been more clear on giving a certain time period where this does not apply. But if it was indeed an immediate change, then they need to enforce it. And they owe use a better explanation for reasonably available.

Thank you for "getting it" (and I believe there was a grace period since January where coaches, etc. were notified).

I pretty much expected the other typical LR responses dismissing rules, half the people around here seem to think along the lines "Armstrong and the like did nothing wrong but get caught".

I still don't understand why the language regarding wheels and springs was removed from Rule 143

As the current rule stands, someone could show up wearing rollerblades at the next marathon and as long as those shoes were production models, it's all good because anyone can buy them and wheels are no longer banned or open to interpretation like springs? How does that make sense?

Pros/Elites need to be held to the highest standard and follow the rules - they are our role models and inspiration, at least mine.

But "reasonably available" is a clear rule. And it was definitely broken.

Couldn't you argue that the rule wasn't broken because you can by the same "Type of Shoe" with the same technology from a different manufacturer? The rule doesn't say that the shoe must be available from a specific brand, just that the shoe type must be available. At least that's my interpretation.

"Reasonably available to all" refers to the elite athletes, not to the average sub-elite or public.

The verbiage is targeting technologies that shoe companies want to patent to prevent competitors from having. In fact, the closest example that I could actually draw from would be when Adidas first introduced BOOST to the market and had exclusive production rights with BASF (the company that makes the Boost TPU) for something like 5 years. Under those circumstances, only Adidas athletes had access to the E-TPU, and other companies would be infringing on IP Rights if they had produced similar products.

So no, Steph shouldn't be disqualified, and you need to take an actual law class before you start rambling on LetsRun about DQ'ing national champions for the shoes they wore.

Ring, ring, ring. (Picks up banana) Hello, Fred?( Covers mouthpiece and whispers, "It's Fred Hoiberg.") What's that Fred? She was wearing an unapproved shoe and should be penalized? OK, I'll let everybody know.

SMNRunner wrote:

"Reasonably available to all" refers to the elite athletes, not to the average sub-elite or public.

except it doesn't bother to say that despite how easy to specify, or specify any details for that matter

the whole rule list is for COMPETITORS, not just the public or sub-elites but anyone in competition

it's not aimed only at elites, or at an industry, it's the rules for anyone competing in a sanctioned event

if anything I believe we do agree there is a vagueness, the question is WHY in a document that had to be either written or approved by lawyers was it left so vague and open to interpretation as to what it specifically means or to to whom it is aimed at

other industries have rulebooks that define and use clear words like "MAY" and "MUST"

what's interesting is you get to spikes and there are some very clear rules, number of spikes, what material, how many, etc. and at some events/tracks they even drill down to what shape the spikes can be but road racing, nope, everything is open to interpretation and if you want to file a dispute they charge $$$ for that to stop complaints and it takes months to arbitrarily decide based on someone's opinion rather than what could be precise rules

OMFG. How big of a tool do you have to be in order to care about something like this? You can't even be sure if these are special edition shoes from all those grainy photos. It's a phony accusation based on insufficient evidence.

This sport has real issues. This isn't one of them. Focus your energy elsewhere, please.

vivalarepublica wrote:

You can't even be sure if these are special edition shoes from all those grainy photos.

This sport has real issues. This isn't one of them. Focus your energy elsewhere, please.

Following the rules (and the imprecision in the rules) is a top problem in this sport.

And that photo is pretty darn clear, I am sure better ones will emerge but you'd have to be pretty insulate (or Hoka sponsored?) to not want to see it.

You take off the overlays from the Carbon Rocket and it's virtually the same shoe. Nothing else in the Hoka catalog is close. RMAT bottom, diagonal split foam with double-layer up front to manage the plate shape inside like other leaf spring shoes.

2016 Carbon Rocket

Stephanie's 2018 Peachtree shoe

Diagonal split shape also seen in the new Brooks leaf-spring shoe that no-one can buy (yet?)

Eh. She won the race, was not disqualified, and will not be disqualified. Therefore, none of this matters at all. You don’t even know any more about the shoe than anyone else. I think it’s also funny that you say she”must” be disqualified as if you somehow have a say in the matter.

This post is indicative of how pathetic some people have become. Life isn't fair, sh*t happens, so what? Lose the soy attitude. Thank you.

I agree that it is a little unusual to notice and think about this. But OP is right, no?

That is, if no one can find the shoes online or in a store -- I haven't looked myself.

That looks nothing like the Hoka carbon rocket.

not sure what I expected on LR but it's predictably resulted in these camps so far:

1. photo proof is not photo proof (aka you are imagining it)

2. rules are for suckers and losers

3. the rule is there but somehow the violation doesn't count

4. the rule is meant for someone else or doesn't say something obvious

5. it's not an important rule (aka you can pick which rules to violate or not)

so I appreciate the few who get my point, realize it's not off-the-cuff and not meant to be spiteful

1. Rule 143 must be followed by competing athletes in sanctioned events, it's not optional

2. The June 2018 revision indicates any shoe used must be "reasonably available to all"

3. The shoe used by Stephanie Bruce on July 4th is not "reasonably available to all", it's a prototype or pre/non-production model

That is a disqualification by a competitor under the rules.

(unless I am mistaken and that shoe can be bought online or in stores somewhere)