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

elephino wrote:

(the weirdo OP will probably come back with WS is not IAAF and Johnson was before the current rules)

Which are both valid points, no?

Да

zoomzoomzoom, This has been brought up twice. Why do you believe Stephanie Bruce was subject to an IAAF rule at Peachtree? Is Peachtree an IAAF sanctioned event, or otherwise subject to IAAF rules? It looks like a USATF sanctioned event. If not, this whole thread makes no sense.

zoomzoomzoom wrote:

those that are arguing about the word "type" and that it somehow doesn't mean "make and model" in their own interpretation but just somehow maybe "shape?" or what?

...

Are you high?

So, after three pages in this thread, the OP has managed to stir up emotions but not actually provide the three pieces of information we should have:

(1) does the rule cited apply to Wednesday's race?

(2) what "type" of shoe was she wearing?

(3) who are you and what is your relationship to those involved?

Without answers to all three questions, there is no point to this discussion.

I agree that it's a non issue, but i think if the brand was nike this thread would have a different tone.

Your mom is reasonably available to all.

I'll bet the ladies find you fascinating wrote:

Your mom is reasonably available to all.

Only people of his mom's "type."

the only way to create freedom for all is to discipline everybody, set the bar.

as a longtime IAAF official, i would DQ stephanie right now, and we can investigate later, as our busy schedules allows.

she has 2 shoes, enough for an A and B sample.

this example shows that we need to get tougher on enforcing the rules, be more aggressive,

i have a list of athletes that i believe might violate the rules into the future, and we should ban those people right now,

and save track and field great harm that comes with people who violate the rules.

be proactive, nip the problem in the bud, so everyone can be free.

And the award for most effective "Low-Cost Guerrilla Marketing Tactic" goes to...

Well played, Hoka Marketing Team, well played.

rekrunner wrote:

This has been brought up twice.

Why do you believe Stephanie Bruce was subject to an IAAF rule at Peachtree?

Is Peachtree an IAAF sanctioned event, or otherwise subject to IAAF rules? It looks like a USATF sanctioned event.

sorry I missed your message

USATF is a sub-set of IAAF, essentially being the country-level enforcement of a world-wide organization of rules

USATF and athletes under it's rules must obey all IAAF rules

USATF can create even more specific rules for US athletes but not ones that violate IAAF rules

a classic example is the domestic validation of point-to-point races which cannot qualify for world records under IAAF rules but are accepted in the US as qualifiers for various championship races

USATF cannot then go claim a record is a world record, they are beholden to IAAF

you may notice that IAAF and USATF use the same rule numbering and sub-numbering system

for example here is the USATF rulebook as a subset attempting to maintain parity with the IAAF rulebook

jeezus nobody cares dude

Can you provide a supporting link, that shows 1) the USATF is a sub-set of the IAAF and 2) is bound by all IAAF rules for domestic athletes in domestic USATF sanctioned races? In the USATF rules 2018, I find this introduction: "The rules applicable to domestic competition in Athletics -- track and field, race walking, road running and cross country -- are approved by USA Track & Field. These rules generally conform to those of the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF). " "General conformity" makes it sound like specific compliance is optional. In the 2018 USATF Competition Rules, the "SUMMARY OF 2018 RULE CHANGES" indicates Rule 143.3 was updated to includes an update on "legal shoes". There is no language in the USATF Rule 143.3 requiring shoes to be "reasonably available to all".

zoomzoomzoom wrote:

sorry I missed your message

USATF is a sub-set of IAAF, essentially being the country-level enforcement of a world-wide organization of rules

USATF and athletes under it's rules must obey all IAAF rules

USATF can create even more specific rules for US athletes but not ones that violate IAAF rules

a classic example is the domestic validation of point-to-point races which cannot qualify for world records under IAAF rules but are accepted in the US as qualifiers for various championship races

USATF cannot then go claim a record is a world record, they are beholden to IAAF

you may notice that IAAF and USATF use the same rule numbering and sub-numbering system

for example here is the USATF rulebook as a subset attempting to maintain parity with the IAAF rulebook

The IAAF clearly doesn't think that prototypes are against the rules.

To be clear, perfectly clear, the IAAF, USATF have absolutely no way in the world to determine on wether a shoe could be in violation or not. They don't have shoe testing labs, they don't have a formula that would show enhanced performance from a shoe, just assumptive reasoning.

The marketing hype the brands put out is just that on enhanced performance.

Prototypes are a test shoe, its a risk on the athletes part to try them out, they just don't have miles on them to prove them out or wether it could hurt an athlete or help. Prototypes have been around forever in the industry. Nike is the only company to have a made a claim and gives data to back it up, their data.

Whats needed is an independent lab with a set group of standards that fall in the so called legal norm and prove out on wether a shoe is truly enhancing performance or just feels good.

Since Rule 143, the shoe companies aren't using Pros to test their shoes in competition anymore. Too much heat. Remember Kara publicly complained about them using the 4% for the 2016 trials? There's no way an "A" trial contender could wear a prototype again. There'd be an immediate challenge. "B" contenders yes. They ain't making the Olympics, so who cares.

If the new recently enacted Rule 143 meant nothing, Kipchoge would have used the same black 5% moonshoes that some runners used at CIM.

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&thread=9140818&id=9142513#9142513

Would Kipchoge break 2:01 with the 5%?