Track and field's shoe rule needs to be rewritten

rojo wrote:

I think everyone at LRC is tired of trying to figure out who is wearing what shoes after a race and whether it provided them some sort of massive advantage or not. Running is supposed to be about who is the best athlete, not who has the best shoe designer on their team.

I reached out to the IAAF for clarification about their shoe rule and they told me they won't investigate any shoe unless they have evidence the shoe is unfair. I'm not sure how that's possible. How is someone supposed to test an unreleased shoe and prove it's unfair?

Seriously? You actually reached out to them about shoes?? They're just shoes...unless they have rocket boosters on them it shouldn't matter. Everyone is so worried about the type of shoes, grow up. You still have to be in incredible shape to set records and run fast, yes as technology and designers make shoes better it will help, but it surely isn't taking away from the fact that as athletes get stronger and faster, records will fall. Stop wasting time worrying about stuff like this.

What confuses me is that shoe companies are claiming that their shoes give a special advantage, but if that were actually proven to be so - the shoes would be against the rules!

So either they don’t really work or you’re cheating. And people are okay with that.

It’s strange.

what if there was a small way you could get an unfair advantage in a shoe, kind of like how the cyclists were hiding small motors in their bottom brackets/wheel hubs?

They should have a homologation requirement that X amount of shoes have been sold to the public before they are allowed to be used.

Simple, easy, and clear.

shut up about shoes

Let's say my in shape mile time is 8 minutes. putting on some carbon spikes or wtf ever isnt going to make me run a 4 minute mile

Shoes have evolved throughout history, why is this evolution the first time when people consider it cheating. It’s not like they are applying any kind of power generating device (motors, rocket boosters) within the shoe.

Read this article here:

The researchers clearly are saying that this isn’t some kind of new spring loaded development, it’s simply a shoe that allows runners to get more out of their running due to the stiff carbon plate which conserves energy better. A lot of cushioning technology that was developed during the 70s and 80s that is nowadays the standard was a similar upgrade from the shoes of past eras.

Rojo, it's not about testing individual shoes. It's that nobody has any concept of what an "unfair advantage" even means in the context of footwear. If actual scientists can come up with a definition of "unfair advantage" and then propose criteria for testing footwear against that definition, then the IAAF might be able to do something.

That's why your analogy to drug testing doesn't work. It's not like the IAAF is saying that there is such a thing as an illegal shoe that the IAAF is capable of identifying. If that were the case, it would be totally fair to complain about leaving it up to third parties to turn in the cheaters. But that's not what they're saying. They do not know what an "unfair" shoe is, and neither does anybody else.

So basically the IAAF's shoe rule is comparable to WADA's three principles for banning a substance: You're not breaking the rules for taking a substance that violates those principles, but WADA uses those principles to make more specific rules that athletes do have to follow.

I'll grant that the IAAF probably should not have codified the shoe rule as a rule, which implies that it's enforceable. That's what's causing confusion and getting people worked up. Really, the IAAF should have just released a statement saying that they're concerned about the issue, that they're looking into it, that they welcome comment, and that they will take action as necessary. The reason that the shoe rule ended up as a rule is most likely that it was replacing an existing shoe rule (the "spring" rule of Spira infamy) that was even more problematic.

All soft foam in running shoes should be banned immediately.

Any sole material that a screwdriver can easily be stuck through should be banned.

Soft soles are responsible for many injuries and should not be allowed.

Also hard heel backs that are curved in at the top are hard on tendons and should be banned.

Narrow tow boxes destroy toes and toenails and should be banned immediately.

Any running shoes that don't last for at least 1000 miles should be banned immediately.

dunes runner wrote:

All soft foam in running shoes should be banned immediately.

Any sole material that a screwdriver can easily be stuck through should be banned.

Soft soles are responsible for many injuries and should not be allowed.

Also hard heel backs that are curved in at the top are hard on tendons and should be banned.

Narrow tow boxes destroy toes and toenails and should be banned immediately.

Any running shoes that don't last for at least 1000 miles should be banned immediately.

+1

800 dude wrote:

Rojo, it's not about testing individual shoes. It's that nobody has any concept of what an "unfair advantage" even means in the context of footwear. If actual scientists can come up with a definition of "unfair advantage" and then propose criteria for testing footwear against that definition, then the IAAF might be able to do something.

Why not measure it like the PGA does in golf clubs? The measure the Coefficient of Restitution (COR) in drivers and irons and set a legal/illegal limit.

Its not arbitrary, it's based in actual measurable physics.

Yeah, a term like "unfair advantage" is way too vague to understand or enforce. Even if you could figure out what shoe gives an advantage you'd have to ask when an advantage becomes an unfair advantage and what makes that advantage unfair while other advantages are fair. Almost any advance in shoe technology would be thought to give an advantage and whether that advantage is unfair or not is almost always going to be a subjective idea.

But you could ban certain kinds of materials or technology from shoes used in competition. If you really believe carbon plates, or real any kind of energy return technology, are a problem you could ban them. That's never going to happen if for no other reason than a company like Nike who has invested millions of dollars developing a shoe that's going to be in high demand despite being very expensive has way too much influence with various governing bodies for that to happen. I think it's just something we're going to have to live with and shoe companies and their sponsored athletes are going to need to find a way to adapt.

UCI regulates bikes way more tightly than running does shoes, so the tech/stuff improves with time argument doesn't work well. They'll go as far as weight of the bike, angel of the bars/seat, certain configurations, tires etc. are banned. If the UCI does all that, IAAF having stricter rules on shoes makes sense.

This has been a problem since day one.

You couldn't get the spikes Jesse Owens wore. You couldn't get Bikila's shoes, because he didn't have any. Shorter wore his distance spikes converted to road flats, they didn't exist. Rodgers had a Tiger named after himself that I never saw anywhere but on his feet. Salazar's first NYC win was in shoes that again, did not exist.

More recently, most of the 2016 US Marathon Olympians wore illegal shoes. Ward's Saucony 4%. The more things change.

ohia wrote:

800 dude wrote:

Rojo, it's not about testing individual shoes. It's that nobody has any concept of what an "unfair advantage" even means in the context of footwear. If actual scientists can come up with a definition of "unfair advantage" and then propose criteria for testing footwear against that definition, then the IAAF might be able to do something.

Why not measure it like the PGA does in golf clubs? The measure the Coefficient of Restitution (COR) in drivers and irons and set a legal/illegal limit.

Its not arbitrary, it's based in actual measurable physics.

Well, it would still be arbitrary in that someone has to set a limit, and there's no way of tying certain measurements to a moral and aesthetic question like "fairness." In golf it wasn't so hard to come up with the right threshold, because they were trying to ensure that technology didn't make existing championship courses totally obsolete.

But I agree that the IAAF absolutely could come up with objective criteria for measuring shoes. It would be arbitrary, but at least we'd all be on the same page. I actually think the most likely rule would be a simple limit on stack height. It has the advantage of being very cheap to measure, without harming innovation very much, since companies would still be free to innovate as much as possible on a slightly smaller canvas.

I think if you really wanted an advantage you would tune an individual pair of shoes directly to the athlete's body.

800 dude wrote:

Rojo, it's not about testing individual shoes. It's that nobody has any concept of what an "unfair advantage" even means in the context of footwear. If actual scientists can come up with a definition of "unfair advantage" and then propose criteria for testing footwear against that definition, then the IAAF might be able to do something.

That's why your analogy to drug testing doesn't work. It's not like the IAAF is saying that there is such a thing as an illegal shoe that the IAAF is capable of identifying. If that were the case, it would be totally fair to complain about leaving it up to third parties to turn in the cheaters. But that's not what they're saying. They do not know what an "unfair" shoe is, and neither does anybody else. .

i 100% agree with you. No one knows what unfair is - that's why the rules need to be changed to something along the lines of , "No one can compete in a shoes that hasn't been out on the market for XX amount of time (3 months, 6 months etc)."

The reality is is one guy has the vaporfly 4%'s and no one else does - that's not fair. The reality is the 2016 Olympic marathon wasn't fair (thankfully most of the top male athletes were Nike anyway) It's a huge advantage, proven in scientific papers. Our sport is one that will DQ Ezekiel Kemboi for cutting a fraction of an inch off in a nearly 2 mile race but allowed Kipchoge, Rupp and others to potentially save more than a minute thanks to their footwear.

The rule needs to be changed.

UCI wrote:

UCI regulates bikes way more tightly than running does shoes, so the tech/stuff improves with time argument doesn't work well. They'll go as far as weight of the bike, angel of the bars/seat, certain configurations, tires etc. are banned. If the UCI does all that, IAAF having stricter rules on shoes makes sense.

I was thinking about this too, but it's kind of hard to draw an analogy to running because times are so much less important in cycling. I'm not sure what's cause and what's effect. It's hard to get excited about hour records when they keep changing the equipment requirements and any attempt to do so would lead to a new slate of records.

Rojo do you think shoes that are custom made to fit the athlete (like some sprint shoes I think?) are a problem?