UA Runner wrote:
suburbanxcore wrote:
Nike prototypes that aren't commercial available: unfair and constantly the subject of LRC commentary.
New Balance prototypes that aren't commercially available: totally fine.
Got it.
Seriously. I am a fan of rojo and the comments he makes, but the inconsistent position makes no sense. "It's ok because NB is trying to catch up with Nike."
Ok, so rojo is officially not being objective at this point. If the 2016 Rio results are invalid, then so are any results from NB or any other manufacturer who is using shoes in violation of the IAAF rule.
If a guy smokes weed in public in Colorado, it's legal. A guy in Utah can't do the same and say "Well I'm just trying to emulate the dude in Colorado". Nikes weren't legal, but now they are. NBs are not legal, yet.
It isn't inconsistent if 2016 rojo would have been saying the same thing 2019 rojo is saying. Which I think would be the case.
When you provide an opinion on something, you aren't obligated to provide infinite nuance to cover every possible related hypothetical.
It looks like you have a different opinion on how this should work than rojo does and you previously thought you had the same opinion. But with this situation, rojo clarified his position and now you two have diverged. It doesn't make him inconsistent.