Should note the Times is also reporting this with a more tempered note on how they’ll handle records set on the marathon and track with the technology:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nikes-hi-tech-vaporfly-running-shoe-to-be-banned-x8cpq29cp
I have some I’ve never run in...guess I better race in them ASAP
Should also go back to original records.
The right decision.
And so the sport will shoot itself in the foot once again, condemning future generations of athletes to shorter, injury-filled careers...
If the concern is comparison to past records, when are we banning custom nutrition? Should water stops go too?
badCall wrote:
And so the sport will shoot itself in the foot once again, condemning future generations of athletes to shorter, injury-filled careers...
If the concern is comparison to past records, when are we banning custom nutrition? Should water stops go too?
Do some athletes have to drink oil instead of water because of contractual obligations?
Dailymail.UK is basically a tabloid site so take everything with a grain is sand.
If they do ban vaporflys it would be detrimental to all the athletes who have trained in them for months given that it is a month and a half out from the trials, that’s not enough time to start training in a new primary show.
Lastly, banning new technology is a step backwards, the vaporflys are amazing because of how soft they are and how much they reduce injury risk!
What a complete joke. Nike's marketing was so good that they killed their own shoe.
badCall wrote:
If the concern is comparison to past records, when are we banning custom nutrition? Should water stops go too?
Slippery slope fallacy
Run Colorado wrote:
Dailymail.UK is basically a tabloid site so take everything with a grain is sand.
If they do ban vaporflys it would be detrimental to all the athletes who have trained in them for months given that it is a month and a half out from the trials, that’s not enough time to start training in a new primary show.
Lastly, banning new technology is a step backwards, the vaporflys are amazing because of how soft they are and how much they reduce injury risk!
Yeah I was wary of that, but the Times has similar reporting. So it’s two different sources and got the retweet of Cathal Dennehy as well.
That's a little bit of clickbait (not blaming you) as the headline isn't "to be" but rather "likely to be".
Going to be interesting because if you ban them then you have to be consistent and look at all shoes that have carbon plates, and what about special cushioning that conserves energy usage? This could get very technical.
PIK wrote:
badCall wrote:
And so the sport will shoot itself in the foot once again, condemning future generations of athletes to shorter, injury-filled careers...
If the concern is comparison to past records, when are we banning custom nutrition? Should water stops go too?
Do some athletes have to drink oil instead of water because of contractual obligations?
World Athletics could easily regulate the brand competitiveness issue without banning particular shoes or technologies outright. For example:
* Require shoes used in competition be made publicly available for ~3-6 months. (Yes, this would also apply to prototypes, which many non-Nike pros receive!)
* Prohibit the use of patented/restricted technology from shoes used in competition.
* Alternatively, require that brands supply their competitors with patented components at a fair market rate. (See: Samsung selling components to Apple.)
Yes and no, because you every technological advancement can be questioned at that point. What is the standard? Should prior athletes petition for their world records to be reinstated because they ran in clumsy leather shoes on cinder tracks?
Interesting. Headline:
"Nike’s hi-tech Vaporfly running shoe to be banned."
Body:
"The Nike shoe used by Brigid Kosgei to obliterate Paula Radcliffe’s women’s marathon world record last year is likely to be banned when World Athletics introduces new rules on running shoes."
So which is it? To be or likely to be? No pun intended.
Also wonder how many running shoe companies are behind this...
This will hurt nike's sales, but these things will still be on the market. Hobby joggers will wear them while elites will abstain. What is a race director going to do, check every runners' shoes? Is Boston going to require a picture of people's feet from the races they set their "qualifiers" at? At many races even checking the footwear of age groupers may be too intensive for the limited staff they have. People will cheat by stashing a pair of nike streaks around mile 23.
True and it ignores something which owners of the shoe have noticed (Disclosure, I own a pair), it really helps mitigate injuries, that's invaluable to older runners.
I hope the Vaporfly is not banned. It's a natural progression of shoe tech. They should, however, ban the Alphafly.
How many OTQers didn't qualify with the Vaporfly?
It's too late to ban it.
Mencken1976 wrote:
Should prior athletes petition for their world records to be reinstated because they ran in clumsy leather shoes on cinder tracks?
I wouldn't mind going back to barefeet and no clothing like when the Greeks ran the marathon.
The real problem was access. Runners using prototypes to give themselves an advantage others didn't have.
Mencken1976 wrote:
That's a little bit of clickbait (not blaming you) as the headline isn't "to be" but rather "likely to be".
Going to be interesting because if you ban them then you have to be consistent and look at all shoes that have carbon plates, and what about special cushioning that conserves energy usage? This could get very technical.
It's easier to ban certain materials and limit stack height than to develop a series of tests to limit energy return of whatever.
I'm okay with both limits - carbon plates aren't necessary to make a good running shoe, and neither are midfoot torsion systems, etc. Any stiff element that can store and return energy should be banned. Foams, though, are more complicated. Limiting stack height can prevent another superfoam making a big difference in performance.
We'll see what happens. I doubt they get banned. Maybe they ban the Alphafly and set limits that don't make the current shoes illegal but stop further developments. With the other brands starting to catch up, it would be a fair compromise. But if Vaporflies are banned, the WRs need to go.
PIK wrote:
badCall wrote:
And so the sport will shoot itself in the foot once again, condemning future generations of athletes to shorter, injury-filled careers...
If the concern is comparison to past records, when are we banning custom nutrition? Should water stops go too?
Do some athletes have to drink oil instead of water because of contractual obligations?
Well then, those athletes should blame their sponsors for making inferior shoes and not keeping up with industry innovation. It's not like the shoe companies aren't already at an arms race to make the best shoes.