Reports: Vaporfly to be banned

usernameee wrote:

Did Paula forget to update her website? It still says she has the women's marathon world record.

???

Dunno. Technology has ways around that. Define single material. When does treatment of a material change it so much that's it is technically not the same material. Water, ice, water vapor.

I bet it’s really gonna limit stack heights and ban the Alphafly, not the Vaporfly. The Times article was much more vague and there’s been confusion since London over Kosegi’s shoes. Everyone said they were Kipchoge’s 1:59 shoes but they weren’t, and I bet that’s the root of the confusion.

I love the Vaporfly, all 3 versions. I am a hobby jogger 100% but I really enjoy running in those shoes. Maybe they do make me faster, my form is pretty bad, but I'll never contend for any prize money or records in my life time so it doesn't bother me. What is really confusing to me is why Nike is potentially facing this, while other brands like Saucony who are about to release a PEBA foam-based racer with a plate don't face any sort of backlash. Why is that? Why isn't everyone mad at Saucony for creating a shoe almost identical to the Vaporfly in terms of technology? What about the unannounced shoes set to be released by New Balance and Brooks? I don't understand the double standard, shouldn't everyone be getting their torches and pitchforks ready for those brands?

That's my legitimate question, all world records aside, is now that shoe brands might be catching up, why isn't anyone as upset? Can someone explain that to me in an easy-to-understand way?

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

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.

Be careful though...it's not two different sources. And what the Mail does cannot be called reporting. There is likely one source that is being repeated and repackaged. Also, that many of the same-source stories clearly do not understand what the shoe is even accused of doing should reiterate that this may not be any reporting going on at all. My guess is that one person, or one company is waging a PR battle through some leaks. Sometimes such campaigns work, which is why sometimes the Mail turns out to be correct.

sheep will be sheep wrote:

What a complete joke. Nike's marketing was so good that they killed their own shoe.

Bingo.

UA Runner wrote:

sheep will be sheep wrote:

What a complete joke. Nike's marketing was so good that they killed their own shoe.

Bingo.

If the shoes are not banned, these articles are a huge free advert.

UmbrellaMans wrote:

So uhhh would it be a bad idea to buy a pair of vaporflys now? Im a D3 runner but will be moving on to road racing in the next couple months.

I don't even think this would apply to people who aren't elites, and/or doing a World Athletics sanctioned event. It's not like they're going to go around and repo everyone's Nikes, or go to the local Color Run 5K and make sure no one has Vaporflys.

If this happens, my guess is it would apply to elite field only. Mayyybe age group winners at WMM events? No idea. Certainly the organizers at Rock & Roll San Diego or similar are not going to spend time looking at shoes for people finishing in 4hrs 30min, and so on.

What killed the shoe was breaking Paula's record.

Can't have that. She cheated fair and square for hers.

dodge ball wrote:

What about that new Adidas shoe that broke the world record? Should that be ban too?

It's a Takumi Sen, a well known Japanese race flat: low stack, low drop, mostly EVA and some Boost, no plate. No new tech, no new construction paradigm. Hard to see what's there to ban, really.

More like PR**, because you have to add another one for all the downhill marathons. Between that and these shoes, it turned a bunch of 2:22 guys into 2:18 guys. Along with 2:48 women into 2:44 women.

Hopefully this is the end of the bull crap.

garrettb wrote:

What is really confusing to me is why Nike is potentially facing this, while other brands like Saucony who are about to release a PEBA foam-based racer with a plate don't face any sort of backlash. Why is that?

Can someone explain that to me in an easy-to-understand way?

Why would they face backlash? There is zero information out there about any possible improvement with the Brooks, NB, Saucony or Skechers carbon plate/tall stack height Vaporfly competitors.

There are countless studies showing the benefits of the Nike vs. other shoes. Numerous world records and race results that are simply hard to believe. A guy ran a marathon in 1:59 in Nikes. The advantages have been proven.

Between Saucony, New Balance, Skechers.. you have what, a 2:09 from Jared Ward at Boston? Hardly disruptive. Hoka proved that simply putting a carbon plate in a shoe doesn't make it a world beater.

I think it's a good thing if they do ban them, I don't like records to fall due to tech, I like them to fall due to hard work and genetics.

I'd also ban any shoe from competition that can't typically last > 300 miles on ecological grounds.

Fair, that makes sense based on the margin of improvement and how quickly it happened as Vaporfly iterations came around. But at the same time, if these companies are clearly (to anyone familiar with all of this stuff) trying to catch up and put out their copycat respective "copycat" lightweight, high stack, (likely) plate of some sort racers, wouldn't that eventually make them just as guilty as Nike? I'm not looking for any sort of argument, I guess I am just trying to get a better grasp on both stances.

UA Runner wrote:

UmbrellaMans wrote:

So uhhh would it be a bad idea to buy a pair of vaporflys now? Im a D3 runner but will be moving on to road racing in the next couple months.

I don't even think this would apply to people who aren't elites, and/or doing a World Athletics sanctioned event. It's not like they're going to go around and repo everyone's Nikes, or go to the local Color Run 5K and make sure no one has Vaporflys.

If this happens, my guess is it would apply to elite field only. Mayyybe age group winners at WMM events? No idea. Certainly the organizers at Rock & Roll San Diego or similar are not going to spend time looking at shoes for people finishing in 4hrs 30min, and so on.

Of course it would apply to amateurs. Whether on not the amateurs will follow the rule as the supply on vapourflys dry up is a different question.

I’m sure even for age group awards though people’s results would be challenged and if there were it would be pretty easy to verify, it’s not like the vaporfly is a subtle shoe

tally wrote:

What killed the shoe was breaking Paula's record.

Can't have that. She cheated fair and square for hers.

Would vaporfly have cured her bobbleheading?

It'll be Messy wrote:

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.

One of my runners qualified originally in a pair of Skechers Max Road Ultra at Chicago in 2017, and then improved her time (current PR) at Grandmas 2018 to 2:39 in a pair of Skechers GoRun Ride 7.

Can you please post one of those studies? I've yet to see an actual legit study on this.

Shnoes.... wrote:

I think it's a good thing if they do ban them, I don't like records to fall due to tech, I like them to fall due to hard work and genetics.

Hate to break it to you, records have been falling forever due to advancements in tracks, shoes, nutrition, and training.

Or do you think everyone who ran faster than Peter Snell worked harder and were more gifted?