The Guardian: Pause on Shoe Tech Until Tokyo, Vaporflys NOT Banned, Tighter Set of Regulations, Alphafly Status Unclear

YMMV wrote:

All VF wearers will be required to take feminizing hormones for a minimum of four months to get allowance to wear said shoes.

And if they are woman, what will they take? idiot.

Since the hold is on new tech, and these Enko shoes already exist, they must be fair game:

https://i1.wp.com/www.thegearcaster.com/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Shot-2015-02-26-at-1.15.36-PM.png?resize=650%2C415

Boing boing!

Wait wtf the Alphafly improves running economy by 8% according to the article?? I mean I was expecting an improvement over the 4% and the 4.x% (Next%) but a doubling the improvement??

Where did the Guardian get the 8% figure from??

I don't know where they got the figures but from Nike people in the know....the alphafly is cheating. It's not right. The Vaporfly is at or near where shoe tech should get. The last Olympics were tainted by only some Nike athletes having the shoe. Who benefited? Kipchoge is now the undisputed marathon GOAT. Lilesa made an iconic protest, and Galen Rupp "showed" that non Africans can compete when we all know dozens of east Africans can mop the floor with him they just all happened to have to wear Streaks. Now that we know what's going on with shoes hopefully the public does not abide by this sort of cheating.

wejo wrote:

I think you guys are missing the big picture. We are looking into this but if a hiatus is put on new shoes that would mean Nike athletes would have a HUGE advantage at Trials and Olympics as other runners for other companies possibly couldn’t run in their prototypes they are meant to catch up to Nike.

Nike would love this new rule. Locks out competitors if it’s implemented a certain way.

This is how I originally read the article too. Would be a huge win for Nike.

But I'm wondering, if it's a ban on "new shoe technologies" rather than "new shoes" then maybe the Sauconys, NBs etc will be fair game in Tokyo (given foam + a single plate won't be new tech).

Devil's gonna be in the detail on Friday.

wejo wrote:

I think you guys are missing the big picture. We are looking into this but if a hiatus is put on new shoes that would mean Nike athletes would have a HUGE advantage at Trials and Olympics as other runners for other companies possibly couldn’t run in their prototypes they are meant to catch up to Nike.

Nike would love this new rule. Locks out competitors if it’s implemented a certain way.

Wejo, any non-Nike athlete can buy a pair of Vaporflies, color them black and stick a New Balance logo on side and they are ready to roll. Who the hell really would care

Also in Olympics runners does not represent the brand or club but their country. So I don't see any problem here

doctorj wrote:

YMMV wrote:

All VF wearers will be required to take feminizing hormones for a minimum of four months to get allowance to wear said shoes.

And if they are woman, what will they take? idiot.

You are a special kind of stupid, aren't you? Idiot.

8% just seems absurd...I'm not inclined to believe that's for real. I'm wondering what the precedent is for a shoe to be banned professionally and then used by amateurs. Assuming people would still use to qualify for Boston or New York, but could people use it to qualify for the Olympic Trials? And haven't shoes been banned by the NBA for being springs essentially, but then that basically stopped mainstream use? People here and World Athletics seem to think Nike would want to market an actual banned (for performance) shoe...I'm less sure of that, given their company ethos.

I skimmed the article but it looks like:

Nike's shoe is good to go but the other companies can't develop their own model.

So, we're basically stuck where we've been and Nike has the unfair advantage.

Someone who did a closer read please explain why I'm wrong.

runn wrote:

I skimmed the article but it looks like:

Nike's shoe is good to go but the other companies can't develop their own model.

So, we're basically stuck where we've been and Nike has the unfair advantage.

Someone who did a closer read please explain why I'm wrong.

My guess is the competitors to Nike have been proactive about presenting their Vaporfly-inspired prototypes to the committee and conducting any necessary research. It's not to their advantage to be cagey because the mass market won't wear their shoes unless the pros do and produce some results/lab research to back up they're comparable in terms of performance.

Unclear why Nike hasn't presented the Alphaflys. Could be a marketing ploy (they're OK with them not being approved, for the notoriety among the public) or they really do think there's no way World Athletics will sanction them. Either way, they're in a can't-lose position because the hype around the shoes is immense, yet even if they are banned they can either clean up among non-elites or just not produce them and redirect back to the Next %s.

wejo wrote:

I think you guys are missing the big picture. We are looking into this but if a hiatus is put on new shoes that would mean Nike athletes would have a HUGE advantage at Trials and Olympics as other runners for other companies possibly couldn’t run in their prototypes they are meant to catch up to Nike.

Nike would love this new rule. Locks out competitors if it’s implemented a certain way.

I'd happily represent Saucony and Brooks in the CAS if this happens.

This is what i want to see in London a 3.30 guy springing past Kipchoge with a mile to go.

Hey it's available to all.

Right,?

Thanks for the explanation.

Hopefully the current prototypes will be allowed or this is a huge win for Nike (maybe that's what World Athletics want?).

In any event the 8% has been said for a while. Nike has the tests to measure this down do I don't doubt the numbers. WHo knows what that actually means for performances. It's impossible that a 4-8% increase in "efficiency"/"economy" means an increase in time... Otherwise Kipchoge's INEOS run performance was the slowest marathon he's ever run...

When Julian Spence from inside running podcast went to Nike HQ to talk shoes he mentioned an interesting conversation he had with the head Nike shoe/marketing guy where he asked him about the ethics of this show arms race. The Nike exec said that they see the line which shouldn't be crossed as the point where the shoes return more energy to the runner than the runner exerts on the shoe. As things currently stand no shoes do this, so the shoes are ethical. It would be interesting to see World Athletics adopt a similar rule, and of course enforce the existing rule of no prototypes.

BmoreRunner wrote:

When Julian Spence from inside running podcast went to Nike HQ to talk shoes he mentioned an interesting conversation he had with the head Nike shoe/marketing guy where he asked him about the ethics of this show arms race. The Nike exec said that they see the line which shouldn't be crossed as the point where the shoes return more energy to the runner than the runner exerts on the shoe. As things currently stand no shoes do this, so the shoes are ethical. It would be interesting to see World Athletics adopt a similar rule, and of course enforce the existing rule of no prototypes.

I listened to that interview too and... this is a totally spurious line from Nike. Unless the shoe has a battery (or another form of stored energy in it) no shoe could ever physically return more energy than you put into it. It's called the first law of thermodynamics.

The article says they will ban new shoe technology, not new shoes.

You are aware that these runners sign contracts that dictate what they can wear, yeah?

This guy showed that he's an idiot as it's impossible to create energy out of a shoe.

The biggest problem is that Nike has a patent in respect of the curved plate. No other shoe that comes to market will have one for fear of law suit. Also they have an exclusive licence to use that specific formulation of pebax foam.

This is a problem given the financial model that funds our sport. Athletes don't get a share of TV revenue. They get a shoe contract. And it's a bad thing if Nike has the secret sauce and no other shoe company can get close did to IP law.

This means athletes have even less leverage when negotiating with Nike as what is the viable alternative - showing up at the start line with a disadvantage. An unlevel playing field due to lack of regulation. It's a bad thing for the sport as a whole.

The lack of leadership from WA is sad but not surprising. And come on - look at how ridiculous the alpha fly is. If you are a fan of athletics you at some level enjoy the purist nature of our sport. Those things are clown shoes and clearly a step too far.

I'm genuinely shocked that none of these Vaporfly threads has blown up after this news.

I was expecting fire and brimstone along with torches and pitchforks decrying this decision.

Is this stunned silence, or a collective yawn? At the time I made this post this was the only Vaporfly thread still on the first page and was about to drop off itself.

I am a consumer of the Vaporflys. However, if the Alphaflys are not legal for professional competition, I will feel like a complete tool by wearing them in my local marathon. I won't do it. I'd guess there are many like me.