Kipchoge, Rupp, & Flanagan Are All Guilty of Mechanical Doping in 2016 - Will Anything Be Done About It?

bladerunner wrote:

Too funny. Let's go after Nike but Semenya and the 2 other podium finishers didn't have unfair advantages? Men racing women is ok but lets go after a shoe? I would guess Sifan Hassan is next. She had an unfair spike or something. Goodbye to this idiotic website.

The Brojos are to some extent infected with political correctness or the ridiculous zeitgeist and refer to Caitlyn Jenner, father of six or so children, with feminine pronouns.

But my sentence above may draw charges of misgendering and transphobia, though I hate nobody.

I thought it was a well-reasoned and well-written editorial. It seems pretty clear that using shoes proven to be advantageous, kept secret from the public, is unfair and violates the rules.

I think folks can reasonably disagree on whether the 2016 results should be invalidated. But I haven't seen a sound argument on this thread to say, knowing all we know now, that it was fair for some runners to use the shoes without making them (or the technology behind them) available to everyone. I'm open to hearing one.

That being said, I don't know enough about the shoe development and testing process to say what the rule should be. Did Nike know the extent to which the shoe aided performance? Should it matter if they did?

One idea could be no new technology or off-market shoes for the Olympics, period -- only shoes that have been raced in and sold over the course of that Olympic cycle.

I disagree with most of the argument in the article, and it seems pretty heavily fueled by some anti-Nike feelings.

You're basing this whole thing on "unfair additional assistance" provided by the shoe, stating that it falls outside the purpose of the shoe as defined by the IAAF as "to give protection and stability to the feet and a firm grip on the ground." Then you go on to state a bunch of studies that show 4% improvement to running economy and the time that would save an elite marathoner. That's all great.

So why should the Vaporfly's be banned according to the article? Why do they work so well? Because "with their huge stack height, they effectively extend the length of the leg, and, with their foam and carbon plate(s), help a runner store and return energy." So by this logic any shoe with any stack height in the heel would be extending the length of the leg and should be illegal? And any shoe with a sole that can help a runner store and return energy should be illegal? Because these are things that every shoe does. I suppose technically, under the IAAF rules, it might fall under giving "stability to the feet," but this whole Vaporfly argument is under the pretense that its the only shoe providing any benefit in any way. Every single shoe helps a runner store and return energy. Compare barefoot running with running in any shoe. Shoes give improved running economy. They either all break the IAAF rule or they don't.

Where does that leave the argument? You could still say that Vaporfly's provide "unfair additional assistance," but it all boils down to how unfair is defined. Does Letsrun.com get to define it, or maybe Nike? It's silly to argue whether or not the shoe gives an advantage. Nike clearly has the best shoe available right now and every other shoe company is playing catch-up trying to make a similar model. But you're taking about nullifying Olympic results because Nike has a superior shoe and all other companies have inferior products? Every shoe gives energy return and stack height, Nike just made the one that does it best. That's not unfair. This is a ridiculous argument.

If Kipchoge was a last minute sub on the Kenyan team with a prior PR of 2:12, I think there would be a point to going back and looking at the impact of the shoes. The fact is that Kipchoge was beating everyone solidly and putting up fast times long before he ever put on Vaporflys. The 2016 Marathon was slow and in the heat. I really do not think that the shoes were that big of a factor in the race.

The marathon WR dropped by about 10 min between the time people were running in leather shoes to the rise of Nike and EVA foam. A good bit of that 10 min drop was the shoes.

I do not see why we should freeze shoe technology at 2014. Running shoes are still pretty primitive and cause a lot of runners a whole host of problems. If Nike comes up with a shoe that reducing the pounding on our legs, so what if people run faster in them.

Gear changes sports. Golf clubs have changed how golfers swing. You can now put a lot more power into a club from your arms because of improved shaft and clubhead technology. Just watch Jack Nicklaus kick his left heal in the air when he would hit his driver as hard as he could. You don't have to do that anymore with the current club technology.

In tennis, the rackets are way better. Points are much longer and the game is now much more of an endurance event. Players are now able to play in their prime well through their thirties when back in the day of McEnroe, everyone was done by the time they turned 30.

I came here to post exactly this. What a dumb, dumb argument. Let's all just admit the truth - running shoe regulation was implicitly always based on the idea that manufacturers and runners would continue to take a "less is more" approach to their high performance models so careful regulation wasn't necessary of size and shape wasn't necessary. Nike caught everyone napping and made a fortune. Chapeau.

Set the maximum stack height of all shoes at the Next% level (pre-emptively banning the Alphaflys), accept that's going to be what running shoes look like now and move on.

No way anything will be done.

There have been much more egregious instances of mechanical doping in the past.

Michael Johnson was obviously guilty of mechanical doping in the 1996 Olympics. The gold shoes had a carbon plate that would be the eventual technology behind Pistorius' blades. They were actual cheater shoes that no one else had access to.

1. Michael Johnson (USA) 19.32 World Record Olympic Record

2. Frank Fredericks (NAM) 19.68 AR

3. Ato Boldon (TRI) 19.80

4. Obadele Thompson (BAR) 20.14

5. Jeff Williams (USA) 20.17

6. Ivan Garcia (CUB) 20.21

7. Patrick Stevens (BEL) 20.27

8. Michael Marsh (USA) 20.48

These shoes for the marathon are 90% placebo. Marathon progression had stagnated but with much room for improvement because all marathons have tactical moments; it is not a time trial. Just like the 5000 and 10000 records stagnated at 13:00 and 27:00. Once someone ran substantially faster, everyone else realized that they could as well.

I'm for anything that will strip the doping cheaters rupp and centro of medals obtained through cheating.

No, dude, but do what you gotta do.

It has nothing to do with custom shoes. If adidas wants to make a pair of rainbow shoes for Nikki Hiltz or if Nike wants to make a pair perfect for my foot, that doesn't change anything. None of those shoes are going to be minute(s) better than anyone else.

When multiple scientific papers get published saying Meb's shoes were minutes better than anyone else's, please get back to me.

For the most part, I agree with you. I wrote that I felt like the athletes likely had no idea and you are right, no one prevented them from wearing the shoes . If they had been prevented from wearing them at the start line, then Kipchoge probably switches into another pair and wins anyway so it would be a real shame if Kipchoge wasn't the Olympic champ.

That being said, by the letter of the law, what went on was flat out wrong. It kind of reminds me of a "No fault" doping case like Ajee Wilson. But at least there is official acknowledgment. This is a sport that bans people for 4 years for eating tainted beef (Jarion Lawson). So we can't just look the other way. I hope at some point there is official acknowledgement of 'What happened in 2016 will never happen again."

My fear is that by putting out rules that say only commercially avaialble shoes can be used for 2020 that they'll only be codifying Nike's advantage. In 2016, NIke had a huge advantage because they had secret shoes. In 2020, they may have another advantage as other companies aren't allowed to copy them. So athletes may face a dilemma - get a waiver for their sponsor or potentially lose minutes to their rivals.

rojo wrote:

It has nothing to do with custom shoes. If adidas wants to make a pair of rainbow shoes for Nikki Hiltz or if Nike wants to make a pair perfect for my foot, that doesn't change anything. None of those shoes are going to be minute(s) better than anyone else.

When multiple scientific papers get published saying Meb's shoes were minutes better than anyone else's, please get back to me.

What baseline are we working with here, because there are plenty of existing studies showing that shoes are beneficial over barefoot running. I think that's the main weakness of your argument. I don't think the existence of a study is relevant at all.

The rule was very poorly written. Hopefully it's better for 2020 and on.

Old School Frank wrote:

To quote Frank from Old School "Everybody's doing it"

ps. I think all their records and victories, including Des's, are valid.

Yes most everyone is doing it NOW (although I spoke to an expert who doesn't think everyone is doing as well. Some of Nike's stuff is patented so you can't just copy it perfectly and some shoes may think, "what's the point of developing a "almost as good vaporfy copy" as there will be next to zero market for that.)

But everyone wasn't doing it in 2016. In 2017, anyone who wanted could go buy those shoes. Ignorng sponsorship tie ins, it then became a you problem. In 2016, only Nike was doing it. That's why I want to look back at Rio 2016 specificaly.

What happened in 2016 bothers me way more than now. IfI was some Shoe Company X right now and didn't have a copycat, I'd just go buy a few pairs for the Next%, have a shoe designer rip off the uppers and put my own on there and then I'd be fine. In 2016, I couldn't do that.

Here is a thought. Change the Olympic marathon to be run on a trail. These shoes wouldn't help much there

FFF wrote:

If tomorrow doesn't bring a massive correction to this travesty, I'm out.

"... and nothing of value was lost"

The stack height on these prototypes certainly doesn't look anywhere near as beefy as the 4% no doubt it is using the zoom x foam - but obviously somewhere between Rio and Monza they worked out more foam was better. I mean look at the Next% and Alphafly for where they ended up going. So I'd suggest there was significantly less benefit in wearing this shoe in Rio than the studies have suggested especially given the race only started in the last 7k.

Also you sure one of the women isn't wearing the prototype or is she wearing a Lunaracer? She certainly isn't wearing a Streak.

If you didn't set a record on a cinder track it never happened.

Jesus god when will the VF hysteria end? Apparently never for those who can’t accept change.

from Runblog:

Portland, Ore. (Sept. 29, 2014) - adidas' Dennis Kimetto ran the fastest marathon in history wearing adidas BOOST™ at the 2014 Berlin Marathon. With a time of 2:02:57 Kimetto shattered the previous world record by an astounding 26 seconds wearing the super lightweight adizero Adios BOOST.

"Dennis' world record breaking performance while wearing adidas BOOST demonstrates the result of elite athletes using industry leading innovation to achieve unprecedented feats," said Adrian Leek General Manager of adidas Running. "We continue to push boundaries by working closely with our athletes to develop the best products running has to offer."

adidas BOOST was also on the feet of second place men's finisher Emmanuel Muthai who joined Kimetto in breaking the previous world record. The top two female finishers Tirfi Tsegaye and Fayse Tadese were also wearing Adios BOOST as they triumphantly crossed the finish line in Berlin to provide adidas with a dominating presence at the podium.

The results in Berlin contribute to a long line of success for Adios BOOST following its introduction last year including former world record holder Wilson Kipsang running a course record at the 2014 Virgin Money London Marathon.

INFORMATION

The adidas adizero Adios BOOST shoe is $140 and is available at

www.adidas.com/boost

. The adidas adizero Adios BOOST incorporates five key benefits to deliver more speed than ever before:

BOOST ™ technology - provides a higher Energy Return than any other foam cushioning material in the running industry.

Microfit upper - a breathable, contoured mesh that makes each movement natural

Continental Rubber™ outsole - a high performance rubber outsole that grips the ground for better traction and a powerful push-off.

Torsion system - delivers optimum transition and stability

adiwear material - for ultimate durability

Boost foam isn't a lever. Go ahead, Nike, make a Cheaterfly% without the plate. We're waiting.

Did I miss something, cause I seem to remember that marathon was pretty slow.

Rupp ran 26:44 for 10,000 in LD spikes only 2 years before that. If he had 2% shoes he should have took a stab at 26 flat.