Jemma Reekie: 1:57.91 indoors - Smashes British Record, Drops PR 3+ Seconds, #11 All-time

Unless those spikes are reasonably available to all, which as far as I'm aware - they certainly are not - then they aren't legal.

Release soon isn't 'in stores right now'.

I'm not making much up, and the confusion comes from a 4ish second PR out of the blue.

Probably faster than she (or Muir) thought she could run, certainly faster than anyone else thought. Muir took it out fast as if a time trial, Jemma long-legs just sailed past in the last 200. Great run. Her preferred event seemed to be the 1500. They say the shoes do not have a carbon fiber plate (just plastic).

adidas , new balance and brooks will have a similar spike , once they get a hold of these Nike spikes and copy them .

maybe probably wrote:

Unless those spikes are reasonably available to all, which as far as I'm aware - they certainly are not - then they aren't legal.

Release soon isn't 'in stores right now'.

I'm not making much up, and the confusion comes from a 4ish second PR out of the blue.

Look up the stipulations and new rules. Unfortunately, you seem to have your mind made up. Why waste time to argue with someone like that?

White blonde girls don’t juice huh, where are all the juicing theorists now

trollism wrote:

maybe probably wrote:

Any thoughts on the spikes? Seem to be (now illegal) Nike prototypes?

And before anyone says 'she still had to run it'. Yes she did - and she ran it wearing a pair of Nike prototype spikes.

Can't not ask the question

Everything from now is going to be run in a pair of boing boing shoes.

Bring back leather shoes and cinder tracks.

hallamshire harriers wrote:

maybe probably wrote:

Any thoughts on the spikes? Seem to be (now illegal) Nike prototypes?

And before anyone says 'she still had to run it'. Yes she did - and she ran it wearing a pair of Nike prototype spikes.

Can't not ask the question

No, not illegal. Release soon. Do some homework on the spikes worn by her, and then compare that to the new guidelines. Making up śhit does not help anything- it only confuses matters further.

True. They’re not illegal and will release soon. But they’re still prototypes; using prototypes has been recognized as an unfair advantage by World Athletics, and such behavior will be disallowed starting April 30. This performance clearly deserves an asterisk considering it was achieved through means that WILL BE BANNED barring this grace period. Semenya didn’t violate IAAF regulations but many would argue that her performances deserve an asterisk since such restrictions now exist. The same goes for any performances achieved using PEDs before they were banned.

Would be cheating in three months wrote:

hallamshire harriers wrote:

No, not illegal. Release soon. Do some homework on the spikes worn by her, and then compare that to the new guidelines. Making up śhit does not help anything- it only confuses matters further.

True. They’re not illegal and will release soon. But they’re still prototypes; using prototypes has been recognized as an unfair advantage by World Athletics, and such behavior will be disallowed starting April 30. This performance clearly deserves an asterisk considering it was achieved through means that WILL BE BANNED barring this grace period. Semenya didn’t violate IAAF regulations but many would argue that her performances deserve an asterisk since such restrictions now exist. The same goes for any performances achieved using PEDs before they were banned.

You mean like every single track athlete does have their custom unreleased prototype shoe?

Once again is it not LR’s xenophobic tendencies being shown again?

Even if they do have the carbon plate they are not illegal in that term. It clearly states one plate + the plate that holds the spikes. Why can’t anyone read the print? I keep seeing complaining that if the spikes have a carbon plate they are illegal. That’s not true. They can have the carbon plate and the plate that the spikes mount to

Sprinters have had full-plate spikes for decades. The big advantage provided by Nike fly is in the stack height and midsole composition (the plate just adds stability). This is not currently an issue with any spikes.

No one is complaining about whether the do or do not have a carbon plate (they don't as Andy Young has said).

But they are prototypes.

If she done this in 3 months it wouldn't be allowed, which to me, says alot

Ok new rules state that if she ran it in 3 months in the same situation, it would be illegal?

As another user says, that's a fat PR*

Of course my mind's made up. What is there to think about? She wore a pair of shoes that other athletes don't have access to and dropped a 4 second PR in a time that shocked everyone including her, in a time where the shoe discussion is where it is.

I laugh at people like you, but sometimes wish I was as helpless. Might still appreciate some achievements like I used to

Doesn’t the new rule prohibit rigid plates (other than bottom of shoe) regardless of material? So plastic vs carbon shouldn’t matter? Or am I missing something?

Eyeroll wrote:

Doesn’t the new rule prohibit rigid plates (other than bottom of shoe) regardless of material? So plastic vs carbon shouldn’t matter? Or am I missing something?

Never mind. I got mixed up.

YMMV wrote:

Lordy, her 800 PB was 2:07 two and a half years ago, this is her first time under 2:01!

Nothing to see here, just a five-second PR from a seasoned runner.

Dodgiest group in running.

truth hertz wrote:

YMMV wrote:

Lordy, her 800 PB was 2:07 two and a half years ago, this is her first time under 2:01!

Nothing to see here, just a five-second PR from a seasoned runner.

Dodgiest group in running.

3.5 seconds and she's 21, but don't let a little exaggeration get in the way of your narrative there

These new rules are so ridiculous. Can you imagine forcing firms to mass produce a shoe before making prototypes?

Nike used it's elite athletes to test the shoes in real training and race environments and provide feedback about what works and what doesn't, before it then takes those changes and mass produced them. Every shoe company does this.

These new rules mean that we, the consumer, will simply have crappier shoes available to purchase. World Athletics is stifling innovation and development.

It's 3.5 sec, not 5, but it's a huge PR (and Debues-Stafford made similar progress since 2017) but Reekie is turning 22 in March, so large improvements are not that unlikely. (Compare e.g. Sinclaire Johnson who is one month younger than Reekie and improved from 2:04 4:11 to 2:00 4:03 last season)

Nevertheless, sub 1:58 for a 1500m runner points to 3:56 or faster which is a huge step from 4:02 (and not really having a chance in major races where Reekie did well last season, but had absolutely no chance against the likes of Debues-Stafford, Koko or Muir.

Reekie from 19-21

2019 2:01 4:02

2018 2:02 4:06

2017 2:07 4:12

Before USING prototypes. And yeah, that seems pretty reasonable. Pros are competitors, not guinea pigs, and there’s no reason to stick them with prototypes (in a pro race) unless you know the shoes will give them an unfair, exclusive advantage.

Athletes test shoes in training and in time trials. They don’t test them in races. A real race doesn’t give any useful data because the only extra factor, positioning, has nothing to do with shoes or the advantages they provide. It’d be a useless experiment.

No, shoe companies are still perfectly capable of and amenable to testing and producing footwear that stretch the limits of fairness.