800 dude wrote:
Rojo, it's not about testing individual shoes. It's that nobody has any concept of what an "unfair advantage" even means in the context of footwear. If actual scientists can come up with a definition of "unfair advantage" and then propose criteria for testing footwear against that definition, then the IAAF might be able to do something.
That's why your analogy to drug testing doesn't work. It's not like the IAAF is saying that there is such a thing as an illegal shoe that the IAAF is capable of identifying. If that were the case, it would be totally fair to complain about leaving it up to third parties to turn in the cheaters. But that's not what they're saying. They do not know what an "unfair" shoe is, and neither does anybody else. .
i 100% agree with you. No one knows what unfair is - that's why the rules need to be changed to something along the lines of , "No one can compete in a shoes that hasn't been out on the market for XX amount of time (3 months, 6 months etc)."
The reality is is one guy has the vaporfly 4%'s and no one else does - that's not fair. The reality is the 2016 Olympic marathon wasn't fair (thankfully most of the top male athletes were Nike anyway) It's a huge advantage, proven in scientific papers. Our sport is one that will DQ Ezekiel Kemboi for cutting a fraction of an inch off in a nearly 2 mile race but allowed Kipchoge, Rupp and others to potentially save more than a minute thanks to their footwear.
The rule needs to be changed.
Rojo, the Vaporfly has a catapault effect, like no other shoe I have ever worn, so yes, a cheater shoe.
Question tho - why is Vaporfly ($250) so much more expensive than Zoomfly ($99) when they both have the magical plate?