To ban or not to ban is the question

BeepBeep67

28064212 wrote: »

A much bigger issue (assuming you agree that Nike's shoes are in fact technically far ahead of the competition) is athletes that are sponsored by someone else, and don't have the option of competing on a level playing field

I'm sure they'll think of something

Slow_Runner

adrian522 wrote: »

So Owens to Bolt - 70 years. Kimmetto to Kipchogue - 3 years.

You would normally expect these sort of improvements over decades not overnight due to engineering developments at a shoe company.

Also the newest version of these shoes are not available to anyone outside of Nike and probably not available to all Nike sponsored athletes. This hugely distorts the sport at the elite level.

The whole thing is a mess at the moment due to these technological advances. We are going more towards F1 where the winner is decided by which team hass the best engineers not by who is the best driver.

I think there are 2 issues here:
1. Should WR times count as improvement in track/shoes/clothing mean previous times are incomparable - you are not comparing like for like. I don't think Owens 10.2 is any less impressive than Bolts 9.56 or Bannister's sub 4 mile is less impressive than El G's 3:43, what make a WR really impressive is the length of time it takes to break it (Paula's record only falling after 20+ years & El G's from 1999). Same thing happened in swimming with the introduction of special swim suits back in 2008, times dropped across all events.

2. Are the shoes giving an unfair advantage to some athletes? This I agree with you on, there is an unfair advantage and there should be a level playing field, I don't think the shoes should be banned but there should be regulation to limit the advantage they give - how you do that I don't know.

28064212

BeepBeep67 wrote: »

I'm sure they'll think of something

I'm sure they will have competing shoes out soon™, probably close to or at the same level of Nike's. The issue is that the current situation* is not a level playing field**

* Realistically, it's been the situation since the 4% runners had their debut. It's only headlines now because of the double-whammy of Kipchoge's and Kosgei's achievements
** Again, assuming you accept at face value that Nike's shoes are technologically leaps and bounds ahead of the other options

BeepBeep67

28064212 wrote: »

I'm sure they will have competing shoes out soon™, probably close to or at the same level of Nike's. The issue is that the current situation* is not a level playing field**

* Realistically, it's been the situation since the 4% runners had their debut. It's only headlines now because of the double-whammy of Kipchoge's and Kosgei's achievements
** Again, assuming you accept at face value that Nike's shoes are technologically leaps and bounds ahead of the other options

Part of the concern from other athletes is not neccesarily the off the shelf variants of the 4% and Next%, but more the bespoke versions (not Kipchogie's AlphaFlys) that their pro athletes have access to which go against the availability rule 143.

- Any type of shoe used must be reasonably available to all in the spirit of the universality of athletics. Shoes must not be constructed so as to give athletes any unfair assistance or advantage.

Having said that there have been several 'protype' shoes appearing from other brands which would also go against this rule.

TFBubendorfer

BeepBeep67 wrote: »

Part of the concern from other athletes is not neccesarily the off the shelf variants of the 4% and Next%, but more the bespoke versions (not Kipchogie's AlphaFlys) that their pro athletes have access to which go against the availability rule 143.

That rule seems to be very flexible. I remember reading an article before an Olympic marathon quite a few years ago where the designers at Asics proudly talked about how they created specific shoes for their athletes just for that race.

I'm fairly sure that's standard practice amongst all shoe manufacturers. Nobody seemed concerned where the line was where a minor change for an individual athlete started to contradict the "general availability" rule.

28064212

BeepBeep67 wrote: »

Part of the concern from other athletes is not neccesarily the off the shelf variants of the 4% and Next%, but more the bespoke versions (not Kipchogie's AlphaFlys) that their pro athletes have access to which go against the availability rule 143.

Is that an actual concern of other athletes? Most of the news based on athletes' views on the shoes seems to be based off this Times' article (emphasis mine):

But Gianni Demadonna, the Italian former marathon champion who now manages some of the biggest names in distance running, told The Times that a group of about 20 of his athletes — the majority of whom are Ethiopian and use Adidas shoes — wrote “some months ago” to the IAAF and the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), calling for the shoes to be examined by experts.

“They think the shoes are maybe allowing elite athletes to run two minutes quicker in the marathon,” Demadonna said. “Understandably they are troubled by what is happening in their sport because the times being run are so fast. Even older runners are taking huge chunks off their best times.”

In the letter the athletes say that the shoe is “ruining” the sport and that they “don’t want to continue with unfair athletics”.

Some months ago => Obviously not referring to Kipchoge's Alphaflys
The shoe => suggests a model (presumably the 4% or Next%), rather than a specific instance of that model

adrian522

They are correct of course and things have only gotten worse since then. IAAF asleep at the wheel as usual, this has been going on since 2016.

MY BAD

BeepBeep67 wrote: »

I'm sure they'll think of something

These guys on insta for anyone interested
https://instagram.com/govrn_?igshid=hp7fvu6ss2j8

adrian522

Steve Magness on the subject on his latest podcast...

https://play.acast.com/s/magnessmarcusoncoaching/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scienceofrunning.com%2F%3Fp%3D3716

walshb

Slow_Runner wrote: »

I think there are 2 issues here:
1. Should WR times count as improvement in track/shoes/clothing mean previous times are incomparable - you are not comparing like for like. I don't think Owens 10.2 is any less impressive than Bolts 9.56 or Bannister's sub 4 mile is less impressive than El G's 3:43, what make a WR really impressive is the length of time it takes to break it (Paula's record only falling after 20+ years & El G's from 1999). Same thing happened in swimming with the introduction of special swim suits back in 2008, times dropped across all events.

2. Are the shoes giving an unfair advantage to some athletes? This I agree with you on, there is an unfair advantage and there should be a level playing field, I don't think the shoes should be banned but there should be regulation to limit the advantage they give - how you do that I don't know.

Paula’s record is a few years shy of 20 + years..

Limpy

I think it's the foam that gives you the ability to run strong in the later miles. It keeps your legs so fresh. AFAIK Nike have the foam trademarked.

Ceepo

Limpy wrote: »

I think it's the foam that gives you the ability to run strong in the later miles. It keeps your legs so fresh. AFAIK Nike have the foam trademarked.

The foam used in the Nike runners is called "Pebex" and other companys use it as awell such as Mizuno.
https://www.pebaxpowered.com/en/find-product/running/.

My understanding is the difference is the stack height. To counteract the instability of the stack height Nike used the full carbon plate.

Murph_D

Some thoughts on today’s IAAF considerations here: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2019/oct/21/shoes-nike-world-records-technology?

rom

BeepBeep67 wrote: »

I'm sure they'll think of something

Clearly a photoshop but .... it's exactly what is happening

https://www.asics.com/ie/en-ie/metaride%E2%84%A2/p/1011A142-400.html?width=Standard .

Limpy

Those shoes won't affect Nike stock until the athletes wearing them start beating the people running in vaporflys.

MY BAD

On Instagram some claiming Scullion had backed out next % not wearing his sponsors shoes!
https://www.instagram.com/p/B4H-5RVnTQb/?igshid=18itx48difu48

Slow_Runner

Judging by the amount of people wearing Nike fancy shoes today in Dublin, no fear of these being banned - that horse has bolted

Limpy

The vaporfly will be for the marathon like a GPS watch is, especially for anyone hoping to improve one's time. Nike have a golden goose. Its a bit awkward for athletes using sponsors hashtags ect in a post then running in the vaporfly.

MrMacPhisto

I was volunteering today in the finish area. I reckon about 90%or more of the ppl in the top 100 finishers were wearing some form of the nike vaporfly or vaporfly next. They certainly have won the marketing battle at the very least.

Limpy

MrMacPhisto wrote: »

I was volunteering today in the finish area. I reckon about 90%or more of the ppl in the top 100 finishers were wearing some form of the nike vaporfly or vaporfly next. They certainly have won the marketing battle at the very least.

The other 10% will wear them eventually, to see what they are like. You can be gaurenteed they won't go back to what they wore unless paid too. There's obviously good marketing involved, but the shoe is a game changer.

Rodin

They opened the can of worms when they let Pistorius compete.

The carbon fibre blade may not have brought him victory but the precedent for technology was set.
Ironically Pistorius complained when someone wore longer blades than him.

Chivito550

I think it's becoming very obvious that these Nike shoes are a complete game changer in the marathon. There have been some whopper PBs this weekend by Ireland's elites and yet I'm struggling to be particularly excited about any of it. All I can think now when I see a big PB is "what shoe was he/she wearing?".

Ceepo

One thing is for sure, they're here to stay.
At best IAAF will legislate for stack height, this will have an impact with what can be done in terms what the mid sole can contain, the Vapor fly has 35mm I think, reports that the Alpha fly is 51mm, apparently this was to allow 1) more foam, 2) more carbon plates to help stabilize the foam.

We just need to re calibrate the standards that we know,
Not saying I totally agree with it, but its not going to change .

jamule

Regulate the stack height seems to be the way forward. the more room they are creating with the foam the greater benefit from the plate.

dublin runner

Not sure if posted already but pretty essential listening:

https://play.acast.com/s/realscienceofsport/bee6a41a-0d6d-4d76-bfe8-f1c75f90f45a

Marathon day was very interesting. On the start line I tied my shoelaces, looking down. I was actually taken aback by the amount of NIKE runners. Genuinely shocked - and I attend a lot of races each year. This year is the first concrete year we are seeing them hit the masses (and many elites). I think it really has become a case of 'the haves' and the 'have nots'.

I am very torn on this issue. They have become a game changer and that jars with me. In saying that, I may, at some stage, be forced to purchase. Nothing beats training but if a pair of runners potentially makes a 1-2% percent difference? Very hard to ignore. That really annoys me, as I believe these things should never come down to what is on your feet.

FYI - Scullion was wearing a pair a blacked out pair of NIKE running DCM. Like so many others, when you see a sponsored athlete wearing a competitors shoes, you know for near certainty the benefit they (potentiality) provide.

ultrapercy

I find it very hard to believe that shoes can make that much difference but when I see all the top people wearing them I start to wonder. But marketing is a powerfull thing.
I had a pair of the vaprofly 2% and hated them but I think my choppy not very fluent style isnt suited to a shoe that propells me forward?
I assume theres a massive difference between the vapro 2% and the 4% and latest edition?

dublin runner

ultrapercy wrote: »

I find it very hard to believe that shoes can make that much difference but when I see all the top people wearing them I start to wonder. But marketing is a powerfull thing.
I had a pair of the vaprofly 2% and hated them but I think my choppy not very fluent style isnt suited to a shoe that propells me forward?
I assume theres a massive difference between the vapro 2% and the 4% and latest edition?

I was the exact same 're marketing. I do now think it's impossible to escape the difference they make.

I now find myself distancing myself from results and almost putting an * beside the majority. It is hard to know what are improvements and what are similar performances (historically), just with NIKE runners (mechanical doping, if you will).

Maybe this is now the new reality and one we have to accept. The change however, has been swift. Very swift.

I found it very interesting to see Scullion wearing them. That is no way taking away from his brilliant performance - just a very intriguing footnote.

Maybe I should try a pair!

ultrapercy

dublin runner wrote: »

I was the exact same 're marketing. I do now think it's impossible to escape the difference they make.

I now find myself distancing myself from results and almost putting an * beside the majority. It is hard to know what are improvements and what are similar performances (historically), just with NIKE runners (mechanical doping, if you will).

Maybe this is now the new reality and one we have to accept. The change however, has been swift. Very swift.

I found it very interesting to see Scullion wearing them. That is no way taking away from his brilliant performance - just a very intriguing footnote.

Maybe I should try a pair!

Seeing as they are not banned,if they do make that difference, it would be foolish not to wear them. It would be handicapping yourself. The rise in Irish standard through all categories is remarkable but it started at a very low base and upward trend predates these shoes. Im not saying they make no difference but there are a lot of different factors at play in faster times domesticaly and internationaly. Nike are very clever with placement and timing.

IvoryTower

dublin runner wrote: »

I found it very interesting to see Scullion wearing them. That is no way taking away from his brilliant performance - just a very intriguing footnote.

Maybe I should try a pair!

He mentioned on his podcast he was one of only 15 athletes not wearing them in doha. I imagine it's pretty disheartening knowing that everyone else is getting a 1-2% bump. Makes complete sense to wear them.

Cona

I heard some mumblings about the Nikes and how you have to be running a certain pace (lets say sub 7 min/mile) to be able to get the full advantage of them...Anyone know if there is truth to this?