Wearing Nike 4% shoes is no different from using EPO

Cheater 4% shoes wrote:

In my book someone wearing Nike 4% shoes is no different from someone using EPO/other forms of blood doping. Both are cheating. And if you wear Nike 4% shoes, you are a d-bag. The difference is clear. Marathon world record before EPO got on the scene: 2:06:50. A decade later: 2:06:05. A difference of about 1%. The world record before cheater 4% shoes: 2:02:57. The record afterwards: 2:01:39. A difference of about 2%.

+ infinity. OP knows what he is saying.

2at

4%=cheating wrote:

Running is one of the purest sports. It is just you vs everyone else. From point a to point b. Fastest one over there wins. Not like cycling, where having a fat wallet means beating someone. Just because you can afford a more expensive bike. Running should not come down to who won just because one person could get his hands on some cheating shoes. Who wins a race should come down to hard work.

Listen, i'm all for fairness and would never consider once about cheating in any form or shape. That being said , in my opinion using those shoes is equivalent to comparing the evolution of going from dirt tracks to "rubber" tracks.

Is it an advantage ? sure but it is available to all now and you still need to run to move forward and it is still your hard training that will make the major difference on how well you run. You also don't have to sacrifice your health or take ridiculus risks that have nothing to do with running to make it work .

Does the price prevent "Normal/average" people from competing fairely ? That maybe debatable , but the price will continue to go down.

As long as it is not limited to an elite few and the product is clearly identified and identifiable and the rules of the games allows it....then it's not cheating because the way it stands now it is just a matter of time before all competitive runners used those type of shoes when racing!

My 2 cents...

Cheater 4% shoes wrote:

The world record before cheater 4% shoes: 2:02:57. The record afterwards: 2:01:39. A difference of about 2%.

Looks like a savings of 87 seconds to me, out of a total of 7377 or ~1.2%

RealityCheck wrote:

That being said , in my opinion using those shoes is equivalent to comparing the evolution of going from dirt tracks to "rubber" tracks.

Yeah, I remember the big hoo-ha when they moved the Marathon from dirt to modern tracks. People were furious because they enjoyed watching the runners doing 105 laps on the old dirt tracks and didn't want to watch them run 105 laps on the new cheat bouncy surface. So yeah it's just the same as that.

The Moral Superior Has Spoken wrote:

... Like a poor marksman, you keep missing the target.

It's not about me or anyone else having an "infallible sense of right and wrong", it's about not presuming that YOU do.

I am not presuming that i nave an infallible sense of right and wrong. In fact, it's because I do not believe that I have such a thing that I accept the rules of the sport as what is and is not cheating rather than decide it for myself. I have my own moral issues with the 4% but they're my issues and I don't expect others to abide by them.

But let's play it your way and say that using the 4% is actually cheating. There are different types of cheating and cheating by wearing the 4% in a race is not at all, as the OP claims, no different than using EPO. It's very different because all you need to do to see if someone is cheating in a pair of 4%s is look at his feet. If the shoe was ever banned, and as a Nike product there's no chance of that happening so you might as well learn to live with them, it would be impossible for anyone to cheat in them beginning with the first day of the ban. That's very, very, different from using EPO.

Rubber tracks, everyone is competing on the same surface. Now I would like it, if there was a separate category for track records that happened on a dirt, cinder and grass tracks.

4% shoes, not everyone has them and it creates a unfair advantage for runners who do have them.

Having a shoe contract creates an unfair advantage for runners who have them versus those who don't. Having a contract with a big company like Nike and all its facilities creates an advantage for runners with Nike versus those with smaller companies. The field is never going to be level.

HRE wrote:

4%=cheating wrote:

Rubber tracks, everyone is competing on the same surface. Now I would like it, if there was a separate category for track records that happened on a dirt, cinder and grass tracks.

4% shoes, not everyone has them and it creates a unfair advantage for runners who do have them.

Having a shoe contract creates an unfair advantage for runners who have them versus those who don't. Having a contract with a big company like Nike and all its facilities creates an advantage for runners with Nike versus those with smaller companies. The field is never going to be level.

It should be even as far as what everyone has on the starting line. Having a motor on your bike is illegal in cycling for a reason. What you can do to your car in NASCAR is limited. In cycling your bike has to weigh at least a x amount. Certain handle bars are illegal in cycling. Those swimsuits about a decade ago used in the 08 Olympics were later banned. Etc.

OP is just an ASICS fanboi who can't BQ in his Gel Cumulus

ThisWholeThingisDumb wrote:

OP is just an ASICS fanboi who can't BQ in his Gel Cumulus

That's because wearing Gel Cumulus is like wearing construction boots!!! LOL

I run the same fast in my VF4% as well as my Skechers GoRun 3 Hyper, therefore NO CHEATING!!!!

hard work runs a distant second to picking your parents wisely....

4%=cheating wrote:

Running is one of the purest sports. It is just you vs everyone else. From point a to point b. Fastest one over there wins. Not like cycling, where having a fat wallet means beating someone. Just because you can afford a more expensive bike. Running should not come down to who won just because one person could get his hands on some cheating shoes. Who wins a race should come down to hard work.

4%=cheating wrote:

It should be even as far as what everyone has on the starting line. Having a motor on your bike is illegal in cycling for a reason. What you can do to your car in NASCAR is limited. In cycling your bike has to weigh at least a x amount. Certain handle bars are illegal in cycling. Those swimsuits about a decade ago used in the 08 Olympics were later banned. Etc.

How can it be even on the starting line if what leads up to the starting line is uneven?

And they don't give a dang if you look down on them or not. Maybe you have a lot of envy because you can't afford them and as any anonymous d-bag claim to be a pro behind the key board? That would make you the pathetic one. Let people be without envy.

`stringbeans wrote:

and EPO should be legal... quite trying to shove your big government nanny state on everyone

why is it these idiot abolitionists always try to force their views on everyone? then they'll claim they love the 'free market' or that 'libs' are blah blah blah...

Dr. Michelle Ferrari! How's life doing after your ban from cycling? Now trying to make it into the marathon business? Ciao doc!

The argument against using the 4% because it’s an unfair technological advancement, taken to its logical end, should also argue against anyone using any other non-4% shoe that contains a higher tech foam that offers greater spring and cushion, that has a cutting-edge design that enables it to be lighter than other racing shoes, etc. because they all give the person wearing them an unfair technological advantage. It’s particularly unfair if the shoes are too expensive for “regular” racers to afford. Same argument also should apply to people who “cheat” by using pricey state of the art gels and electrolyte drinks to help avoid cramping and bonking.

The only reasonable solution to eliminate the role of technology in racing results and make sure everyone competes on a level playing field is to require everyone to run barefoot or wear the same brand and model of shoes and use natural foods for fuel (e.g., bananas). That’s absurd (but would be fun to see).

Racing flats should only consist of a thin piece of rubber(Not much different from running barefoot). As far as eliminating gels and sports drinks. These products only real use is that it contains sugar. So one could easily swap gels and Gatorade for gummy bears, juice and honey.

Cheater 4% shoes wrote:

In my book someone wearing Nike 4% shoes is no different from someone using EPO/other forms of blood doping. Both are cheating. And if you wear Nike 4% shoes, you are a d-bag. The difference is clear. Marathon world record before EPO got on the scene: 2:06:50. A decade later: 2:06:05. A difference of about 1%. The world record before cheater 4% shoes: 2:02:57. The record afterwards: 2:01:39. A difference of about 2%.

Agree with you. Nike supports Salazar, a well known drug cheat.

RealityCheck,

Your response to the OP is logical and well stated. (itself a notable and commendable achievement on the open forum page!)