Certain bicycle designs have been ruled illegal for competition.
Certain swim suit designs have been ruled illegal for competition.
They don't use aluminum bats in the major leagues.
It's not difficult to get your head around this.
Certain bicycle designs have been ruled illegal for competition.
Certain swim suit designs have been ruled illegal for competition.
They don't use aluminum bats in the major leagues.
It's not difficult to get your head around this.
FFF wrote:
Re-watching the coverage now.
The top four aren't running. They're bouncing. It's like they're on a trampoline. You've got to be kidding me.
Go run at sub-5 pace for however long you can manage in the next% and report back to us how long you make it. You all take so much from these athletes. They're shoes, get over it.
Fina has long time ago set the standards for swimsuits:
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/sports/25swim.html
Some records are still with the banned swimsuits - one notable example is Biederman winning with the Arena swimsuit - beating Phelps in the 200m for the world record
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeOw35fsltE
That material is long time banned.
The UCI has banned a range of bikes (for example the front wheel cannot be much smaller - the bike that Ullrich used to have for TT, and the weight cannot be to light).
I don't know if the Varopfly make you run faster or not.
The major reason to ban is to level the field - whether people have equal access and finances to similar products. Technology will improve and is important and becomes cheaper over time.
While this happens standards and leveling the field is important.
I'll see if I can find a picture - I know she wore it on the track for a period. Hers was the funniest case because she'd basically built herself a little exoskeleton, and clearly for performance enhancement, but few people called it doping or unethical.
Cases like hers, or anyone who's ever used an "altitude tent" or "top secret" programs (Hi Canada) should make people begin questioning the arbitrariness of WADA's Code.
tarckstar, you seem to miss the entire point of what I said – EK ran 2:03:05 in London in 2016. And he did it without VF4%. Yesterday he ran 2:02:37 which is what – 28 seconds faster. So less than 0.7 sec per km. In almost perfect conditions (relatively low temps, almost no wind and low humidity). You see that it is only Eliud who is producing insane times. Still the second best time after EK was drafting behing him for entire race and barely got under 2:03. If we ban VF4%, then I would say we should ban all the shoes for good. Since all shoes provide some benefit of cushioning and protection. Let's just go barefoot like good guy Abebe did in his first marathon win.
tarckstar wrote:
Certain bicycle designs have been ruled illegal for competition.
Certain swim suit designs have been ruled illegal for competition.
They don't use aluminum bats in the major leagues.
It's not difficult to get your head around this.
Stopping by to remind everyone that Kosgei was NOT wearing the NEXT%, and beat her competitors who were.
Sharksuits were mostly banned because wordwide viewing numbers dropped, and only partly because ten thousand dollar championship suits were only affordable to a very few countries. (Yes, those existed, and would have been necessary to medal one olympics down the road, so you've got a minor point about FINA taking action, I'll give you all that).
Running viewing numbers dropped long before Vaporfly arrived - how long do you wanna set back the clock?
Also, there's a counterargument in Mountainbiking - top performance bikes cost over ten thousand dollars, but you don't see even African countries trying to ban those. Yet it is a fast rising sport in numbers of competing athletes and commercial coverage through things like GoPros and other new tech on the viewing side too.
calpa wrote:
I saw this trending and I thought that the IAAF or something like that actually banned them
Same. Turns out it is just one or two lunatics with multiple usernames. Brojos should edit the click bait title.
You are doing Nike’s marketing job for them. Telling everyone the shoes make you SO much faster. I hope you’re working on commission.
I Chose D2 wrote:
calpa wrote:
I saw this trending and I thought that the IAAF or something like that actually banned them
Same. Turns out it is just one or two lunatics with multiple usernames. Brojos should edit the click bait title.
I hear the lunatic (there is only one) likes to copulate car exhaust pipes whilst singing It’s Raining Men.
Fair enough. I will start with the first restriction then you give me yours. No wheels. Easy to govern.
What specific elements/components of the vaporfly need to be changed to make them acceptable? And to what degree do those components need to be changed?
qw wrote:
tarckstar, you seem to miss the entire point of what I said – EK ran 2:03:05 in London in 2016. And he did it without VF4%. Yesterday he ran 2:02:37 which is what – 28 seconds faster. So less than 0.7 sec per km. In almost perfect conditions (relatively low temps, almost no wind and low humidity). You see that it is only Eliud who is producing insane times. Still the second best time after EK was drafting behing him for entire race and barely got under 2:03.
If we ban VF4%, then I would say we should ban all the shoes for good. Since all shoes provide some benefit of cushioning and protection. Let's just go barefoot like good guy Abebe did in his first marathon win.
tarckstar wrote:
Certain bicycle designs have been ruled illegal for competition.
Certain swim suit designs have been ruled illegal for competition.
They don't use aluminum bats in the major leagues.
It's not difficult to get your head around this.
Nike had the carbon fiber plate in shoes before the 4% with the newer foam came out - Rupp had the plate in his shoes in the trials in 2016. I have zero doubt Kipchoge's shoes had it that year, too. You can go on and on about how it's the foam, and not the plate making the difference, go ahead.
tarckstar wrote:
Nike had the carbon fiber plate in shoes before the 4% with the newer foam came out - Rupp had the plate in his shoes in the trials in 2016. I have zero doubt Kipchoge's shoes had it that year, too. You can go on and on about how it's the foam, and not the plate making the difference, go ahead.
Okay we will and you can go one about how its the plate and not the foam making the difference. Go ahead. No one will ever know. These shoes will never be banned. The sooner you get over them, the better off you will be mentally.
DietBacon wrote:
Stopping by to remind everyone that Kosgei was NOT wearing the NEXT%, and beat her competitors who were.
Dude it’s 2019. Logical statements contradictory to the original opinion aren’t allowed, and definitely aren’t taken into consideration. ‘Debates’ aren’t a thing anymore. There’s people who are 100% correct, and everyone else who doesn’t fully agree is either evil, racist, ignorant, or just plain stupid.
tarckstar wrote:
Certain bicycle designs have been ruled illegal for competition.
Certain swim suit designs have been ruled illegal for competition.
They don't use aluminum bats in the major leagues.
It's not difficult to get your head around this.
Excellent post.
I want to see who is the best runner, not who has the best shoes.
Best point ive seen all day
facts and reason wrote:
tarckstar wrote:
Certain bicycle designs have been ruled illegal for competition.
Certain swim suit designs have been ruled illegal for competition.
They don't use aluminum bats in the major leagues.
It's not difficult to get your head around this.
Excellent post.
I want to see who is the best runner, not who has the best shoes.
Yet bicycle manufactures are still innovating every year and new legal bikes offer 10+ W (if not more) advantages over designs from 2000.
This analogy works against you as incremental changes in technology have improved cycling efficiency.
itai wrote:
The major reason to ban is to level the field - whether people have equal access and finances to similar products. Technology will improve and is important and becomes cheaper over time.
While this happens standards and leveling the field is important.
And dirty Nike knows this and is willing to give their athletes an unfair advantage!
qw wrote:
tarckstar, you seem to miss the entire point of what I said – EK ran 2:03:05 in London in 2016. And he did it without VF4%. Yesterday he ran 2:02:37 which is what – 28 seconds faster. So less than 0.7 sec per km. In almost perfect conditions (relatively low temps, almost no wind and low humidity). You see that it is only Eliud who is producing insane times. Still the second best time after EK was drafting behing him for entire race and barely got under 2:03.
If we ban VF4%, then I would say we should ban all the shoes for good. Since all shoes provide some benefit of cushioning and protection. Let's just go barefoot like good guy Abebe did in his first marathon win.
tarckstar wrote:
Certain bicycle designs have been ruled illegal for competition.
Certain swim suit designs have been ruled illegal for competition.
They don't use aluminum bats in the major leagues.
It's not difficult to get your head around this.
Given Dubai this year, and London this weekend, you have to see that something is going on in world marathoning.
There's a bounce to 4% and NEXT% shoes, this isn't hard to see. This is a change in shoe technology/benefits, and it's anything but incremental.
The real funny thing going on here is that this board is full of guys who thought Kipchoge's 2:01 was insurmountable, and would stand for a very long time. In reality, there are at least four guys who can top it this fall at Berlin, as long as they're wearing the right Nike shoes. That mark will NOT survive Dubai next year, bank on it.