World Athletics quietly repealed the ban on prototypes during the pandemic and none of the big sponsors have complained. So long as you meet all other technical specifications re: stack height and rigid plates, there’s nothing illegal about running in prototypes right now.
nope. I didn’t even know that happened. I just thought that it was unfair to see someone having advantage over others for something out of their control, which isn’t fair.
Also I was under the impression IAAF we’re tackling the shoes issue?
World Athletics quietly repealed the ban on prototypes during the pandemic and none of the big sponsors have complained. So long as you meet all other technical specifications re: stack height and rigid plates, there’s nothing illegal about running in prototypes right now.
Thanks for the reply. That’s an absolute joke and I feel for her competitors who are likely to be disadvantaged for something out of their control.
There were a few arguments against the prototype ban:
1) It, in effect, gave a massive advantage to Nike athletes, as they were first-to-market with “super spikes” and have an existing supply and distribution chain to sell spikes at retail at a scale that the other shoe companies have never done.
2) Because of the above, you saw some companies doing really ridiculous things like Allyson Felix’s spikes being “commercially available” — for several thousand dollars.
3) The introduction of technical specifications made it more clear what was allowed and what wasn’t, so there’s less potential for surprise innovations that would be regulated. So, the rules introduced an unnecessary delay.
4) (I suspect this is the main reason they got rid of the rule.) During the pandemic, the footwear supply chain was a MESS. Sponsors wanted their athletes in their new spikes ahead of the Olympics, but the manufacturers couldn’t get enough product made in time to meet the “commercial availability” criteria.
5) No shoe company (except maybe Nike) actually makes money selling spikes. (For example, I heard an interview once from Brooks former head of sports marketing and spike production costs were a part of HIS budget.) So the sponsors didn’t want to sink money into abiding by this rule.
I actually liked the rule in theory — we should encourage innovation but it was certainly unfair that non-Nike athletes didn’t know the Vaporfly existed for years. A prototype ban appeared to split the difference but has been unworkable in practice.
6) A shoe that’s still in development can be submitted to the IAAF for approval and, once given the green light, can be worn in competition for roughly a year before it’s actually sold. The IAAF even has a running list of all the shoes companies have submitted and are currently allowed in competition.
The OP can whine all he wants, but it’s clearly within the rules.
Thanks for the reply. That’s an absolute joke and I feel for her competitors who are likely to be disadvantaged for something out of their control.
There were a few arguments against the prototype ban:
1) It, in effect, gave a massive advantage to Nike athletes, as they were first-to-market with “super spikes” and have an existing supply and distribution chain to sell spikes at retail at a scale that the other shoe companies have never done.
2) Because of the above, you saw some companies doing really ridiculous things like Allyson Felix’s spikes being “commercially available” — for several thousand dollars.
3) The introduction of technical specifications made it more clear what was allowed and what wasn’t, so there’s less potential for surprise innovations that would be regulated. So, the rules introduced an unnecessary delay.
4) (I suspect this is the main reason they got rid of the rule.) During the pandemic, the footwear supply chain was a MESS. Sponsors wanted their athletes in their new spikes ahead of the Olympics, but the manufacturers couldn’t get enough product made in time to meet the “commercial availability” criteria.
5) No shoe company (except maybe Nike) actually makes money selling spikes. (For example, I heard an interview once from Brooks former head of sports marketing and spike production costs were a part of HIS budget.) So the sponsors didn’t want to sink money into abiding by this rule.
I actually liked the rule in theory — we should encourage innovation but it was certainly unfair that non-Nike athletes didn’t know the Vaporfly existed for years. A prototype ban appeared to split the difference but has been unworkable in practice.
No they were white with what looks like a mix between the dragonflies and air zoom victory. Possibly air zoom victory 2.
Bearing in mind she just pipped someone to the podium it begs the question if she would have been on it if she was on an even playing field to everyone else.
No they were white with what looks like a mix between the dragonflies and air zoom victory. Possibly air zoom victory 2.
Bearing in mind she just pipped someone to the podium it begs the question if she would have been on it if she was on an even playing field to everyone else.
It’s mechanical doping imo.
Maybe if you didn't whine your complaints out so churlishly, someone like World Athletics (where your protest should be lodged) might actually take the time to consider it.
It seems Laura muir is wearing unreleased/prototype spikes in the 800m.
1. How is that fair that others are out at a potential disadvantage as they don’t have the choice to be on a level playing field?
2. is that even legal? I thought shoes had to be released before they’re legal…
For crying out loud they're just shoes. Can I go to the local shoe maker and have them build me a shoe based on my design? Or should I not be able to race in it because it's not available for anyone else?
Years ago pole vault banned fiberglass poles because it was an unfair advantage for vaulters still using steel poles. Remind me again because I forget, what kind of poles are in use today?
