IAAF cooperates in propagandizing Nike shoes.
Propaganda as in advertising.
Good, they should be banned.
£££££ wrote:
Good, they should be banned.
+1. And scrub any records they set in them as well. Boing boing!
Coe announces 'Radcliffe world Record reinstated" .
Performance coach for professional runners Steve Magness sure is getting the publicity he knows he deserves as of late.
Gullible much? The site you're quoting is a condensed version of an article published here on LRC back in July.
Idiots.
gullible much? wrote:
Gullible much? The site you're quoting is a condensed version of an article published here on LRC back in July.
https://www.letsrun.com/news/2019/07/track-and-fields-shoe-rule-makes-no-sense-might-sifan-hassans-wr-need-to-be-invalidated/Idiots.
+1
It's not, a group of elite athletes and several agents have approached the IAAF this week about the need to either standardize technology or out limits in place. Anyone can see that Kipchoges shoe on Saturday is getting ridiculous. A midsole depth limit is most likely in the way and a ban on mechanical aids embedded in the midsole.
LoneStarXC wrote:
£££££ wrote:
Good, they should be banned.
+1. And scrub any records they set in them as well. Boing boing!
Darn it you beat me to it. I want carbon plates out as well. They are obviously an enhancer not available to past efforts.
Did you know I complained to the IAAF about these shoes. Not because they enhance performance but because of this spurred heels flick water up at the person behind you on a wet day. I was getting water on my face.
£££££ wrote:
Good, they should be banned.
100% agree
Subway Surfers wrote:
LoneStarXC wrote:
+1. And scrub any records they set in them as well. Boing boing!
Darn it you beat me to it. I want carbon plates out as well. They are obviously an enhancer not available to past efforts.
This past efforts part kills me.
Should gels be eliminated since they weren’t available for past efforts? GPS watches? Modern moisture wicking materials?
Cycling kinda has it figured out...minimum weight limits and geometry limits on frames...stiffness, suspension, drive trains(minus motors) are all fair game...
£££££ wrote:
Good, they should be banned.
You sound fat.
The IAAF usually don't lose time banning technological advances.
The swimming have banned the swimming suits which were doing too much progress. If the Vaporfly shoe is really giving a big advantage, then it should be banned.
You can't compare the fairness of a record with totally different technology and record are meants to be measured in the time.
If IAAF in some parallel Universe decide to ban Vaporflies I would like to see the following happening:
1) revert all results in all competitions where Vaporflies have been worn – not sure how could that ever be done
2) ban all other shoes that may enhance performance – and in my opinion this would mean to ban all shoes including track spikes except maybe for vibrams, lol
3) if I remove outsoles of my shoes and sew them to old asics do these still count as vaporflies? what rule does not allow me to compete in custom made shoes?
Suburban Punk wrote:
This past efforts part kills me.
Should gels be eliminated since they weren’t available for past efforts? GPS watches? Modern moisture wicking materials?
Cycling kinda has it figured out...minimum weight limits and geometry limits on frames...stiffness, suspension, drive trains(minus motors) are all fair game...
Gels, energy drinks, in fact any drink should absolutely be banned from any Track and field event - the competitive event is about testing your body and its reserves without outside assistance.
Not sure what advantage GPS watches actually give in track and field exactly, but they should be banned from events such as orienteering.
Mosture wicking materials could reasonably be banned - athletes could be made to compete either nude like in the Greek era or just wearing their under garments (many women athletes pretty much do this already so it is not such a drastic change to enforce).
Also professional training should be banned because at the beginning of athletics era professional athletes were not allowed to compete in WC and Olympic games.
I think that what many of haters don't realize is that the sport changes constantly and it has changed so much since the 1970s-80s that it's hard to compare. Only reason why those times are still comparable with nowadays is because the PEDs and doping were done on such massive scale back then that it's almost insane. Remember that USSR and East Germany did absolutely whatever was required to win. Many other nations followed. If you don't believe the magnitude of doping back then ask some serious athletes from that time what they did and how they did that.
Technology moves on. Bannister's 3:59.4 was worth at least 3:56 on today's super fast tracks with current day spikes. Bolt's records were set on tracks specifically designed to produce fast sprint times. Where do we draw the line? Which records do we allow and which strike off the list?
There is a precedent for not allowing records because of the footwear involved. At the US Trials before the 1968 Olympics weren't some records set that were not ratified because the athletes were wearing illegal "brush" spikes? (Wasn't this a way of circumventing the rules on the number of spikes allowed in a spike plate? Would be happy if someone could clarify my cloudy knowledge here!)
Other sports have this to deal with. Racquet technology has changed tennis, cricket bat composition is totally different to what it was a decade or so ago. One could go on!
Suburban Punk wrote:
Should gels be eliminated since they weren’t available for past efforts? GPS watches? Modern moisture wicking materials?
Cycling kinda has it figured out...minimum weight limits and geometry limits on frames...stiffness, suspension, drive trains(minus motors) are all fair game...
That's precisely what they need to do....not just for the Vaporfly but for any technological advance that improves perfromance by X%...you need to draw the line somewhere....or else where does it end? To extend your logic....at what point do you draw the line then?