Hi Dan,

Just to address your arguments :

- 10mm wetsuits. They 'deskilled' the act of swimming so it was right to outlaw them.
- Hand paddles. They also deskilled (and reskilled) the act of swimming so it was also likely correct to outlaw them.
- Fully faired bikes. This is a harder one to debunk. In several cases we already have fairings in play on bikes now - it's the volume or size of them that is debatable here. I would suggest the key issue regards safety here as higher speeds would be generated and more accidents as a result. As a result, I'd suggest full fairings shouldn't be allowed.
- I disagree on triathlon being an aggregate of three sports at this point. We are a sport and shouldn't be unafraid to go our own way (your bike frame wasn't exactly UCI legal if I recall correctly). If you go down the road of being seen as an aggregate of three sports, you'll constantly have your own identity eroded or undervalued.

Alternatively, the Alphafly shoe doesn't deskill, reskill or provide known safety concerns as of today's date. It's funny though since I would classify you as an innovator based on what you'd introduced product-wise in the past so I'm quite surprised you'd be against a more efficient shoe (and that's all it is) being used in triathlon.

I think the fairness issue is tied into the 4 month rule. Companies may now be trying to develop something, without breaking the new rules or stepping on the patent issues but now may run out of time to have them ready for racing in Tokyo or athletes racing in prototypes in season. Here Nike athletes have the advantage. It is as if the rules were made to work around what Nike told IAAF they had ready to launch.

I don't disagree with your first point and you are right, at some point other shoe companies will catch up, but they're all releasing their answers this year or have so in 2019, the vaporfly came out What, 2016? 2017? And the shoe has so far proven objectively faster than any other shoe on the market since it's release so there is a bit of that fairness issue. I also do hear the argument that elites choose their sponsorships and sure they can forego their current shoe partner but it's unlikely Nike would take on everyone at the top level and even if thy did, the money would be thinner as it is spread around, so either way, yes, it affects the pros in many ways that make some regulation necessary.

Now while it sounds like I'm fully supportive of this rule, I actually only agree with the prototype/release date rule. I don't think we should see restrictions on shoe construction as that inhibits innovation. I can't wait to see them cutting shoes apart at the end of races now to see if there are look a likes with 3 carbon plates

---

808 > NYC > PDX > YVR
2024 Races: Taupo

I agree. If it had been me on that panel, I would not have implemented the 4 month rule until the Games were completed. That would buy everyone else an extra month or two..... which they may well need.

1) Carbon plates have been around a lot longer than the Vaporfly's. To be honest, I think the problem is that many brands have frankly either been lazy, got caught napping or didn't have the resources. Either way, I don't personally believe those issues require a rule in such cases.

2) This is an issue now but won't be within a few months as everyone else catches up. To mitigate this problem though, As I said earlier, I wouldn't have implemented the 4 month rule until 2021 myself to help them.

I disagree here, the 4% has been around for 3 years (more if you count its release at breaking2) so other companies have had all this time to make their own answers without stepping on patents. The difference between releasing them in April vs. July at this point is inconsequential. The only reason shoe companies release stuff close to the olympics is for marketing, has nothing to do with their innovation departments working feverishly towards a certain date.

---

808 > NYC > PDX > YVR
2024 Races: Taupo

I don't see the issue of giving them more time to be honest. However, I'd concede that it would also give Nike more time as well. I don't know how dangerous that would be as the new rules have plenty of holes to allow innovation that I can see.

.

Probably the issue is less in triathlon, as there are no time standards, just placing. In the running world there are time standards. A sub 3 marathon on same course 10 years ago is not same as sub 3 in the "cheaterflys" of today. It makes a difference if you want to get into Boston

The objective of ruling is not to stop innovation.
Do you think innovation in Formula 1 or cycling is stopped by regulation ?

No, of course not. Thank god for that (god of innovation, or god of business, or whatever god, there is so many...)

Regulation follow multiple goals :
making competition fair (not the case if some have prototypes using very different techno)
protecting the athletes (not sure running in 70mm stack shoes would have helped)
keep the cost reasonable
....

This 40mm rule, with a 4 month distribution time of the product, is good.

It should have been done before. Because, strangely, it fit with the specs of last Nike shoes,,,, strangely... and it does not give much time to anybody else to make full use of it.

But whatever, we are now going to have a whole bunch of "new generation" shoes, very well cushioned, very confortable, and with similar performances. Hopefully, some of them will be STABLE (hope so).
Of course, marketing bullshit war continue, with many Nike fan (or trolls ?) crying out loud the superiority of the last AlphaPlacebo....

But I'm pretty sure we will see the gap is now pretty much closed between most top "new gen" shoes. Can't prove it yet... just an intuition...

idk about formula 1 but I think innovation in cycling is stifled by regulation. The best road bikes on the market come in slightly under the UCI weight limit so that teams don't need to do much to get it above the limit. Plus UCI restriction technically impact amateurs when racing a governing body sanctioned race so there is little incentive for bike brands to bring bikes down to 4-5kg, which I'm sure they could safely do with more innovation. The microcosm of which can be seen in the TT world, since WTC has little restrictions on bike shape, there is a market for companies to go beyond UCI limits, even if it is very, very debatable whether being outside those limits has proved to be faster...

---

808 > NYC > PDX > YVR
2024 Races: Taupo

How will the 4 month distribution time be enforced? A manufacturer could release their killer shoe 4 months before, say, the Olympics. But only distribute US size 5 and 18. That could meet some definition of 'widely available ' - they are ready to purchase in every running store and online more than 4 months out! But the vast majority can't get their size. Legislating this seems to be a quagmire. Or am I missing something?

Nope, not missing anything. They should have defined that better. Let's see how Nike releases the Alphafly on the 29th. Its members only so maybe like 1,000 pairs?

---

808 > NYC > PDX > YVR
2024 Races: Taupo

  
If anyone has their radio on, I've been asked to talk to NPR Radio about the shoes and an interview piece will be in the next few days.

For one thing, remember the new shoes Kipchoge wore in the last attempt were Alphafly, not Vaporfly as your article had kept calling them. Vaporfly is living with the first two models, the air zoom bag addition makes it a different model. Petty thing, I know but a matter of accuracy :) I'll be in a meeting at that time but I trust you'll share any interesting questions that come up with us here.

---

808 > NYC > PDX > YVR
2024 Races: Taupo

I know, apologies on that one (blame the editor on missing out a vital question mark on that one and the matter of me using the words alphafly and vaporfly so many times in the last couple of weeks, I probably am now saying they wore moccasins.....