Still cheating. Anything beyond a single speed BMX bike us wind doping.

A 2:10:XX marathon was already pretty irrelevant even before the new shoe tech. Nobody with a PR this slow was going to medal in the Olympics, WCs or a World Major, barring some bizarre circumstances (Boston 2018 when it was a freezing monsoon).

One of the things being conflated (amongst many) in this thread is comparing running and cycling. Cycling is more like formula one where man and machine are mated for performance. Both are improved within a set of rules.

Swimming and running on the otherhand have generally tried to keep things someone focused on the human. Sure there have been things like adding goggles, making pools a bit faster (the Munich 1972 pool and Montreal 1976 pools are not horribly slow though). Tracks, spikes, and running shoes have not materially changed since Mexico City 1986. In both these sports times have been comparable across a span of 50 years. Sure, goood nutrition, recovery processes (both legal) and illegal stuff like EPO and blood bags have changed times, but those are about the human side not the equipment side. Where there have been quantum gains on the human side (EPO and blood bags) that has also been banned. Swimming banned rubber suits.

I see nothing wrong with using rubber suits or spring shoes in practice, but FINA or IAAF competition would be nice if times are comparable at least in the somewhat modern era of racing (I would cut it at 1968 and beyond and I gave Tommie Smith's 200m gold medal time of 19.83 in 1968 which beat Andre De Grasse's 2016 Olympic silver medal time of 20.03 as an example of how equipment made no difference over those 48 years).

Triathlon and UCI road can do whatever they want with equipment advances because times are largely meaningless in triathlon and road cycling. You can't really compare between events and you can''t compare year to year. UCI keeps rules tight to try to be able to compare track cycling times, but there is a ton of fine tuning of equipment inside those, and that arms race is inherent inside cycling. The sport is about the tech + human, not human only.

One of the things being conflated (amongst many) in this thread is comparing running and cycling. Cycling is more like formula one where man and machine are mated for performance. Both are improved within a set of rules.

Swimming and running on the otherhand have generally tried to keep things someone focused on the human. Sure there have been things like adding goggles, making pools a bit faster (the Munich 1972 pool and Montreal 1976 pools are not horribly slow though). Tracks, spikes, and running shoes have not materially changed since Mexico City 1986. In both these sports times have been comparable across a span of 50 years. Sure, goood nutrition, recovery processes (both legal) and illegal stuff like EPO and blood bags have changed times, but those are about the human side not the equipment side. Where there have been quantum gains on the human side (EPO and blood bags) that has also been banned. Swimming banned rubber suits.

I see nothing wrong with using rubber suits or spring shoes in practice, but FINA or IAAF competition would be nice if times are comparable at least in the somewhat modern era of racing (I would cut it at 1968 and beyond and I gave Tommie Smith's 200m gold medal time of 19.83 in 1968 which beat Andre De Grasse's 2016 Olympic silver medal time of 20.03 as an example of how equipment made no difference over those 48 years).

Triathlon and UCI road can do whatever they want with equipment advances because times are largely meaningless in triathlon and road cycling. You can't really compare between events and you can''t compare year to year. UCI keeps rules tight to try to be able to compare track cycling times, but there is a ton of fine tuning of equipment inside those, and that arms race is inherent inside cycling. The sport is about the tech + human, not human only.

Eh, the moment they put on the first track shoe it was something that helped an athlete run faster. Yeah, you still had some barefoot runners in the 60s and 70s, but the majority of the fields were wearing shoes, which helped them go faster.

RandMart wrote:

TheStroBro wrote:

Eh, the moment they put on the first track shoe it was something that helped an athlete run faster. Yeah, you still had some barefoot runners in the 60s and 70s, but the majority of the fields were wearing shoes, which helped them go faster.

Abebe Bikila ran 2:15 barefoot at the Rome Olympics - a record which still stands today

For comparison [from the Guinness World Records website]

Fastest wearing Wellies [rain boots/galoshes] - 3:21
Fastest wearing flip-flops - 3:37 [although Runner's World had 2:47]
Fastest running backwards - 3:43
Fastest wearing ski boots - 5:30
Fastest on stilts - 6:37

Galen Rupp had a marathon PB of 2:11:12 before the 2016 Olympics where he earned a bronze with a 2:10:02.

The next spring he was 2nd at Boston with a 2:09:58 and won at Chicago that fall in 2:09:20.

Fair point, in slow strategic races, when fast guys just decide to not run fast, a 2:10 guy has a chance. In 2013 and 2014 the winning times in Chicago were 2:03 and 2:04, but 2:09, 2:11 and 2:09 in 2015, 2017 and 2017. I guess I am surprised there was an 8 minute difference in the winning time within a 4 year span.

Fair point, in slow strategic races, when fast guys just decide to not run fast, a 2:10 guy has a chance. In 2013 and 2014 the winning times in Chicago were 2:03 and 2:04, but 2:09, 2:11 and 2:09 in 2015, 2017 and 2017. I guess I am surprised there was an 8 minute difference in the winning time within a 4 year span.