banned... by who?

---

https://www.strava.com/...tes/zachary_mckinney

World Athletics is purported to be writing new rules on what is allowable in terms of foam, thickness, and carbon/flex plates. I guess they are the equipment authority for these things?

And how do you enforce this? I have several pairs of Zoomflys that have no carbon plate. Will I not be allowed to wear these either?

It is funny that after 16 years the world record if finally bettered and it is placed solely on the shoes and they should be banned. That's a long time for a world record to stand and not be bettered based on all the other sciences that can improve running performance over that period. Nike sponsors the best athletes in the world as advertisement so we are all happy to buy these shoes at exorbitant prices that everyone thinks will give them an unfair advantage. Regardless technology improves with time, they are available to everyone and I enjoy running in them...

My assumption is nike keeps selling them, AG keep racing in them, triathlon does nothing about them.

A lot of other shoe companies will be happy if they haven't started to invest millions into creating their own shoes.

A lot of other shoe companies will be extremely upset if they have invested millions into creating a shoe with their logo on them

---

Thank God. A prisoner's dilemma benefits nobody. NOBODY. It's a shame they even let the preposterousness get this far..

On the contrary... banning Vaporfly would potentially be one of the best things that could happen to Nike EVER!.!. and that's saying something! Remember, actual runners make up the tiniest percentage of 'running' shoe buyers.. but having a shoe that is banned for being 'too fast'? A foam that is 'too efficient' etc.. GOLD!

And of course, I have to mention that we are making bar tape from the same stuff.. and yes, it's pretty amazing to ride.. but that will get us like 0.1% of people.. if the UCI were to ban it for being 'too fast' or 'too comfortable' or something like that?.. I'd be thrilled as it would open the story up to the other 99.9% of people!!

J

---

http://www.SILCA.cc
Check out my podcast, inside stories from more than 20 years of product and tech innovation from inside the Pro Peloton and Pro Triathlon worlds!
http://www.marginalgainspodcast.cc

Having worn them, the greatest benefit they give, imo, is that you don't get the same soreness whilst running and after running. Surely that is a good thing?

We can only hope...

To play devil’s advocate I’d actually say it’s both a good and bad thing. Taking away the extra stress that forces adaptation is just as bad as it is beneficial to take it away. But I’d still use them on the most demanding runs if I had a pair.

 
Don’t know if the Daily Mail is a reputable source


I can confirm as a Brit, the daily mail is NOT a reputable source. It is a right wing propaganda hate machine.

But I hope they ban the vaporflys...

Runners should only be able to use technologies available when Merckx set the hour record.

Seriously though, I hope that if they put a thickness limitation it covers the current Nikes, Hokas, etc. Much the same way the 5mm thickness rule for wetsuits covered almost all existing wetsuits. There are a lot of advantages besides speed to these shoes (less wear&tear, etc.).

---

ECMGN Therapy Silicon Valley:
Depression, Neurocognitive problems, Dementias (Testing and Evaluation), Trauma and PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)

Whatever they do, they cant make the new rule such that it bans any current shoe. Or they could, but that would mean records set in that shoe would have to fall away.

So imagine a 35kg girl gets the same thickness allowance as a 100kg guy.
That is certainly leveling the technology field, not.

I believe we should all be running on sandals.

There's a reason some refer to it as the Hate Mail or the Daily Heil.

Though despite the nasty racist biggotted nature of that rag, some of their sports reporting is correct. E.g. they pushed the recent story of exposing Saffercens for flagrantly busting the salary cap hugely in the rugby union Premiership when some parts of the sport were trying to brush it under the carpet - again.

I agree with your sentiment completely. But historically sport governing bodies have repeatedly shifted the goal posts.
UCI are prime examples of moving the technical goals every time the Anglophone world innovates something. No superman. No crouched position. Saddle totally flat. No dimples on shirts. Sock height limits (FFS) Etc etc.

But other sports too. Eg. Javalin specs changed circa 20 years ago to reduce the distance thrown (ok for good reason- no skewering spectators at meets as throws were reaching the ends of infields).

Motorsport- constantly.

If that's true, the new Adidas shoes will have some advantage going into the games.

I've been doing some press interviews about this issue as its in my field of research. My view is, they're restorative, not enhancing and should be left legalised.

The UK media seems to be all over this. There is an article in The Times I can't read, but a comment on Twitter says this is really talking about the modified elite version of the Vaporfly and not the consumer models.

https://twitter.com/.../1217358830792777728

There is a great discussion on the Clean Sport Collective podcast about this, Kara Goucher and Ryan Hall have very open and honest discussion about it. Worth a listen, they discuss on how Nike used their power to get them approved in the first place plus some good ideas on how to put in some rules around limiting technical doping going forward (limiting shoe height for one).

All shoes offer an advantage. Forget sandals and force the natural approach of running barefoot.

---

http://www.sfuelsgolonger.com

Yes, barefoot and loin cloths.

In an endurance race isn't restorative enhancing?