Right below the Nike swoosh on every super shoe! lol
I think my question to you then here is where does it end? Zero drop shoes also substantially change the mechanics and loading forces/force dissipation to different structures. As do any toe drop, outsole material, etc that strays from the userâs ânorm.â Itâs very similar to the runner all of a sudden running hills when theyâre used to running flat. Or running on pavement when youâre used to a track or treadmill. When people moved to Altras in waves we saw a ton of new foot and ankle injuries because lower drop shoes bias the foot and ankle more than higher drop shoes.
I disagree that the onus is on Nike to put out a warning that a different shoe may cause different stresses to different structures if it is drastically different than their usual running shoes.
I understand where you are getting at however all the variations of shoes over the last 50 years barely changed how we run. Carlos Lopez ran 2:07.12 in Rotterdam in 1984. By 2003 Target went 2:04.55 (roughly 20 years 2 min)âŚnext 20 years Kiptum (RIP) takes it to 2:00.35. But the big change is in the super shoe era shaving 4:20 Tergatâs time. Itâs just changed the way we run. Thatâs all. Just something along the lines of âyou are now running off a trampoline, your bouncing is different now
..bewareâ
I guess I disagree. Most of modern tech has made similar changes to mechanics. The new outsole/midsole technology.
Why are only carbon shoes held to this standard and not the massive outsoles or the shoes like Mach 6, Fuel Cell Rebel, Endorphin Speed, Novablasts etc? They all have the new advanced foam high-rebound midsoles without the carbon tech.
Its not solely the carbon features that increase high responsiveness and springiness and affect propulsion and running gait.
Modern shoes have made significant changes that will all affect running gait and force new adaptations. Just as the minimalist era did.
I donât believe we need disclaimers for these things. It diminishes something and absolves the user from being informed and responsible in an era of the overly-litigious society.
Itâs certainly possible that some people are more vulnerable than others to injuries in these sort of shoes. Although I would be shocked if one 5 mile race in them caused that severe of an injury.
Any kind of lawsuit that succeeds here would open pandoraâs box and these sort of lawsuits would happen more in things other than just running shoes (this aero bike puts more strain on my back, etc.).
1 Like
AgainâŚreminder that these suits happen. The larger question is a.) whether this opens a class-action floodgate, and b.) what a settlement eventually looks like.
The thing making this more interesting than other cases is that it involves a former NCAA Division I athlete, as opposed to your regular public Jane Doe plaintiff.
1 Like
Ugh, the only outcome from this will be even more expensive shoes to account for frivolous lawsuits. Also, completely irrelevant, but Dr Tenneforde was my Dr for a couple running related injuries, great guy! He never blamed my shoes!
This suit is very different from the Vibram suit. Vibram was claiming benefits to using their product that it didnât provide (false advertising); whereas Nike has made no such claims.
1 Like
Thanks, Iâm aware that they happen. My argument though was a successful one would make them more frequent.
1 Like
This shouldnât be labelled the same as âSmoking causes cancer, consume at your own riskâ. Every budding runner who seeks advice is told first and foremost to find a shoe that works for you. I cannot fathom a world in which an NCAA Division I athlete doesnât also understand this concept. Every shoe model, every shoe brand, every foam type, every plate type, every plate layout, every stack height, every sole make up, every upper make up, every heel formation, (need I go on), will work different for every individual.
In this case the fault lies entirely on the athlete (imo, not a lawyer). If youâre going to go out and buy a $300 pair of carbon plated shoes (technology of the like youâve never tried before), and the first time you run in them is a 5k full max effort. How can this not be put down to user error? Even I (a MOP athlete at best) understand that the first time I get a new shoe I should go for a short shakeout run to assess how my body is feeling.
How many dickheads have you watched on video who buy a supercar and the first thing they do is floor it out of the dealer lot, lose control and crash into a parked car or light post? Not sure they turn around and sue Ferrari etc
Did the person suing get injured in the shoes wearing them for the first time in a race?
This is what it says in the article above. And sorry it was 5mi not 5km, so even more stupid!
I remember wearing alpha fly 2s for first time in training - Achilles tightened right up but hadnât broken them in properly and no probs since breaking them in
could we send this lady a pair of hookless wheels with 23 mm wide tyres pumped up to 130 psi, please lol
1 Like
My personal view for some runners there are higher risks with these type of shoes. The OEMs tout all the benefits without mentioning any potential differences that may be risky. I think we will agree to disagree that the category of shoes is dramatically different from any previous category of shoes, and with it comes the upside of speed (if not the world marathon record does not drop 2 min from 1984 to 2003 and then suddenly 4 min from 2003 to 2023), for some there are additional risks. Does it require a âsmoking causes cancerâ type warning? Definitely not, but minimally âthese shoes change the mechanics of your gait, use appropriately with cautionâ
For the purposes of the discussion could I ask you to reply to my question above of where we draw the line?
As I stated there are a number of brands with a number of features that also change the run mechanics.
You mentioned carbon plates and trampoline-like properties specifically. Many popular shoes without carbon plates have a specifically designed high-response midsole foam designed specifically to mimic the benefits of the carbon plate without the price tag.
Going back over 12 years how about the Newtons and their lugs?
The alpafly and low drop shoes and newtons, etc are all shoes that bias a forefoot strike. A runner who is not used to this and decides to make the switch to volume and/or intensity cold turkey will always be at risk whether itâs going to a forefoot strike or a rear foot strike if they are not accustomed to it and their bony and soft tissue structures arenât adapted though proper loading tolerance.
Where do we draw the line?
I appreciate you caveat this with a âmy personal viewâ but is there any decent science research out there on which you presumably base this assessment of âhigher riskâ.
Or is it just the one referenced in the suit and @rrheisler 's article?
n=5, presumably âself-selectedâ.
I clipped this which actually might be useful to physicians seeing athletes, to add one question to their checklist:
âA prior study related that the time to reach an accurate diagnosis for navicular stress injuries is almost 9 months [20]. Recognizing possible associations of navicular BSI in runners presenting with vague midfoot or ankle pain who use CFP footwear may be important to identify this high-risk injury [with less delay].â
1 Like
Maybe lawyers can make a case here, but from a scientific & evidence-based point of view, I think they need to show that the rate of stress fractures in this particular shoe are higher than in other shoes, after controlling for things like training volume, intensity, race type and frequency, medical history, etc. Itâs a big lift. Runners get foot stress fractures in all types of shoes and have done so since forever - way before carbon shoes came around, and throughout many different shoe design changes. Is there any evidence at all that carbon shoes are any different in this respect to any other running shoe design? Running, especially at the elite level, comes with a risk of injury no matter what kind of footwear one chooses.
So is the likely outcome an settlement just because itâs likely far easier for Nike yet going to trial likely will be an easy win? Is paying her off with a $300k settlement just easier for a giant like Nike? But does that then âopenâ up the settlement lawsuits?
Iâm far more surprised an former NCAA runner hasnât sued their uni because of requirements to run in whatever school sponsored gear (most contracts allow for other shoes if itâs doctor confirmed issue).
Nike - being Nike - could also try âwomen have different bone density than men doâ