I think we will end up going in circles. There have been no category of previous shoes that are, on a aggregate such a large contributor to the world record progression in the marathon distance. We can agree that they offer a performance benefit. For some there MAY be a tradeoff, of injury risk associated wiht a different gait imposed by the shoe. Because the shoes inherently allow for more push off force (that results in greater meters per second in ground speed), it also means more ground force on impact on aggregate. In theory the shoes give users something for nothing (4% gain).
I guess where we are apart is that youâre saying they are âjust another variant in a long lineup for shoe variantsâ. I am saying, âthey are something elseâ. They are not a legacy running shoe. They are a new system designed to propel us forward with more speed and substantially different mechanics, than a raw foot can do above a raw padded surface without mechanical storage and release levers.
Is some type of warning useful? Most of you guys are saying no. I think it wonât hurt for generic pubic education that youâre on a diffent system than previously. I donât want shoe OEMs to have indivudual lawsuits or class action ones against them for innovating.
If these shoes were invented by anyone but Nike who IAAF need, chances are they would be banned out of the gate or quickly like FINA did with rubberized swim suits. But rubberized swim suits do nothing useful for mass enjoyment of the sport but high rebound carbon shoes make running fast accessible to millions, which is a great thing even if the purists are bent out of joint about âpre spring shoe vs post spring shoeâ records. I am not bent out of joint about that progress.
In my very limited (nearly nil) legal knowledge and experience Nikeâs legal team should have a field day with this are there are no shortage of variables that could have contributed to the failure of the sesamoid bone. Not limited to the fact that it is highly highly unlikely that a single non-traumatic event was the smoking gun.
Female bone matrix properties does contribute to a higher incidence of bone stress injuries in female distance runners compared to male.
Nikeâll first see whether they can get this dismissed with prejudice and/or move for summary judgment. (Michael McCann did a good job in the Sportico article I linked to, but you do need a subscription to read it).
Assuming that fails, the most likely outcome would be a settlement where Nike admits no wrongdoing, non-disclosure agreement, and nobody ever knows anything beyond the headline here.
Im not Nike nor do I have any shareholders to please or other interests to preserve.
However if I was a $95B company Iâd happily spend a tiny fraction of money to go up against a random nobody in court to smack these frivolous suits down for all to see.
Oh of course. Thatâs why I said if I didnât have shareholders or other interests to protect.
I get it. I just wish these people would be made an example of rather than reward them with an undisclosed settlement amount and non-disclosure. They are still rewarded and let to believe they are correct.
I can tell you are fixated on the notion of how these shoes contribute to faster outcomes. The fact that they have led to a greater jump in performance isnât a smoking gun nor is it automatically related to potential injury risk.
I could develop a shoe that is not meant to make someone faster and it could be even worse biomechanically.
These shoes offer performance benefits though their technology and some people may abuse them by running more than they should or harder than they should. Proper use and benefit from them is that IF they are appropriate for the runner then the runner could expect some added performance outcomes given the same efforts. Like an aerodynamic bike.
If a rider changes to a more aero and lightweight bike with better components that allows them to cycle harder and faster but more easier in a more aggressive position than before do we caution them as well?
I believe you are stuck on the world record chase as a reason there must be more to the story.
I think you are not understanding my sentiment. I am happy these shoes contribute to faster race times and give greater access to fast running than previous shoes. Iâd just like some guideance that they may be different in terms of how they interact with humans compared to almost every previous shoe technology approach previously and that they may affect gaits for some athletes.
I wonder how the injury risk from carbon plated shoes compares to the previous use of âracing flatsâ that many of us grew up with. Those shoes were stripped down to save weight and had almost no cushioning and zero stability features. I would guess that running is a cushy Alphafly is âsaferâ than an old school flat.
If you want guidance on that, where would it end? Tri bikes will put more stress on your back than a bike that most people are used to riding. Thereâs an infinite amount of products that could potentially increase risk. The study cites 5 cases where it happened, and yet hundreds of thousands of people have used them without issue.
the number of injuries per capita is about the same (i would say running has many more participants now), just the kinds have shifted. In particular with the nike shoes i see: achilles and ankle problems
So you can make some money being the expert witness in court. They are going to need some..
I think Nike fights this thing to the end and wins. They really need to or else settling will just open the door for many more lawsuits to come. They need to set the precedent that a multitude of things cause those injuries, and there are no real studies showing running in them once leads to this particular one..This is one of those times to not settle just because it costs less, because in the long run probably not the case opening the door..One never knows of course, like hot coffee in your lap from McDonalds..
You know that lady had third degree burns, McDonaldâs had previously settled multiple cases about their coffee being served at 190 degrees F, and what she had really sought was coverage for her medical bills?
I believe the general risk of using the minimal racing flats of the past were a well known market wide understanding. There is no risk articulated anywhere about usage of the carbon plated shoes (if any, it still would need to be quantified, but there are enough people who have had issues with them that itâs not nothing). But they also make fast-er running accessible to everyone (at least faster than traditional race flats. But its not long ago that most of the elite field was on shoes like you showed (image of Rio 2016 menâs marathon, not sure how many of the Nikes were proto Nike carbon, but pretty sure Galen Rupp was on them)
This line would be more tenable if you were able to show that, bitd, shoe manufacturers had articulated the limited risk in the way youâre suggesting would be âgood practiceâ for CFP trainers.
The timing of all of this is interesting. She was a D1 athlete finishing â15. She is claiming she bought CPS in Nov of â23 and thatâs when she was injured. So she as an apparent competitive runner didnât once use CPS before â23?
I just found her on IG asking the RD of Golden Gate Half race (which she won the 5k in Nov of â23) entry into said race for this year, which she finished 3rd in a few weeks ago in a faster time than she did in â24 but slower time than her win in â23).
