But does that supersede the rule that says refer to world athletics list?
Talking with Jimmy on this before: yes. Just because a shoe isn’t on the WA list does not make it illegal for IM competition. It then would need to fail either of the stack height / carbon plate tests.
For some reason I don’t think that’s correct….
Literally the process Jimmy gave us before with regard to shoe eligibility.
Ultimately the rule regarding matching availability to the public is dumb for triathlon but that’s another story for another day.
If this thread brings anywhere near the entertainment that Ryf’s banned wetsuit did, ST is in for treat! (Popcorn)
2 Likes
I knew I forgot to link another equipment rule snafu in the article! GAH.
1 Like
What stops Asics from just declaring that the shoes are “on sale” on August 30 in a specific location?
I get that triathlon isn’t their bread and butter, but if I’m sponsoring Kipchoge and he’s racing on a certain date, what stops me from opening up a pop up shop somewhere, selling 5 shoes, just to make sure that he gets to wear the shoe he wants for the race I’m paying him for?
Something like “Limited quantities on Aug 30, General sale Sept 11”
Because the rules say so: either available to everyone, or you can have a one month soft launch (if you go through the process to make it happen).
13. Availability Scheme
13.1 Existing Shoes and New Shoes must be Available for Purchase by any Athletes
participating in Applicable Competitions.
13.2 Where an Athlete proposes to wear a New Shoe at an Applicable Competition, if
approved by World Athletics in accordance with these Regulations, the New Shoe must
be made Available for Purchase by the relevant sport manufacturer no later than one
month prior to the start date of the first Applicable Competition at which the Athlete
proposes to wear the New Shoe unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Chief
Executive Officer (or their nominee).
1 Like
That communication from ASICS is a little bit of cover your butt in case an athlete gets penalized and maybe equally, don’t show off this new shoe because our distribution partners and us are still selling through out old stock.
But I suspect in this day and age of viral news marketing, that communication is specifically to bait people into talking about this “illegal” shoe and creating some controversy over using it to get headlines when someone does use it.
Step 1. Tell them they can’t use or talk about this new shoe yet via automated email.
Step 2. Internal communications with a rep that say, “I’m sending you new shoes, technically you shouldn’t use it as you do risk a DQ, but you’ve got no problems from us if you decide to use it.”
Step 3. Sit back and wait as the athlete now has an insatiable urge to use the “illegal, secret shoe” that no one has access to.
Step 4. If there is controversy online or DQs from races, you can point to your email and say we told you so, and everyone is talking about a shoe that no one would be talking about otherwise.
It’s possible, but highly unlikely Sam and Hayden would be so dumb as to use this shoe in a race if it was clearly communicated to them, DO NOT USE THIS OR YOUR CONTRACT WILL BE TERMINATED.
What got communicated was just enough of a teaser to make them want to use the secret sauce they feel special about having.
Ya, I’d have no problem doing that either if I’m just out for a fun victory lap race and not really invested in a particular result I’ve dedicated a lot of training too. That’s not what I’m referring to, and I don’t think the rules really care about those guys.
I’m talking about Conner Mantz getting free Alphafly 3s and still not using them for a couple major marathons because he wants to adapt to them in training. I’m talking about Canadian Rory Linkletter, getting sponsored by Puma, training for weeks with their new R3 Fastr Nitro whatevers and then debuting it at Boston with a big PR when it was released.
I can’t imagine Rory ever deciding just to jump into that shoe for the first time on race day without racing with it.
Aren’t these the guys who the shoe rule are really targeted at?
On one hand, we’ve got a sponsored pro, who still won’t (he does now) use the new shoe because it’s different enough. And another sponsored pro who (likely) wouldn’t be using the new shoe at his first big race if he didn’t have insider access to it for weeks in training. And since you can’t legislate that everyone get inside access to a scarce resource, the embargo date component of the rule is needlessly restrictive to athletes and brands.
But it does allow for some controversy to fan those flames and spread the word!
No, it’s more to cover the folks who do not have contracts under the guise of “meritocracy.”
The rule stems from certain Nike athletes being allowed to wear prototype footwear at, IIRC, the 2016 US Olympic qualifiers, and ensuring a “more level” playing field against non-contracted athletes who also were using Nike items at the time. Most of whom were not going to make the final in the first place, but here we are.
But those mid-pack athletes? They’ll swap into whatever is free or discounted in a heartbeat, under the auspice of “it might be the thing to chase that next PR.”
A spring doesnt need to be coil shaped. I suspect this is all about marketing ploy. Big shoe company giving hush money to the race. When nike released the carbon springed shoes for oly trials, a lot of die hard anti nike athletes laced up in them. Selling the soul to the devil
1 Like
Seems like this was a much bigger issue in the early days of supershoes, where one athlete could have a several % advantage over another if they had access to the Nikes. We are now at the point of diminishing returns and it’s not like some MOP pro is going to run down Yee thanks to having the latest shoes.
2 Likes
Precisely.
its more likely that world triathlon does not want to alienate one of the few sponsors it has .
but yes there is certainly a conflict of interest at play here .
1 Like
Oh come on. I have four out of the five banned shoes, and they are all slower than my alphafly or metaspeed shoes (which are legal). I agree with rules that govern safety and fairness of competition, but some rules, like some laws, are put in place to benefit specific parties. The shoe rules gained traction when professionals did not want to race in their sponsors shoes. It has allowed manufacturers to catch up with Nike. It’s time to remove to rear stack height and carbon plate restrictions and see how far technology can take racing shoes. While I’m stirring the pot, allow above the knee buoyancy shorts to be worn anytime the water temp is below 83F, and still be eligible for awards and slots!
1 Like
I’m actually somewhat sad about this rule - I would have loved having that option to use for HIM bikes where I’m always short a 4th bottle and I dread getting and using the on-course ones since the bottles/caps are so awful.
I think it was mostly a decision to prevent that dorky look in the pro field with everyone having a puffy chest. It’s wayyyy safer to pull a bottle out of my chest jersey than to grab one from a rear bottle mount on my bike.
I think allowing the Alphaflys is mainly because the genie is out of the bottle already and can’t be put back at least without major fuss, especially since the running world is allowing them.
I do think rules have to be made limiting how crazy the tech in shoes can be, so I don’t mind these rules so much. I’m sure some company will still manage to make something that pushes the legality of these rules though and cause a big ruckus when someone wins with them on.
Yeah, Im still annoyed by the loss of the Skyward X. As a very heavy tall runner these were the first shoes that didnt leave my lower legs feeling like I had multiple stress fractures after an IM. They didnt make me faster they just left me not completely destroyed by a marathon.
perhaps stack height should correlate with body weight of a person then.
1 Like