And not only that but he knew his shoes would be checked on the Sunday so he didn’t push his luck.
I kind of thought it looked like Wilde was obscuring his mouth too, albeit not as carefully as the man with whom he was speaking. I think you’re right that we cannot conclude definitely he knew he was skirting the rules, but the conversation and manner in which it was conducted is awfully suggestive. Even if the rule seems a bit silly, it’s still a rule and a bad look for Hayden.
appreciating it was an honest mistake, what’s the penalty for wearing unapproved shoes? DQ?
I don’t think we can just ignore it, even if realistically we all know it doesn’t make a difference to the end result, as he probably would’ve won in flip flops. Nonetheless, rules don’t apply only if there’s eventually been an effective quantifiable advantage.
Au contraire mon frère.
We can just ignore it.
Contenders for IMWC Nice - 9 posts
Shoe Shennanigans - 64 posts
1 Like
You have been sitting into too many T100 rule meetings 
2 Likes
I love when shoe race is still going strong
well then, why bother with any other rules. Let’s remove drafting, fairing, and any other limitation…
Two things can be true at once. A rule can be silly or dumb. A rule needs to be adhered to. If these kind of violation ust be caught before, during or immediately following a race then the statute of limitations has expired. That’s fair but it is still a violation.
1 Like
In this case, if you “don’t think we can just ignore it” what action do you think appropriate? A strongly worded letter from World Tri or the PTO to Wilde (and Long?)? A fine (reduction in the $25k he won) by the PTO for being naughty naughty boy?
The FFTri technical officials failed. A strongly worded letter from World Tri to FFTri?
I note Wilde has issued a mea culpa.
Edit: this popped into my feed:
thetrek.co
"Trail runner Michelino Sunseri broke a Grand Teton speed record last year, but his victory didn’t last long. By cutting a closed switchback on his descent, the record was stripped and he ended up facing federal charges.
“This week, a judge found him guilty of leaving a designated trail, a verdict that’s fueling debate over trail ethics and selective enforcement.”
At a minimum, PTO/T100’s enforcement of rules should be watched a little closer.
They seem to be a little loosey goosey.
Isn’t there a rulebook? Doesn’t it define a penalty?
The WT rulebook is quite vague, but I can interpret this as we can hand a DQ post race:
(iv) Athletes are subject to random shoe control before, during, or after any competition. For any shoe that cannot be identified, each piece of information (and maybe the shoe itself) will be required to be sent to the World Triathlon headquarters for verification within 7 days after the competition it was worn;
(v) In the official results, the athletes under shoe review will have a note (Uncertified/ UNC) added to the results footer notes. If the shoe is confirmed as legal, the note will be removed. In any different case, the athlete will be disqualified.
Although the rule does provide the penalty, it also requires that protests of results by someone with standing be performed within a timely manner (which is typically within the hour of the event finish). Once race results are final, all penalties, etc. associated with equipment are no longer applicable.
(This is different than doping, which is an issue of athlete eligibility to participate…)
So someone: an official, a fellow athlete, delegate – would have needed to notice, and raise an issue, in that “pre / during / post” window.
This is a long way of saying that the idea of a production model that complies with the letter of the rule can’t be worn before a specific date because World Athletics and Asics wanted the shoe to only debut at the world championships this week is stupid for triathlon and should be killed with fire. (Hint: this rule will appear in my “5 tri rules I would change” article.)
1 Like
Sounds like a lot of legalese…
I’m not disagreeing. Perhaps a bit more clarity or a statement from WT/T100 would help.
We give so much crap to Jimmy Riccitello for being blind and deaf to the sport evolving and plain refusing to fix IM rules, but this should be clarified too.
They don’t teach you English in elementary school?
In this case it’s the World Athletics ‘rule book’ (hope I have accessed the current version).
ATHLETIC SHOE REGULATIONS
#5. If the sports manufacturer decides:
#5.2. to proceed to produce a final version of the Development Shoe then [it] will be deemed a New Shoe and will need to require written approval from World Athletics in accordance with Regulation 6
which says:
#6. New Shoes
#6.1 All New Shoes prior to being worn by an Athlete for the first time in an Applicable Competition must be approved by World Athletics in accordance with the process set out in Appendix 1
which says:
#4. . . . World Athletics will publish the New Shoe . . on the list of approved Athletic Shoes.
#5. . . as soon as a New Shoe appears on World Athletics’ published list [paste below], the New Shoe can be worn in Applicable Competitions and not before. For the period when a Development Shoe can be worn, see Appendix 2.
which says:
#8. Development Shoes
#8.2 . . a Development Shoe may be worn by an Athlete for a maximum period of 12 months starting from the date when an Athlete proposes to wear the Development Shoe for the first time in an Applicable Competition.
As you @rrheisler says/implies, World Athletics have created an artificially long period since this shoe transitioned from its ‘Development Shoe’ status to ‘New Shoe’ status. Imho, there should be no gap: restrict the ‘Development Shoe’ status to 12 months and provided it meets the criteria, morph on a specific date directly to ‘New’: no interregnum.
1 Like
Wilde and Long should be dq’d for the races they wore the shoe where it was the new shoe and not a prototype
2 Likes
The RULES don’t allow a DQ retroactively for this violation.