imnothammer
Moderator
https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/s...d-after-shoes-soles-violate-rules-2021-09-12/
Here's a little more fuel for the "technological doping" discussion! This weekend Ethiopia's Derara Hurisa was DQ'ed after winning the Vienna City marathon because the soles of his shoes exceeded the 4 cm upper limit by 1 cm... Hurisa finished in 2:09:22, just 3 seconds ahead Kenya's Leonard Langat.
I think, most importantly, this appears to be a deliberate effort by Hurisa to skirt the rules. The article notes that the race required the elites to register their shoes beforehand and that Hurisa raced in a different pair of shoes from those which he had registered. Moreover, the elites were also reminded of these restrictions during a technical meeting beforehand.
The article does not identify the shoes but, from some of the other images floating around, it is clear that he was wearing the Adios Prime X. Given that during its initial hype the Prime X was directly marketed as a competition-ineligible shoe (now simply billed as "innovation without limitation"), I don't think there's any room for Hurisa to feign ignorance here. Interestingly enough, the second place finisher appeared to be wearing the adidas Adios Pro 2.
Another talking point, it seems that Hurisa has just one previous marathon result, a 2:08:09 at the 2020 Mumbai marathon, to compare this against. So, given that he didn't improve upon that mark, it is difficult to say that the Prime X offers a significant performance advantage to the individual (although conditions between the two races are obviously not 1:1). Had Hurisa's result been a significant jump then I think that really would have stirred the pot concerning shoes...
As a final talking point, for those looking to bend the rules, this is a pretty "safe" but obviously very ineffective attempt at cheating. Whereas biological doping will earn you a ban, this has only yielded a DQ and, despite my earlier comment, Hurisa still has a tiny shred of plausible deniability. Biological doping is a very willful act whereas there is still a slim possibility that shoe selection is an "oopsie" moment. Still, I cannot imagine completing a 2:09 effort (sub 5/mile) and having it count for nothing.
Here's a little more fuel for the "technological doping" discussion! This weekend Ethiopia's Derara Hurisa was DQ'ed after winning the Vienna City marathon because the soles of his shoes exceeded the 4 cm upper limit by 1 cm... Hurisa finished in 2:09:22, just 3 seconds ahead Kenya's Leonard Langat.
I think, most importantly, this appears to be a deliberate effort by Hurisa to skirt the rules. The article notes that the race required the elites to register their shoes beforehand and that Hurisa raced in a different pair of shoes from those which he had registered. Moreover, the elites were also reminded of these restrictions during a technical meeting beforehand.
The article does not identify the shoes but, from some of the other images floating around, it is clear that he was wearing the Adios Prime X. Given that during its initial hype the Prime X was directly marketed as a competition-ineligible shoe (now simply billed as "innovation without limitation"), I don't think there's any room for Hurisa to feign ignorance here. Interestingly enough, the second place finisher appeared to be wearing the adidas Adios Pro 2.
Another talking point, it seems that Hurisa has just one previous marathon result, a 2:08:09 at the 2020 Mumbai marathon, to compare this against. So, given that he didn't improve upon that mark, it is difficult to say that the Prime X offers a significant performance advantage to the individual (although conditions between the two races are obviously not 1:1). Had Hurisa's result been a significant jump then I think that really would have stirred the pot concerning shoes...
As a final talking point, for those looking to bend the rules, this is a pretty "safe" but obviously very ineffective attempt at cheating. Whereas biological doping will earn you a ban, this has only yielded a DQ and, despite my earlier comment, Hurisa still has a tiny shred of plausible deniability. Biological doping is a very willful act whereas there is still a slim possibility that shoe selection is an "oopsie" moment. Still, I cannot imagine completing a 2:09 effort (sub 5/mile) and having it count for nothing.
