Olympikus and Fila shoes cannot be used by the elite in competitions

Models not on the list of shoes authorized for use by World Athletics

A little over 2 months ago, Danilo Balu called me asking if there had been any changes in the World Athletics rules regarding the rules for using tennis shoes in competition. I told him that since running shoes were regulated to somewhat limit the application of carbon plates and damping height, there have been some small changes.

At first, he asked me about sneakers that had not yet been launched on the market and if the athlete could use them in competition. He was referring to the Olympikus Graphene 2, which Giovani dos Santos was using in training, but which Olympikus had told him that he could not use them in the 2023 São Paulo Marathon because the model had not yet been launched.

Continue after ad

I replied that the rule had indeed changed in that regard and that prototype sneakers under development could be used as long as they were submitted to World Athletics for review and approval, but I didn’t know if this was the case with Graphene 2.

I then said that the World Athletics website has a constantly updated list of running shoes and prototypes authorized for use in competitions (all the links and instructions on how to download the PDFs of the rules and listing are at the end of this post)

I went there and pulled up the listing and was surprised there weren’t any Olympikus shoes there. Neither Run 1, nor Run 2, nor Run 3, nor Graphene, nor Wind Run.

World Athletics list has no Olympíkus shoes

Then I thought to myself: “How was Graphene used by elite athletes at the São Paulo Marathon and other races last year without tennis being on that list? How did Corre 3 use it at this year’s São Paulo Marathon without it? be there?”

I asked this question to the brand and received the following response, through the press office

“Hello Sergio, how are you?

As you have been following these last few years, we have evolved a lot in the construction of new technologies, seeking to deliver running products that are accessible to the largest number of Brazilians. More than making technology accessible, all this evolution has also allowed us to build, since 2022, a work with elite athletes, bringing the brand presence in the main events in the country.

Within this context, we understand your question regarding our shoes appearing prominently on podiums within these competitions.

Continue after ad

As stated in Article 5 of RULE BOOK C 2.1A of the WA Sports Footwear Regulations (effective January 1, 2022), any shoe worn by an elite athlete in a race does not necessarily need to be on the list. from WA, it only needs to fit the technical characteristics foreseen in the list, which is directly linked to the thickness of the sole.

For an elite athlete to run in a WA certified race or international races certified by the Brazilian Athletics Confederation, the athlete, upon entering the starting area, undergoes footwear verification by a referee appointed by the CBAT or by the technical delegate, who makes the verification of the height of the shoes and whether or not they release the athletes’ running shoes. And, in all these cases, our Corre Grafeno and Corre 3 shoes were rigorously and officially cleared by local referees, who are certified for this type of analysis.

All results are approved by the official federations and the WA.

At the same time, we share with you that Olympikus has been working with WA in the formal request and process of inclusion of its footwear in the list of accredited products. Soon we will have news.

We hope we have clarified your doubt, but anything else, let us know.

Hugs, and thanks for the usual partner.

Team Olympikus“

The statement contained in Article 5 of Book C 2.1A of the Sports Footwear Regulations (effective January 1, 2022) of the WA is not correct.

Olympikus stated that it would say that “any shoe used by an elite athlete in a race does not necessarily need to be registered on the WA list, it only needs to fit the technical characteristics provided for in the list, which is directly linked to the thickness of the sole”, correct?

Continue after ad

What is actually written in Article 5?

“5th Existing Sneakers.

5.1 Unless requested by the CEO or his nominee, an existing shoe need not be submitted to WA for approval under these regulations and approved by World Athletics”

What would an “existing shoe” be, according to World Athletics?

“‘Existing shoe’ is a shoe that was approved by the CEO or someone appointed by him under Rule 5, the regulation in effect prior to January 1, 2016, and that met the requirements of that regulation unless otherwise specified. otherwise by these regulations or by the CEO or someone appointed by him.”

Definition of what an “Existing Shoe” is for World Athletics

Therefore, an existing shoe is a shoe that was in existence before 2016 and that complied with Rule 5, which governed running shoes at that time. Olympikus shoes actually fall under Article 6 of Book C 2.1a, not 5.

What does Article 6 say?

“6th NEW TENNIS

6.1 All new shoes, prior to being worn for the first time by an athlete in competition, must be approved by World Athletics in accordance with the process set out in Appendix 1″

World Athletics Book C 2.1a Article 6

What is the Appendix 1 process? Explains how to describe the model, brand, data such as cushioning height, if it is a new shoe, etc. The entity undertakes to finish the analysis within 30 days after receiving the shoe and whether or not the shoe has been added to the list.

So here’s the thing: there are no Olympkis shoes on the list of shoes authorized for use by World Athletics. Do you have Fila models over there, Sérgio? He has. Only the prototype of the Racer Carbon 2. The first edition of the Racer Carbon, which was also used in competitions by elite athletes across the country, is not there either. There is also no KR3, KR4, KR5 or KR6 there.

The only Fila model on the list is the Racer Carbon 2 prototype.

So folks, we have a problem here. The brands did not submit the shoes to World Athletics and the CBAt referees took the liberty of analyzing and approving the shoes, something that is not up to them, according to the rules.

See well. WA makes it clear that shoes that are not on the list cannot be used. It doesn’t matter if they’re according to the rules, they have to be on the list.

Oh, it wasn’t on the list but the referee checked the shoe’s height and let it be used. It is not up to the referee to do that. Imagine if there are 50 elite athletes in the race, you can’t delay the call room process. For that, we have the list. It’s simple.

It is determined by the WA that one of the referees must be the “Tennis Checker”

In the questions and answers about the listing it is said that the verifier’s role should only be to check if the athlete’s shoe that will compete in the elite is on the listing or not. No, you can’t use it.

Continue after ad

There is also what should be done if the athlete has a shoe that is not on the list. In this case, the verifier must complete a form with the shoe, the subject runs, the shoe must be retained and sent to World Athletics for verification, the athlete’s time and placement will be pending until the analysis result is released and this must be explained to the athlete.

The competitor can even win the test using a non-approved shoe, but the referee has to document, retain the shoe, send it to WA and the result of the test is pending, the same award.

World Athletics explanations of the role of the “tennis verifier” to match organizers

However, it is clear that this procedure was not followed, as, again, Olympikus shoes were used in the 2022 São Paulo Marathon victories and the shoes are not on the list of approved shoes until today, more than a year after the event. . Corre 3 has the same issue in the São Paulo Marathon of this one. The victory of Marlei Willers, in the Curitiba Marathon using a Racer Carbon, from Fila, is the same case.

But now, Inês is dead – the results have been ratified. But I’ll tell you this: if any elite athlete or their coach had been well informed about tennis rules, they could have staged a protest and the athletes who were wearing shoes that are not on the WA list could all have been disqualified. , unless the referee had filed the shoes, retained them and sent them to WA for approval. Protest is an athlete’s right.

I personally do not think that the athletes who ran in non-listed shoes acted in bad faith. Most of them wear the sneakers that the brand that supports or sponsors sends them. And of course the athlete thinks the brand is in line with the rules.

None of the Olympikus or Fila shoes that are not on the list violate the regulation with a cushion height greater than 40 mm or sandwich-shaped carbon plates. What was missing for the brands was having a super simple process to send the shoes for approval by World Athletics.

What’s more, having this tennis stamp approved by the WA would even serve as a kind of trophy for them. “Look, our tennis complies with the entity that governs international athletics”. The best example I can give is that all Chinese shoes that have already been mentioned in Corrida no Air, such as Xtep, Li-Ning, Qiaodan, are on the WA list.

I see this situation as a lack of knowledge of the simplicity of the authorization process to enter the listing on the part of Olympikus and Fila or the lack of someone at the brand who could guide them in relation to these procedures, also because they are aware of the height limit of damping and the plate rule.

Continue after ad

Now, regarding CBAt, I don’t understand what happened to the referees with the function of checking shoes, because the rule is crystal clear. If it’s not on the list, you can’t use it. If you are going to use it, the model needs to be filed, it has to be retained and authorized later and, while that doesn’t happen, the athlete’s result is pending.

So what do I think should be done, if I could give my suggestion?

Olympikus and Fila need to get rid of this, because now a lot of people will look for the two brands’ shoes in the list of approved shoes. They need to make this one of the procedures when they are producing a new shoe model.

The CBAt, in turn, needs to review the issue of arbitration of tests to reinforce what is in the rule, because it is clear.

We have consulted CBAt regarding this and are awaiting their response.

HOW TO DOWNLOAD THE WORLD CONTENT TENNIS REGULATIONS, RULES AND LISTING PDF

Updated list of shoes authorized for use (constantly updated)

Go to Manuals & Guidelines > World Athletics Approved Shoe List

Tennis Rules Questions and Answers

Go to Manuals & Guidelines > Athletic shoe regulations frequently asked questions

Sports tennis regulation (as of January 1, 2022)

Go to Book of Rules > Book C: Competition – C2.1A – Athletics Shoe Regulations (effective from 01 January 2022)