Doesn't make sense, unless the world is even more corrupt than you'd think.

From City AM:

Robert Johnson, who edits the running site LetsRun.com, went so far as to say that those who have benefited from [Nike's apparently excellent running] shoes in previous competitive races have been guilty of "mechanical doping".

And non-Nike athletes have petitioned World Athletics as to their fairness. Responding at the beginning of February, the sports body has set a maximum sole thickness of 40mm on trainers for the first time ever.


Nike's new shoe will, somewhat conveniently, have a sole thickness of 39.5 mm. That means it can be legally worn at the Tokyo 2020 Olympics by Nike-sponsored athletes.

While rival manufacturers will look to rush out their own versions, it seems possible that, with only a few months to go until the Olympic games begin on 24 July, Nike's middle and long-distance athletes will hit the start line in Tokyo with a serious advantage.

I thought that the Olympics was a competition between different countries, not a competition between different manufacturers (like Formula One motor racing)? If I'm still right on this, why are the "non-Nike athletes" moaning? Why don't they just pop out and buy some Nike running shoes?

The only conceivable reason why not is that the Olympics won't let you use a manufacturer's equipment without the manufacturer's express permission. I accept that the Olympics is as corrupt as Hell, but that would be setting a new low.
-------------
Update - Staffordshire Man suggests that the non-Nike athletes can't use Nike shoes because they have sold their souls to a rival manufacturer/sponsor, in which case it serves them right IMHO.

Doc Marten boots - real life confirms blog comment

Barman, in the comments here:

Many years ago my daughter had a thing for Dr. Marten boots, she had about five pairs in various colours (all paid for by herself to be fair)...

I used to take the piss out of her for wasting her money for such a stupid fashion statement but she insisted that she only bought them because they were 'so comfortable'... Her blistered, bandaged and plastered feet told a different story!

On the Northern Line on Saturday, I noticed that the young woman standing next to me was earning a bright orange Doc Marten with a blue lace on one foot and a pale blue Doc Marten with an orange lace on the other.

I asked her whether she bought a pair of each. As a die hard Doc Marten fan, she had her stock speech ready and imparted the following information:

1. She owns seven pairs in different colours and she mixes and matches.

2. They look old and battered (seemed fine to me, but she's the expert), but they've just reached peak comfort levels; and by implication, that they are pretty uncomfortable when new.

She alighted at the next station, so I did not have time to ask her about her system for matching shoe laces with the opposite boot. I did wonder whether this was Barman's daughter or whether there is a whole sub-culture with many adherents.

"The real trainer fans"

From the BBC:

Tom Rayment said he was on the Adidas website for about two hours trying to get hold of a pair [of Yeezy Boost 360s] but was unsuccessful.

The self-confessed trainer fan, 24, from Peterborough said he already has four pair of Yeezys.

"When they were first released there wasn't the demand like today," he said. "I feel people just buy them to resell so they can make profit, then it is the genuine trainer lovers who pay the extortionate prices to the re-sellers."

My son used to have a bit of a trainer fetish (it's worn off now, thankfully). Apparently there are "real trainer fans" with thousands of subscribers to their YouTube videos showing off their latest purchases.

The gimmick is, you're not allowed to actually wear them. You keep them in the original box and only get them out to show your mates.

"Shoeworld worker walked home wearing £73 of stolen shoes"

From The Evening Standard:

A sales assistant at Shoeworld walked home from the Oxford Street store wearing 26 pairs of stolen shoes, a court heard.

Eva Jaciskova, 37, put on the shoes at work and walked off in them over six months. The Slovakian national then flogged the footwear on eBay, Southwark Crown Court heard.

Between January and June last year the mother-of-two stole the 26 pairs of shoes with a combined retail value of £73 before staff spotted the large amount of stock on the eBay account and investigated.

Like a Birkenstock, stamping on a human face forever*

From The Evening Standard:

Transport For London staff have been banned from using electronic cigarettes at work because they are too realistic. And customers may also be forbidden to "smoke" them in future, bosses at TfL say.

In an email to staff, the organisation writes:

"E-cigarettes and nicotine inhalers are extremely difficult to differentiate from real cigarettes, therefore if someone uses an e-cigarette or nicotine inhaler in the workplace it might look like they are smoking a real cigarette. This is not the image we want to portray to customers and colleagues."

* I can't track down who first used this phrase, but whoever it was knows who they are and is hereby awarded a prize in their absence.

UPDATE: Having done a bit of internet archeology, i.e. Googling all hits before a certain date and moving that date ever earlier until there's only one, it would appear that the phrase was first used by a US anti-abortion campaigner in 2005.

Killer heels

From The Evening Standard:Why the lass in front chose to balance her hat on her head instead of wearing it was unexplained at time of going to press.

Health Scare Stories Du Jour

They haven't done any 'new research' for a day or two, so we're back to a couple of timeless classics:

From The Metro: "Pregnant women who want to emulate celebrities by wearing high heels are putting their feet at risk, an expert warned."

From The Daily Express: "THE health risks of using mobile phones are far higher than previously thought, scientists warned yesterday."*

* Via JuliaM.