I think that it is great that the race directors decided to have a barefoot division, but I think it puzzling that ANY race would feel it necessary to make stipulations about what is to be worn on the feet. Most race applications include sufficient legal language to protect race directors from any liability due to accidents, etc. that may happen during the race.
What is the thinking? It might make sense to restrict barefoot runners if there were a compelling case that a barefoot injury would jeopardize others in the race (similar to the stipulations some races have against headphones), or if an accident caused by barefooting would indirectly harm others in the race or the race itself (similar to arguments for making motorcyclists wear helmets). Or, maybe the argument is that they don't want to see any ugly feet (similar to the case for requiring running shorts).
Any barefoot philosophers, lawyers, constitutional scholars, or conspiracy theorists out there?
What is the thinking? It might make sense to restrict barefoot runners if there were a compelling case that a barefoot injury would jeopardize others in the race (similar to the stipulations some races have against headphones), or if an accident caused by barefooting would indirectly harm others in the race or the race itself (similar to arguments for making motorcyclists wear helmets). Or, maybe the argument is that they don't want to see any ugly feet (similar to the case for requiring running shorts).
Any barefoot philosophers, lawyers, constitutional scholars, or conspiracy theorists out there?
