> as much as the effects of superior sponsorships. > likely there are hundreds of factors more important The more detailed NYT analysis linked in the OP did ac

> as much as the effects of superior sponsorships. > likely there are hundreds of factors more important The more detailed NYT analysis linked in the OP did account for those kinds of confounding factors, and still found a 3-4% difference attributable to the shoes. If you can find a flaw in their analysis, we'd all love to hear it. Simply ignoring that analysis in favor of guess-work and hand-waves isn't persuasive.