Our company submitted an objection to the IPF regarding the cancellation of certification for the above product approximately five days ago, alongside a proposal for a peaceful dialogue to lift the ban and allow for resale. However, we received no response from the IPF. Instead, what we received was an invoice for payment for the month of April, which, of course, includes the charges for the knee sleeve that is currently banned. Their stance seems to be: "Ban the knee sleeve, but keep paying us." This behavior is completely unacceptable.
Our company has been paying certification fees to the IPF for over 10 years, and we are confident that we are a globally recognized company. Having dealt with numerous products, we have been advised on various occasions, but we have never faced a situation where a product was suddenly banned without due process. The fact that the IPF has responded to our objection with an invoice instead of an answer is the most insulting response we have ever received. As a result, we have decided to share parts of the situation online and gather feedback from the public.
Firstly, regarding the IPF’s announcement that the knee sleeve does not meet the standards for neoprene, the issue lies with the fact that the term "neoprene" is a trademark of the Dupont company, and is merely referenced in the rulebook. There are no specific ratios or "IPF standards" outlined in the rulebook, either when the product was initially certified in 2022 or currently. Neoprene is a trademark, and so we will refer to the material as "chloroprene rubber." Our company commissioned a third-party agency for analysis, and since it contains chloroprene rubber, it can be classified as neoprene.
While it is true that the IPF outsourced the analysis to a third-party agency, the values provided for chloroprene rubber are merely reference values and cannot be used as a basis for determining compliance. To put it bluntly, analysis results can be manipulated based on set parameters or standards, meaning that analysis alone does not guarantee objectivity. To determine compliance based on analysis results, protocols, reference values, and acceptable error margins must be set, and the analysis method must be reproducible. Furthermore, the validated analysis method must be shared with manufacturers in advance, allowing them to self-inspect before shipment, and only after that should surprise inspections be conducted. Without this, the test results are meaningless. The discrepancy between the IPF’s results and our own is entirely due to the lack of validation.
This is basic quality control knowledge, and we are shocked that such a fundamental step was overlooked.
Furthermore, even if a product does not meet the established standard, the usual practice is to issue an "improvement order," not an immediate ban. The IPF has made a hasty and exclusionary decision that deviates significantly from industry norms.
We strongly object to the decision based on these "after-the-fact" reference values because they are not officially established standards.
Of course, even as reference values, we had a third-party agency analyze the knee sleeves from other manufacturers that are still certified by the IPF. The analysis showed that the chloroprene rubber ratio was well below 100%. It is practically impossible to produce a competitive "sports" knee sleeve for powerlifting with 100% chloroprene rubber, and some other types of rubber must necessarily be mixed to create the fabric. While a chloroprene rubber ratio may be necessary as a guideline, no such standard has been clearly outlined anywhere.
Now, let us consider an interesting scenario for the future. After the removal of the 7 STIFF-type knee sleeves from the certification list, what will happen if another manufacturer introduces a knee sleeve with similar stiffness and it gets certified? How would that feel to the rest of the industry? Athletes will no doubt rush to adopt the products that give them a competitive edge, and we will be left at a serious disadvantage.
We used to view the IPF as a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting powerlifting worldwide, but if it is in fact becoming a subsidiary of a for-profit corporation, perhaps it is time for the organization’s name to change.
Our company intends to continue supporting the IPF and the JPA in the future, but this recent decision, along with the insulting manner in which it has been handled, shows a severe lack of fairness and respect for our company. We sincerely question whether such an organization is truly capable of representing Olympic sports.
We urge you all to share this and provide your feedback.