Certainly one study doesn't provide a definitive answer, but decrying the article because he is inconsistent with common sense, which is he is explicitly saying is wrong, seems a bit unfair.
I stand by my claim. It is ridiculous to say that we all have the same chance of getting hurt, which is what he says. He also says much later and in an unrelated part of the article that, as you note, you're more likely to get hurt in expensive shoes than cheap ones, according to one study. There is no mention of "Remember that stuff I said at the beginning-- that was wrong."
Maybe "madman" is going too far-- perhaps "inconsistent and unreasonable person" would be more accurate.
Refuting one sentence is useful, but does not refute the central point.
However, I think you've mistaken my intent. I don't agree or disagree with the article. Honestly, I have only skimmed the article, and I don't plan to read it carefully, because I am convinced that the writing is sloppy, and that makes the article, in my judgment, not worth reading. I would presume you feel differently.
I had hoped to spare fellow readers the disappointment that I experienced, clicking on the article, hoping to find insightful commentary on running shoes, but instead finding writing that appeared to me to be unexceptional. It certainly seems this has been ineffective. I don't know; maybe you all loved the article, and I'm the one missing out. I'll stick with the heuristic of "Articles that lead with unreasonable claims are not worth finishing."