An Amputee Sprinter: Is He Disabled or Too-Abled? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Cynthetiq · 05-15-2007, 06:25 AM

Quote:

May 15, 2007
An Amputee Sprinter: Is He Disabled or Too-Abled?
By JERÉ LONGMAN
LINK

MANCHESTER, England, May 14 — As Oscar Pistorius of South Africa crouched in the starting blocks for the 200 meters on Sunday, the small crowd turned its attention to the sprinter who calls himself the fastest man on no legs.

Pistorius wants to be the first amputee runner to compete in the Olympics. But despite his ascendance, he is facing resistance from track and field’s world governing body, which is seeking to bar him on the grounds that the technology of his prosthetics may give him an unfair advantage over sprinters using their natural legs.

His first strides were choppy Sunday, a necessary accommodation to sprinting on a pair of j-shaped blades made of carbon fiber and known as Cheetahs. Pistorius was born without the fibula in his lower legs and with other defects in his feet. He had both legs amputated below the knee when he was 11 months old. At 20, his coach says, he is like a five-speed engine with no second gear.

Yet Pistorius is also a searing talent who has begun erasing the lines between abled and disabled, raising philosophical questions: What should an athlete look like? Where should limits be placed on technology to balance fair play with the right to compete? Would the nature of sport be altered if athletes using artificial limbs could run faster or jump higher than the best athletes using their natural limbs?

Once at full speed Sunday, Pistorius handily won the 100 and 200 meters here at the Paralympic World Cup, an international competition for disabled athletes. A cold, rainy afternoon tempered his performances, but his victories came decisively and kept him aimed toward his goal of the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing, even though international track officials seek to block his entrance.

Since March, Pistorius has delivered startling record performances for disabled athletes at 100 meters (10.91 seconds), 200 meters (21.58 seconds) and 400 meters (46.34 seconds). Those times do not meet Olympic qualifying standards for men, but the Beijing Games are still 15 months away. Already, Pistorius is fast enough that his marks would have won gold medals in equivalent women’s races at the 2004 Athens Olympics.

Pistorius’s time of 46.56 in the 400 earned him a second-place finish in March against able-bodied runners at the South African national championships. This seemingly makes him a candidate for the Olympic 4x400-meter relay should South Africa qualify as one of the world’s 16 fastest teams.

“I don’t see myself as disabled,” said the blond, spiky-haired Pistorius, a former rugby and water polo player who declines to park in spaces reserved for the disabled. “There’s nothing I can’t do that able-bodied athletes can do.”

An Equalizer or an Edge?

Still, the question persists: Do prosthetic legs simply level the playing field for Pistorius, compensating for his disability, or do they give him an inequitable edge via what some call techno-doping?

Experts say there have been limited scientific studies on the biomechanics of amputee runners, especially those missing both legs. And because Pistorius lost his legs as an infant, his speed on carbon-fiber legs cannot be compared with his speed on natural legs.

Track and field’s world governing body, based in Monaco and known by the initials I.A.A.F., has recently prohibited the use of technological aids like springs and wheels, disqualifying Pistorius from events that it sanctions. A final ruling is expected in August.

The International Olympic Committee allows governing bodies to make their own eligibility rules, though it can intervene. Since 2004, for example, transgender athletes have been allowed to compete in the Olympics.

“With all due respect, we cannot accept something that provides advantages,” said Elio Locatelli of Italy, the director of development for the I.A.A.F., urging Pistorius to concentrate on the Paralympics that will follow the Olympics in Beijing. “It affects the purity of sport. Next will be another device where people can fly with something on their back.”

Others have questioned the governing body’s motivation.

“I pose a question” for the I.A.A.F., said Robert Gailey, an associate professor of physical therapy at the University of Miami Medical School, who has studied amputee runners. “Are they looking at not having an unfair advantage? Or are they discriminating because of the purity of the Olympics, because they don’t want to see a disabled man line up against an able-bodied man for fear that if the person who doesn’t have the perfect body wins, what does that say about the image of man?”

According to Gailey, a prosthetic leg returns only about 80 percent of the energy absorbed in each stride, while a natural leg returns up to 240 percent, providing much more spring.

“There is no science that he has an advantage, only that he is competing at a disadvantage,” Gailey, who has served as an official in disabled sports, said of Pistorius.

Foremost among the I.A.A.F.’s concerns is that Pistorius’s prosthetic limbs may make him taller than he would have been on natural legs and may unfairly lengthen his stride, allowing him to lower his best times by several seconds in the past three years, while most elite sprinters improve by hundredths of a second.

“The rule book says a foot has to be in contact with the starting block,” Leon Fleiser, a general manager of the South African Olympic Committee, said. “What is the definition of a foot? Is a prosthetic device a foot, or is it an actual foot?”

I.A.A.F. officials have also expressed concern that Pistorius could topple over, obstructing others or injuring himself and fellow competitors. Some also fear that, without limits on technological aids, able-bodied runners could begin wearing carbon-fiber plates or other unsuitably springy devices in their shoes.

Among ethicists, Pistorius’s success has spurred talk of “transhumans” and “cyborgs.” Some note that athletes already modify themselves in a number of ways, including baseball sluggers who undergo laser eye surgery to enhance their vision and pitchers who have elbow reconstruction using sturdier ligaments from elsewhere in the body. At least three disabled athletes have competed in the Summer Olympics: George Eyser, an American, won a gold medal in gymnastics while competing on a wooden leg at the 1904 Games in St. Louis; Neroli Fairhall, a paraplegic from New Zealand, competed in archery in the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles; and Marla Runyan, a legally blind runner from the United States, competed in the 1,500 meters at the 2000 Olympics in Sydney. But Pistorius would be the first amputee to compete in a track event, international officials said.

A sobering question was posed recently on the Web site of the Connecticut-based Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. “Given the arms race nature of competition,” will technological advantages cause “athletes to do something as seemingly radical as having their healthy natural limbs replaced by artificial ones?” wrote George Dvorsky, a member of the institute’s board of directors. “Is it self-mutilation when you’re getting a better limb?”

Limits and Accommodations

Historically, the I.A.A.F. has placed limits on devices that assist athletes. It prohibits an array of performance-enhancing drugs. And it does not allow wheelchair athletes into the Olympic marathon, given that wheels provide a clear advantage in speed.

But the governing body has also embraced technological advances. For instance, it permits athletes to sleep in tent-like devices designed to simulate high altitude and increase oxygen-carrying capacity.

As disabled athletes improve their performances, the I.A.A.F. is certain to be faced with more decisions about accommodating them. Last February, Jeff Skiba, who has one leg amputated below the knee, competed in the high jump at the United States indoor track and field championships.

Some I.A.A.F. officials say Pistorius’s application should not be treated dismissively. Although he would not be considered a medal candidate, his appearance at the Beijing Games could provide an inspiring story.

“There is no real grounds to say he should not be allowed to compete” in the Olympics, said Juan Manuel Alonso of Spain, who heads the I.A.A.F.’s medical and antidoping commission. “We’d like to have more information and biomechanical studies.”

His own fear, Pistorius said, is that the governing body, which has not contacted him, will ban him on supposition, not science.

“I think they’re afraid to do the research,” Pistorius, a business student at the University of Pretoria, said. “They’re afraid of what they’re going to find, that I don’t have an advantage and they’ll have to let me compete.”

Pistorius, whose stated height is 6 feet 1 ¼ inches while wearing his sprinting prosthetics, says that the devices are within an allowed range determined by the length of his thighs. The peak length of his stride, he said, is 9 feet, not 13 feet as some I.A.A.F. officials suggest.

There are many disadvantages to sprinting on carbon-fiber legs, Pistorius and his coach said. After a cumbersome start, he needs about 30 meters to gain his rhythm. His knees do not flex as readily, limiting his power output. His grip can be unsure in the rain. And when he runs into a headwind or grows fatigued, he must fight rotational forces that turn his prosthetic devices sideways, said Ampie Louw, who coaches Pistorius.

“The I.A.A.F. has got no clue about disabled sport,” said Louw, who has coached Pistorius since 2003.

Insufficient credit is given to Pistorius’s resolve in the weight room and on the track, Louw said, describing one intense workout that requires him to run 350 meters in 42 seconds; 300 meters in 34.6 seconds; 200 meters in 22 seconds and 150 meters in 15.4 seconds. “The kid is a born champion,” Louw said. “He doesn’t settle for second best.”

Having worn prosthetics since infancy, Pistorius did not have to adjust to artificial legs after he began competing, as many disabled athletes do. He won a gold medal in the 200 at the 2004 Paralympics in Athens.

“These have always been my legs,” he said. “I train harder than other guys, eat better, sleep better and wake up thinking about athletics. I think that’s probably why I’m a bit of an exception.”

One who is attempting to broaden the definition of an Olympic athlete.

“You have two competing issues — fair competition and basic human rights to compete,” said Angela Schneider, a sports ethicist at the University of Western Ontario and a 1984 Olympic silver medalist in rowing.

The I.A.A.F. must objectively define when prosthetic devices “go from therapy to enhancement,” Schneider said. The danger of acting hastily, she said, is “you deny a guy’s struggle against all odds — one of the fundamental principles of the Olympics.”

Competition in sports or activities is an interesting animal to me. Some groups class things on things like engine size, weight class, etc. We worry about blood doping and other enhancing drugs changing or altering the competition playfield.

I think this is a no brainer. He shouldn't be allowed to compete unless the rules are designed that allow for it. Otherwise, what is stopping the creation of a new and improved prostetic device from bettering him? It isn't any longer going to be about the human, but about the technology surrounding and supporting him.

The_Jazz · 05-15-2007, 06:47 AM

For the sake of intellectual honesty, let me state for the record that not only am I a track geek but that I've had this conversation numerous times over the past 15 years.

Pistorious has an artificial advantage and should not be allowed to compete. Period. End of story. He actually has several advantages.

First, the Dr. Gailey that's quoted as saying that a natural leg returns 240% of the energy needs to check his figures. The numbers he's using (I think) involves the comparison of the energy from the downward part of the stride compared to the upwards motion. Both involve large muscular movements. The "spring" is the muscles stretching and rebounding within the running stride and require large amounts of movement to acheive efficiently. What he's trying to say is that Pistorious is running on a superball while the able-bodied are running on jet packs. It's not a fair comparison at all.

Second, and probably more importantly, Pistorious has huge weight advantage. It takes a lot less energy to move 200 lbs. up to 20 mph than it does 175 lbs - or 150 lbs. That's why the classic sprinter build is under 6'. Ben Johnson, who I mention because of his own competitive advantage problems, is closer to 5' 6". Dennis Green, my all-time favorite sprinter, is about 5' 8". I've met and spent time with both.

The stride length issue would come more into play if Pistorius was a middle-distance or long-distance runner since efficiently adding 3" to a stride would cut 15 seconds off a 1500m time (same amount of energy expended with both strides). That's the difference between having the words "World Record Holder" and "Decent Division III Runner" in that event.

shakran · 05-15-2007, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

I think this is a no brainer. He shouldn't be allowed to compete unless the rules are designed that allow for it. Otherwise, what is stopping the creation of a new and improved prostetic device from bettering him? It isn't any longer going to be about the human, but about the technology surrounding and supporting him.

Interesting point, but let's play devil's advocate for a moment. Look at speed skating. They wear a special suit to reduce drag, and their skates are technological wonder of honing and precise length. Swimmers also wear special drag-resistant suits and swim caps. Tennis players use carbon fibre and ceramic framed rackets that are specially designed to enlarge the sweet spot. Boat crews use aerodynamically sculpted boats and specialized oars designed to provide maximum possible propulsion. Skiers use ultra high-tech skis, some of which cost more than the average car, all to give them a competitive advantage.

If you're going to argue that a sport should be solely based on the abilities of the athlete, then we also need to address the technology used by the non-disabled participants as well.

Cynthetiq · 05-15-2007, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

Interesting point, but let's play devil's advocate for a moment. Look at speed skating. They wear a special suit to reduce drag, and their skates are technological wonder of honing and precise length. Swimmers also wear special drag-resistant suits and swim caps. Tennis players use carbon fibre and ceramic framed rackets that are specially designed to enlarge the sweet spot. Boat crews use aerodynamically sculpted boats and specialized oars designed to provide maximum possible propulsion. Skiers use ultra high-tech skis, some of which cost more than the average car, all to give them a competitive advantage.

If you're going to argue that a sport should be solely based on the abilities of the athlete, then we also need to address the technology used by the non-disabled participants as well.

I don't disagree with that. Each advancement of technology as such doesn't create leaps and bounds of differences but shaves off 100ths if not 1000ths of a second. Also, governing bodies of the competition decide what is and what isn't allowed into their competition, this goes for human and car racing for that matter.

The_Jazz · 05-15-2007, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

Interesting point, but let's play devil's advocate for a moment. Look at speed skating. They wear a special suit to reduce drag, and their skates are technological wonder of honing and precise length. Swimmers also wear special drag-resistant suits and swim caps. Tennis players use carbon fibre and ceramic framed rackets that are specially designed to enlarge the sweet spot. Boat crews use aerodynamically sculpted boats and specialized oars designed to provide maximum possible propulsion. Skiers use ultra high-tech skis, some of which cost more than the average car, all to give them a competitive advantage.

If you're going to argue that a sport should be solely based on the abilities of the athlete, then we also need to address the technology used by the non-disabled participants as well.

That's all fine and dandy for those sports, and I don't see anything wrong with those things. However, this one athlete has a technological advantage that no other athlete can access. The same wind-drag technology used by speed skaters is used by track sprinters, although it's typically cut shorter to reduce weight and heat transfer. With the exception of swimming, all the sports you listed require technological assistance to even compete in the first place (i.e. you can't ski without skis).

One other thing of note - currently Pistorious isn't even in the same category as the elite high school athletes in the US. His times aren't there. Male high schoolers are typically .4 to .6 seconds faster than he is, which is an eternity in the 100.

shakran · 05-15-2007, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

shaves off 100ths if not 1000ths of a second.

It doesn't matter how much time the technology shaves off - if it enables the athlete to win, it doesn't matter if he wins by a 100th of a second or a minute.

Quote:

Also, governing bodies of the competition decide what is and what isn't allowed into their competition, this goes for human and car racing for that matter.

Quite true, but a car racing governing body doesn't face a discrimination lawsuit if they say a driver can't install a turbo on his car. This situation might be different.

highthief · 05-15-2007, 08:11 AM

A applaud his ability and desire - it is remarkable to have achieved what he has. But no, he can't compete in the regular Olympics until it is determined, beyond doubt, that his artificial limbs do not provide him with an advantage.

Personally, I don't think they do - despite their lightness and springiness there's nothing like using the human foot and calf muscles to run. But I wouldn't chance it and spoil it for the other athletes.

Cynthetiq · 05-15-2007, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

It doesn't matter how much time the technology shaves off - if it enables the athlete to win, it doesn't matter if he wins by a 100th of a second or a minute.

Quite true, but a car racing governing body doesn't face a discrimination lawsuit if they say a driver can't install a turbo on his car. This situation might be different.

I'm reminded of the golfer who was able to get to ride in a cart due to disability. Golfers claim that walking the distance is part of the game during the competition. I don't recall the case particulars, but it was professional golfers.

highthief · 05-15-2007, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

I'm reminded of the golfer who was able to get to ride in a cart due to disability. Golfers claim that walking the distance is part of the game during the competition. I don't recall the case particulars, but it was professional golfers.

Casey Martin was the golfer in question - he has a degenerative neuro-muscular disease that is is getting progressively worse.

I supported Martin's case - he was (and is) getting weaker and weaker, and quite frankly, even with the cart, he gets physically tired more quickly than able bodied golfers, and the walking aspect isn't really that integral to golf. The USGA weakened its own argument in that instance as they fully sanction carts on the Seniors Tour, for various amateur events, for Skins games, and they are even used, during play-offs, on the regular PGA tour at times.

The_Jazz · 05-15-2007, 09:01 AM

Comparing Pistorius to Casey Martin isn't entirely fair. I understand the USGA's argument that walking is a part of the game, and I even agree to some extent. However, it would be something entirely different if Martin were playing with spring-loaded prostetic arms or were allowed to shoot the balls from an arm-mounted cannon (although I for one would probably pay to see that). That's a much truer comparision to what's being proposed.

I know we all hate "separate-but-equal", but there's really no other way to fairly stage certain events that deal in strength and speed. What if he wanted to use a narrow wheelchair? Where do you draw the line?

Halx · 05-15-2007, 09:42 AM

Good discussion and silly at the same time. The man has artificial legs. He is a construct of technology. While he may have the will and the determination, he is no faster than the technology he uses. He may be able to push more out of his technology, but the minute the technology is improved, he will be that much faster. By that means, his efforts may be honorable, but his eligibility to be judged against naturally-abled men is invalid.

This has nothing to do with some homage to the perfection of the human body. That argument is pompous.

Kadath · 05-15-2007, 09:44 AM

The idea that he has access to something that other sprinters do not is false. They have access to something he does not: natural legs. If they want his advantage they can always cut their legs off and get prosthetics.

ubertuber · 05-15-2007, 09:56 AM

Maybe the runners with feet could get shoes with spring-loaded pogo stick attachments to lengthen their stride. Or maybe even the combustion powered spring shoes the Russian military was working on (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/...es.php?page=1). After all, the disabled fellow could get fitted for some too...

The_Jazz · 05-15-2007, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kadath

The idea that he has access to something that other sprinters do not is false. They have access to something he does not: natural legs. If they want his advantage they can always cut their legs off and get prosthetics.

Well, the second suggestion is just a strawman. No one is rationally suggesting that anyone amputate body parts to enhance their competitive advantage.

As for the first, the idea is true, despite what you think. First, lack of legs means a lower weight that will not be compesated for with the prothetics. That is a competitive advantage no matter how you look at it. Second, the way these legs work creates an unnaturally long stride, and that is a huge competitive advantage.

Track and field is the most basic of all sports (except maybe swimming). All the competitions are absolute, and everyone knows exactly where they stand in the pecking order and publications like Track and Field News make sure that everyone knows where everyone else is down to the hundredth of a second or the nearest centimeter. With the exception of the pole vault, no tools are used in any event, and all are either a measure of strength or speed over an agreed-upon distance. In my opinion (as an admitted track geek), it is competition at its purest. Allowing ANY kind of prosthetics such as these will be detrimental to the sport since there is no limit on where they will end. Jet shoes for fallen arches? Cow catchers for hurdlers? In-race oxygen masks for marathoners?

Once you allow anyone to use a prosthetic in track, you're going to have a hard time keeping anyone else from using one. Doping is bad enough, let's not make things worse.

Willravel · 05-15-2007, 10:53 AM

I just want to say that I appreciate The_Jazz's learned contribution to this thread. I've learned quite a bit. Kudos!

shakran · 05-15-2007, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Well, the second suggestion is just a strawman. No one is rationally suggesting that anyone amputate body parts to enhance their competitive advantage.

I dunno, I think Kaddath has an interesting point. It's been done before. The Castrati were prized singers - - their name indicates what they had to do to achieve that status. Was it fair that they got hired to sing over other groups that chose not to castrate themselves?

Let me ask you this - what if this runner had lost an arm? Should we forbid him from competing? After all, the average runner's arm weighs a lot more than an amputee's shoulder. Wouldn't that give him a power-to-weight ratio advantage?

Kadath · 05-15-2007, 11:40 AM

The_Jazz

You're right, I am joking about a bit, but you need to recognize that I did not say his missing legs were a disadvantage, just that others had access to something he did not. I acknowledge that these prosthetics give him an advantage. So your argument is that only an unmodified human can compete fairly? What if a guy was just missing his arms? He could run a lot faster with less weight, should he be barred from competing?

....shakran get out of my head, please.

shakran · 05-15-2007, 11:49 AM

Based on your stated location, I would think you like it when everyone thinks and acts exactly as you do

(obscure?)

The_Jazz · 05-15-2007, 12:29 PM

Oh I got the joke. I'm just a track geek. You've got to forgive me.

healer · 05-15-2007, 02:22 PM

I've just spent the better part of an hour discussing (and half fighting) this issue with mandy.

I'm South African, so when I see my fellow countrymen doing well on the world stage, I applaud them. Let me state, however, that while Oscar's goals seem noble I don't believe that they'll be fair.

Nobody knows - without a doubt - whether his artificial limbs are a help or a hindrance. Whether it can ever be proven is also questionable. Let's say one day they do prove that his Cheetah's give him an advantage - he shouldn't then be allowed to compete against able-bodied athletes, right? And if the converse were proven to be true, would he even want to compete with them?

mandy mentioned something that firms my opinion. Natalie du Toit, a South African swimmer, only has one and a half legs. She is allowed to - and does so - compete with able-bodied swimmers. She is an Olympic gold medalist. She doesn't swim with any prosthetics or device that would 'even the playing field' for her.

This is the approach I think should be followed with any disabled athlete wanting to compete in able-bodied events. I have no problem with them proving themselves against their able-bodied counterparts, but if they want to do so, let them do it without a possibly unfair technological advantage.

The_Jazz · 05-15-2007, 03:16 PM

Ok - can I edit my posts to read "what healer said"?

ubertuber · 05-15-2007, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

I dunno, I think Kaddath has an interesting point. It's been done before. The Castrati were prized singers - - their name indicates what they had to do to achieve that status. Was it fair that they got hired to sing over other groups that chose not to castrate themselves?

I don't know if you're serious about this, but as a musician I have to step in and say that the two situations aren't remotely similar. If anything, the castrato example works against your argument. The timbre of the castrato voice is completely different from any unaltered vocalist - there's even a recording of the last one floating around on the internt. Parts were written specifically for the castrato voice type. It's not like they were hired to sing parts written for boy sopranos or tenors.

shakran · 05-16-2007, 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

I don't know if you're serious about this, but as a musician I have to step in and say that the two situations aren't remotely similar. If anything, the castrato example works against your argument. The timbre of the castrato voice is completely different from any unaltered vocalist - there's even a recording of the last one floating around on the internt. Parts were written specifically for the castrato voice type. It's not like they were hired to sing parts written for boy sopranos or tenors.

so what you're saying is that an unaltered singer won't get hired to sing a castrati part. How does this work against me?

mandy · 05-16-2007, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by healer

mandy mentioned something that firms my opinion. Natalie du Toit, a South African swimmer, only has one and a half legs. She is allowed to - and does so - compete with able-bodied swimmers. She is an Olympic gold medalist. She doesn't swim with any prosthetics or device that would 'even the playing field' for her.

This is the approach I think should be followed with any disabled athlete wanting to compete in able-bodied events. I have no problem with them proving themselves against their able-bodied counterparts, but if they want to do so, let them do it without a possibly unfair technological advantage.

so, am i to understand it that if Oscar Pistorius wants to compete in able-bodied races, he should do so without the aid of his prosthetics? He should go and run out there on his "stumps"? no feet, no calf muscle, no bone...just two thighs?

BULL, if i ever heard any. I firmly believe that he should be allowed to compete. Not only because it has not been proven that his "cheetahs" are advantages to him, but because of the stats as well... normal human: 42secs/400m to Oscar's 46secs/400m with prosthetics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Comparing Pistorius to Casey Martin isn't entirely fair. I understand the USGA's argument that walking is a part of the game, and I even agree to some extent. However, it would be something entirely different if Martin were playing with spring-loaded prostetic arms or were allowed to shoot the balls from an arm-mounted cannon (although I for one would probably pay to see that). That's a much truer comparision to what's being proposed.

I know we all hate "separate-but-equal", but there's really no other way to fairly stage certain events that deal in strength and speed. What if he wanted to use a narrow wheelchair? Where do you draw the line?

How is that different? How is that not entirely fair? I understand that part of the game is to walk the course. He's a lot more able to make good shots because he's been driving all the way. Other players have been walking all the way. They are tired and worn out...Casey is not. an advantage...i think so.

i think it is, in essence, the same thing that most of you are against. he had an advantage, yet he still played in a professional able-bodied golf tournament.

that people, is a clear observation...it is a clear advantage. We don't know whether or not Oscar's prosthetics are advantages to him or not.

there are many able-bodied athletes out there trying to improve their game by using better technology, better swim suites, better rackets, better everything. all they can do to make them win. but there is no guarantee of winning...the equipment is only as good as the player. no body will ever be "too abled".

do you think he got this way just by slapping on the cheetahs and found out one day "oh wow, these things make me such a good athlete and they make me run oh so fast...maybe i should become an olympic sprinter?"

just like all other athletes, he practiced. he worked hard, he pushed himself, like all of them do...he persevered, he fought and he fought a good fight because it has got him to where he is today, which got all athletes where they are today.

fine, granted if it is proven that Oscar's prosthetics give him an unfair advantage (which i doubt), he should not be allowed to compete.

but for now, he's fighting for a dream...he is fighting to prove that despite his disability, he can make it happen.

and who the hell are we to try and take that away from him?

sapiens · 05-16-2007, 06:04 AM

There aren't clear lines between an unfair competitive advantage and a legitimate use of a performance enhancing tool. I think that if you let an amputee sprinter compete in "normal" competition - an individual who is clearly differently equipped to run a race than any other competitor - you need to consider allowing other types of performance enhancing tools as well.

My red blood cell count isn't as high as others. Should I be allowed to blood dope? Why not? It's not my fault and I work hard with my condition.

I can't seem to build muscle naturally the way that other competitors can. Should I be allowed to use steroids. Why not?

Why not make every performance enhancing tool fair game?

mandy · 05-16-2007, 06:35 AM

But does the prosthetics enhance his performance? that is not proven. it is proven that steroids enhance performance...plus it's totally illegal. prosthetics are not, and neither are carbon fibre or ceramic framed tennis rackets, or drag free swim suits and caps.

it is fair game that he can at least run, that he can at least have the use of both his legs by the usage of these prosthetics.

Cynthetiq · 05-16-2007, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mandy

But does the prosthetics enhance his performance? that is not proven. it is proven that steroids enhance performance...plus it's totally illegal. prosthetics are not, and neither are carbon fibre or ceramic framed tennis rackets, or drag free swim suits and caps.

it is fair game that he can at least run, that he can at least have the use of both his legs by the usage of these prosthetics.

yes, sad but true. the prosthetics DO enhance his performance.

his 400m time goes down exponentially if he does not have the "cheetahs" on. the underlying premise is that the prosthetics do put him at the same time area as the other competitors, that is the definition of performance enhancing right there.

edited: didn't see that I had no logic in the second paragraph.

ubertuber · 05-16-2007, 08:39 AM

Shakran, what I'm saying is that a castrato would not be hired to sing other voice parts. Castrati and tenors were acknowledged to be doing different things.

The only equivalence I can think of here would be if there was a separate event for running with prostheses. Then the two situations would be kind of similar. At any rate, the analogy kind of breaks down in that one is a process/results oriented contest and the other is an artistic pursuit/job.

The_Jazz · 05-16-2007, 01:43 PM

Mandy, let's leave aside the issue of whether or not the prosthetics actually give any sort of edge. I think I could concince you that they do but not without getting into some fairly technical issues that you're probably not interested in.

One thing that's undeniable here is the weight issue. Because he has no legs and the materials used to make the prosthetics, Pistorious weighs significanly less than an able-bodied sprinter. Whenever you deal with acceleration sports, weight is key. Fake legs weigh less than real ones and impart an artificial disadvantage to the user. The longer the race, the greater the advantage. The rule I was taught in high school was that one ounce of savings equaled 50 lbs in a 1 mile race. Honestly I don't know if that's true or not, but with shoes, the idea is that each time you lift them, that 1 ounce acculates with each step. If you take 1600 steps per mile, that's a lot of weight.

If Pistorious takes 100 steps in a 100m race but saves 25 lbs with carbon fiber legs, that's 2500 lbs that he doesn't have to carry that his able-bodied competitors have.

As an aside, this theory is the reason that eating disorders are so prevalent among young female athletes. The last number I saw had 60% of all high school and college female distance runners suffering from some sort of disorder. The more successful the athlete, the more likely to have a disorder. Its sort of scarey.

analog · 05-16-2007, 07:31 PM

I can't figure out why anyone would debate this- it's not his body, it's a device. Everyone else is competing with their bodies, he is using a device. I don't care that he trains hard and whatnot- that's all well and good but means nothing since he uses a device instead of his body. It's not even a question, in my opinion.

Kadath · 05-17-2007, 04:04 AM

analog: he is using a device in conjunction with his body. His muscles still do all the work, the 'device' is useless without him.

That being said, I still don't disagree that this grants him an advantage. I just don't care that much. Superior genetics already granted him an advantage over, say, me. I could never beat him even if I trained as hard as he did for as long as he did and he had his legs. To my mind this is like putting a star next to Wilt Chamberlain's records because he was so much taller than everyone else who played the game at the time. That his advantage was 'natural' doesn't strike me as important (or even true, nothing natural about a person being 7' 1").

ubertuber · 05-17-2007, 07:15 AM

Kadath:

That's an interesting view that I hadn't ever considered. I have never considered the legitimacy or "naturalness" of sports by whether I could hope to compete.

I guess I thought that the records and competition were interesting because they signify what the human race is capable of at its extremes. That's my interest in purity - doping or drug use makes the competition moot because you are then dealing not with the extremes of human performance, but with the extremes of altered human performance.

That said, in terms of defining the current situation, it doesn't seem like this guy is running in the sense that others are. He's just doing a different activity. If there was a track and field event in which athletes regularly wore prosthetics such as stilts or spring loaded shoes, then I'd probably think that the activities were comparable.

analog · 05-17-2007, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kadath

analog: he is using a device in conjunction with his body. His muscles still do all the work, the 'device' is useless without him.

A gun is also useless without human interaction, but I wouldn't use that as a basis to downplay its effectiveness.

And no, his muscles are not doing all the work. Normally, a person would have the weight of their body coming down on all the bones, muscles, joints, tendons, ligaments, etc., in the foot and lower leg with each step. He is using a device which acts as a shock absorber, and will not have nearly the same fatigue factor to his "feet" as the natural competitors. Even if you want to argue that there's no recoil springiness in the prosthesis, it is still very flexible and therefore acts as a buffer to downward force, whether or not it's capable of returning that force back upwards.

That alone is an advantage over all the other competitors who don't get to wear large shock absorbers. As has been pointed out, a large factor in the overall ability of the runner is the fatigue that begins to settle in with each progressive step, and their training to have hardened their muscles against this fatigue.

Vincentt · 05-17-2007, 09:02 PM

Hehe, I could use a bike in conjunction with my body and win all the golds.

guthmund · 05-18-2007, 05:18 AM

^^ Except in the hurdles.

Kadath · 05-18-2007, 05:39 AM

There's no penalty for hitting hurdles. You could just mow them down.

highthief · 07-15-2007, 05:41 PM

So, Pistorius as of this week has run two races against able-bodied athletes.

He finished 2nd in the B final in Italy (so against less able bodied runners, guys who likely won't make the Olympics) and was trailing badly and either got a DNF or DQ against an elite field in Sheffield, England.

Having now seen him run, my impression is:

A) he isn't likely to ever be fast enough to do any damage against elite able-bodied athletes.

B) he still should not be allowed to compete. He starts very slowly, but it is obvious that once he builds up a head of steam, he can go as fast or faster than able-bodied runners. Whether this is due to his prostethics having some kind of spring-like effect or due to the lightness of the devices, I'm not sure.

I'm very much conflicted on this as emotionally, I am pulling for him. But in the cold light of day, I'm leaning towards him having an advantage. Even if he can't beat elite able bodied runners, someone else will come along who can.

spindles · 07-15-2007, 06:06 PM

the arguments about swim suits, tennis racquets etc. are also not relevant to this discussion. These sports have rules that govern what equipment is allowed and what isn't and every athlete has access to the same 'level' of equipment.

His only recourse to compete in running races with able bodied athletes should be without his prosthetic limbs (i.e. he should not be allowed to compete).

Similarly, I don't think the golf cart argument stacks up either. In local golf comps carts ARE allowed, though the majority of able bodied players choose not to use them. It really comes down to the PGA choosing whether to allow carts for everybody OR giving an exemption for this specific player. The benefit for a fit player is small. Having said all that, I would not allow the player special exemption to ride in a cart as it does provide an advantage. If an exemption was provided, I would expect his caddie to walk AND carry his bag as there is a clear advantage to a player whose caddie is not lugging a set of clubs around the course.

djtestudo · 07-15-2007, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Well, the second suggestion is just a strawman. No one is rationally suggesting that anyone amputate body parts to enhance their competitive advantage.

Athletes are willing to inject substances that give them a slight edge in performance, but also radically change their emotions, damage their bodies, impair their reproductive potential, and cut years or even decades off their lives. And, they are willing to do this even though they go into it with the previous knowledge, every legitimate governing body in sports is testing for those substances, and if discovered they can have their careers and reputations destroyed.

You don't think they would do something like this if they can get away with it?

Cynthetiq · 01-14-2008, 12:31 PM

Follow-up to the OP.

It looks like the International Association of Athletics Federations ruled that he has an unfair advantage.

Quote:

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-...la-home-center
From the Los Angeles Times
Double-amputee declared ineligible for Olympic competition
International track federation bans the South African sprinter from qualifying events for the Beijing Games, declaring that his prosthetic legs give him an unfair advantage.
From the Associated Press

11:08 AM PST, January 14, 2008

BRUSSELS, Belgium -- The IAAF ruled Monday that double-amputee sprinter Oscar Pistorius is ineligible to compete in the Beijing Olympics because his prosthetic racing legs give him a clear competitive advantage.

The International Association of Athletics Federations had twice postponed the ruling, but the executive Council said the South African runner's curved, prosthetic "Cheetah" blades were considered a technical aid in violation of the rules.

"As a result, Oscar Pistorius is ineligible to compete in competitions organized under IAAF rules," the IAAF said in a statement from Monte Carlo, Monaco.

Pistorius, known as the "blade runner," announced last week that he planned to appeal any adverse decision, including taking the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne, Switzerland.

Athletics South Africa said it would immediately apply the decision, further complicating Pistorius' future since he will not be able to set legal Olympic qualifying times in his own country.

"That's a huge blow," said Pistorius' manager, Peet Van Zyl. "He has been competing in South African abled-bodied competition for the past three years. At this stage it looks like he is out of any able-bodied event."

The decision was reached in an e-mail vote by the 27-member IAAF Council. The vote count was not disclosed but was believed to be unanimous.

The IAAF endorsed studies by German professor Gert-Peter Brueggemann, who conducted tests on the prosthetic limbs and said they give Pistorius a clear competitive advantage over able-bodied runners.

"An athlete using this prosthetic blade has a demonstrable mechanical advantage (more than 30 percent) when compared to someone not using the blade," the IAAF said.

The federation said Pistorius had been allowed to compete in some able-bodied events until now because his case was so unique that such artificial protheses had not been properly studied.

"We did not have the science," IAAF spokesman Nick Davies said. "Now we have the science. We are only interested in competitions that we govern."

Davies stressed the findings only covered Pistorius' specific blades and did not necessarily mean that all lesser-abled athletes would automatically be excluded.

The ruling does not affect Pistorius' eligibility for Paralympic events, in which he was a gold medalist in Athens in 2004.

"It's unfortunate because he could have boosted team athletics at the Olympics at Beijing, because he had the potential to qualify," said Leonard Chuene, president of Athletics South Africa.

Chuene said the federation would respect the ruling.

"There's not much we can do," he said. "It rules him out with immediate effect. We use the IAAF rule book. If we had our rules and our own competition, it would be easier. It is a huge problem."

Pistorius finished second in the 400 meters at the South African National Championships last year against able-bodied runners.

The runner worked with Brueggemann in Cologne for two days of testing in November to learn to what extent the j-shaped carbon-fiber extensions to his amputated legs differed from the legs of fully abled runners.

Brueggemann found that Pistorius was able to run at the same speed as able bodied runners on about a quarter less energy. He found that once the runners hit a certain stride, athletes with artificial limbs needed less additional energy than other athletes.

The professor found that the returned energy "from the prosthetic blade is close to three times higher than with the human ankle joint in maximum sprinting."

Based on these findings, the Council ruled against Pistorius.

The findings are contested by the Pistorius camp.

"Based on the feedback that we got, the general feeling was that there were a lot of variables that weren't taken into consideration and that all avenues hadn't been explored in terms of coming to a final conclusion on whether Oscar was getting some advantage or not," Van Zyl said. "We were hoping that they would reconsider and hopefully do some more tests."

The IAAF adopted a rule last summer prohibiting the use of any "technical aids" deemed to give an athlete an advantage over another.

Ossur, the Icelandic company which is a leader in the production of prosthetics, braces and supports and also made Pistorius' blades, has said the blades do not provide an edge over able-bodied athletes.

Pistorius has set world records in the 100, 200 and 400 in Paralympic events.

Pistorius was born without fibulas -- the long, thin outer bone between the knee and ankle -- and was 11 months old when his legs were amputated below the knee.

He began running competitively four years ago to treat a rugby injury, and nine months later won the 200 meters at the 2004 Paralympic Games in Athens.

Pistorius competed in the 400 at two international-level able-bodied meets in 2007. He finished second in a B race in 46.90 seconds at the Golden League meet in Rome on July 13 and, two days later, was disqualified for running out of his lane in Sheffield, England.

05-15-2007, 06:47 AM	#2 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	For the sake of intellectual honesty, let me state for the record that not only am I a track geek but that I've had this conversation numerous times over the past 15 years. Pistorious has an artificial advantage and should not be allowed to compete. Period. End of story. He actually has several advantages. First, the Dr. Gailey that's quoted as saying that a natural leg returns 240% of the energy needs to check his figures. The numbers he's using (I think) involves the comparison of the energy from the downward part of the stride compared to the upwards motion. Both involve large muscular movements. The "spring" is the muscles stretching and rebounding within the running stride and require large amounts of movement to acheive efficiently. What he's trying to say is that Pistorious is running on a superball while the able-bodied are running on jet packs. It's not a fair comparison at all. Second, and probably more importantly, Pistorious has huge weight advantage. It takes a lot less energy to move 200 lbs. up to 20 mph than it does 175 lbs - or 150 lbs. That's why the classic sprinter build is under 6'. Ben Johnson, who I mention because of his own competitive advantage problems, is closer to 5' 6". Dennis Green, my all-time favorite sprinter, is about 5' 8". I've met and spent time with both. The stride length issue would come more into play if Pistorius was a middle-distance or long-distance runner since efficiently adding 3" to a stride would cut 15 seconds off a 1500m time (same amount of energy expended with both strides). That's the difference between having the words "World Record Holder" and "Decent Division III Runner" in that event. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

05-15-2007, 08:11 AM	#7 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	A applaud his ability and desire - it is remarkable to have achieved what he has. But no, he can't compete in the regular Olympics until it is determined, beyond doubt, that his artificial limbs do not provide him with an advantage. Personally, I don't think they do - despite their lightness and springiness there's nothing like using the human foot and calf muscles to run. But I wouldn't chance it and spoil it for the other athletes. __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum.

05-15-2007, 09:01 AM	#10 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Comparing Pistorius to Casey Martin isn't entirely fair. I understand the USGA's argument that walking is a part of the game, and I even agree to some extent. However, it would be something entirely different if Martin were playing with spring-loaded prostetic arms or were allowed to shoot the balls from an arm-mounted cannon (although I for one would probably pay to see that). That's a much truer comparision to what's being proposed. I know we all hate "separate-but-equal", but there's really no other way to fairly stage certain events that deal in strength and speed. What if he wanted to use a narrow wheelchair? Where do you draw the line? __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

05-15-2007, 09:42 AM	#11 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	Good discussion and silly at the same time. The man has artificial legs. He is a construct of technology. While he may have the will and the determination, he is no faster than the technology he uses. He may be able to push more out of his technology, but the minute the technology is improved, he will be that much faster. By that means, his efforts may be honorable, but his eligibility to be judged against naturally-abled men is invalid. This has nothing to do with some homage to the perfection of the human body. That argument is pompous. __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals]

05-15-2007, 09:44 AM	#12 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	The idea that he has access to something that other sprinters do not is false. They have access to something he does not: natural legs. If they want his advantage they can always cut their legs off and get prosthetics. __________________ it's quiet in here

05-15-2007, 09:56 AM	#13 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	Maybe the runners with feet could get shoes with spring-loaded pogo stick attachments to lengthen their stride. Or maybe even the combustion powered spring shoes the Russian military was working on (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/...es.php?page=1). After all, the disabled fellow could get fitted for some too... __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

05-15-2007, 10:53 AM	#15 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I just want to say that I appreciate The_Jazz's learned contribution to this thread. I've learned quite a bit. Kudos!

05-15-2007, 11:40 AM	#17 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	The_Jazz You're right, I am joking about a bit, but you need to recognize that I did not say his missing legs were a disadvantage, just that others had access to something he did not. I acknowledge that these prosthetics give him an advantage. So your argument is that only an unmodified human can compete fairly? What if a guy was just missing his arms? He could run a lot faster with less weight, should he be barred from competing? ....shakran get out of my head, please. __________________ it's quiet in here Last edited by Kadath; 05-15-2007 at 11:41 AM.. Reason: Coincidence.

05-15-2007, 11:49 AM	#18 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	Based on your stated location, I would think you like it when everyone thinks and acts exactly as you do (obscure?)

05-15-2007, 12:29 PM	#19 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Oh I got the joke. I'm just a track geek. You've got to forgive me. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

05-15-2007, 03:16 PM	#21 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Ok - can I edit my posts to read "what healer said"? __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

05-16-2007, 06:04 AM	#25 (permalink)
sapiens Junkie Location: Some place windy	There aren't clear lines between an unfair competitive advantage and a legitimate use of a performance enhancing tool. I think that if you let an amputee sprinter compete in "normal" competition - an individual who is clearly differently equipped to run a race than any other competitor - you need to consider allowing other types of performance enhancing tools as well. My red blood cell count isn't as high as others. Should I be allowed to blood dope? Why not? It's not my fault and I work hard with my condition. I can't seem to build muscle naturally the way that other competitors can. Should I be allowed to use steroids. Why not? Why not make every performance enhancing tool fair game?

05-16-2007, 06:35 AM	#26 (permalink)
mandy Addict Location: Port Elizabeth, South Africa	But does the prosthetics enhance his performance? that is not proven. it is proven that steroids enhance performance...plus it's totally illegal. prosthetics are not, and neither are carbon fibre or ceramic framed tennis rackets, or drag free swim suits and caps. it is fair game that he can at least run, that he can at least have the use of both his legs by the usage of these prosthetics. __________________ The Imagination equips us to see a reality we have yet to create

05-16-2007, 08:39 AM	#28 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	Shakran, what I'm saying is that a castrato would not be hired to sing other voice parts. Castrati and tenors were acknowledged to be doing different things. The only equivalence I can think of here would be if there was a separate event for running with prostheses. Then the two situations would be kind of similar. At any rate, the analogy kind of breaks down in that one is a process/results oriented contest and the other is an artistic pursuit/job. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

05-16-2007, 01:43 PM	#29 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Mandy, let's leave aside the issue of whether or not the prosthetics actually give any sort of edge. I think I could concince you that they do but not without getting into some fairly technical issues that you're probably not interested in. One thing that's undeniable here is the weight issue. Because he has no legs and the materials used to make the prosthetics, Pistorious weighs significanly less than an able-bodied sprinter. Whenever you deal with acceleration sports, weight is key. Fake legs weigh less than real ones and impart an artificial disadvantage to the user. The longer the race, the greater the advantage. The rule I was taught in high school was that one ounce of savings equaled 50 lbs in a 1 mile race. Honestly I don't know if that's true or not, but with shoes, the idea is that each time you lift them, that 1 ounce acculates with each step. If you take 1600 steps per mile, that's a lot of weight. If Pistorious takes 100 steps in a 100m race but saves 25 lbs with carbon fiber legs, that's 2500 lbs that he doesn't have to carry that his able-bodied competitors have. As an aside, this theory is the reason that eating disorders are so prevalent among young female athletes. The last number I saw had 60% of all high school and college female distance runners suffering from some sort of disorder. The more successful the athlete, the more likely to have a disorder. Its sort of scarey. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

05-16-2007, 07:31 PM	#30 (permalink)
analog Banned	I can't figure out why anyone would debate this- it's not his body, it's a device. Everyone else is competing with their bodies, he is using a device. I don't care that he trains hard and whatnot- that's all well and good but means nothing since he uses a device instead of his body. It's not even a question, in my opinion.

05-17-2007, 04:04 AM	#31 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	analog: he is using a device in conjunction with his body. His muscles still do all the work, the 'device' is useless without him. That being said, I still don't disagree that this grants him an advantage. I just don't care that much. Superior genetics already granted him an advantage over, say, me. I could never beat him even if I trained as hard as he did for as long as he did and he had his legs. To my mind this is like putting a star next to Wilt Chamberlain's records because he was so much taller than everyone else who played the game at the time. That his advantage was 'natural' doesn't strike me as important (or even true, nothing natural about a person being 7' 1"). __________________ it's quiet in here

05-17-2007, 07:15 AM	#32 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	Kadath: That's an interesting view that I hadn't ever considered. I have never considered the legitimacy or "naturalness" of sports by whether I could hope to compete. I guess I thought that the records and competition were interesting because they signify what the human race is capable of at its extremes. That's my interest in purity - doping or drug use makes the competition moot because you are then dealing not with the extremes of human performance, but with the extremes of altered human performance. That said, in terms of defining the current situation, it doesn't seem like this guy is running in the sense that others are. He's just doing a different activity. If there was a track and field event in which athletes regularly wore prosthetics such as stilts or spring loaded shoes, then I'd probably think that the activities were comparable. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

05-17-2007, 09:02 PM	#34 (permalink)
Vincentt Addict Location: Tokyo, Japan	Hehe, I could use a bike in conjunction with my body and win all the golds. __________________ .

05-18-2007, 05:18 AM	#35 (permalink)
guthmund big damn hero	^^ Except in the hurdles. __________________ No signature. None. Seriously.

05-18-2007, 05:39 AM	#36 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	There's no penalty for hitting hurdles. You could just mow them down. __________________ it's quiet in here

07-15-2007, 05:41 PM	#37 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	So, Pistorius as of this week has run two races against able-bodied athletes. He finished 2nd in the B final in Italy (so against less able bodied runners, guys who likely won't make the Olympics) and was trailing badly and either got a DNF or DQ against an elite field in Sheffield, England. Having now seen him run, my impression is: A) he isn't likely to ever be fast enough to do any damage against elite able-bodied athletes. B) he still should not be allowed to compete. He starts very slowly, but it is obvious that once he builds up a head of steam, he can go as fast or faster than able-bodied runners. Whether this is due to his prostethics having some kind of spring-like effect or due to the lightness of the devices, I'm not sure. I'm very much conflicted on this as emotionally, I am pulling for him. But in the cold light of day, I'm leaning towards him having an advantage. Even if he can't beat elite able bodied runners, someone else will come along who can. __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum.

07-15-2007, 06:06 PM	#38 (permalink)
spindles Mine is an evil laugh Location: Sydney, Australia	the arguments about swim suits, tennis racquets etc. are also not relevant to this discussion. These sports have rules that govern what equipment is allowed and what isn't and every athlete has access to the same 'level' of equipment. His only recourse to compete in running races with able bodied athletes should be without his prosthetic limbs (i.e. he should not be allowed to compete). Similarly, I don't think the golf cart argument stacks up either. In local golf comps carts ARE allowed, though the majority of able bodied players choose not to use them. It really comes down to the PGA choosing whether to allow carts for everybody OR giving an exemption for this specific player. The benefit for a fit player is small. Having said all that, I would not allow the player special exemption to ride in a cart as it does provide an advantage. If an exemption was provided, I would expect his caddie to walk AND carry his bag as there is a clear advantage to a player whose caddie is not lugging a set of clubs around the course. __________________ who hid my keyboard's PANIC button?