I remember hearing about this before, and I forget if it was Oscar Pistorius, but I know the prosthetic legs were called Cheetas.
I remember being impressed with his response to a question asking if his prosthetic legs gave him an unfair advantage. It was something like this (I'm paraphrasing here):
"If you think they're an unfair advantage, then why aren't there more runners who cut off their legs and use them?"
Do you think that's a valid point? And what does this mean for other prosthetic athletes?
quote: Pistorius...has yet to match the automatic qualifying time for the 2008 Olympics
So maybe they're not as much of an advantage as they're made out to be, I just don't know.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
i dont know how i feel about this. today this might not be an advantage, but tomorrow it could be. what do you do when someone with artificial limbs wins an event? in that case, you might have a lot of people feel that it gave an unfair advantage. Will the olympics of the future be for regular as-is humans, or to see what the best we can possibly do by adding technology? I feel the IAAF has made their choice.
Posts: 813 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the runner's argument is pretty silly. There's a lot of things I could do that would further my career, but that I'm unwilling to do because of the negative side effects.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was hoping to have the lower-half of my body grafted onto a motorcycle so I could finally win all those Marathons. Thrice damned luddites!
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is a slippery slope. I agree with the decision made, although, it does suck for the athlete.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:"If you think they're an unfair advantage, then why aren't there more runners who cut off their legs and use them?"
Do you think that's a valid point? And what does this mean for other prosthetic athletes?
No, I don't think that's a valid point, because the answer isn't nearly as clear-cut as he's making it sound.
Many runners might not be cutting off their own legs because:
Winning a race isn't worth disfiguring themselves. They know that they'll get disqualified if they use prosthetics. They don't realize that prosthetics would give them an advantage. They don't think that such an advantage would be fair.
----
They've got to draw the line somewhere, and this seems the sanest place to draw it.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So I guess the burden of proof is on the athlete then, to show that the artificial legs do not give him an unfair advantage. That makes sense, although, as brojack said, it does suck for the athlete.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
but if they allow it, then future athletes could argue that it was allowed before, why not now? i agree with the decision as well.
Posts: 813 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:"If you think they're an unfair advantage, then why aren't there more runners who cut off their legs and use them?"
I think this comment shows that he doesn't really take the concerns seriously or does not understand why people may be concerned about the ramifications of allowing people with prosthetics to compete in the Olympics.
I don't even think it sucks that much for the athletes. There are plenty of ways to have a fulfilling life without competing in the Olympics. It's not like he's being denied any basic rights - he just isn't being permitted to compete with people who have a substantially different leg architecture.
It's not even a matter of having an advantage or not - it's a matter of like vs like. We don't tend to race motorcycles against NASCAR cars or horses against dogs. We race similar configurations of vehicles/animals/people so we can see who can get the most out of similar equipment. It just isn't interesting, except for novelty's sake, to race different configurations against each other and allowing it ultimately dilutes the competition's value.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: It's not even a matter of having an advantage or not - it's a matter of like vs like. We don't tend to race motorcycles against NASCAR cars or horses against dogs. We race similar configurations of vehicles/animals/people so we can see who can get the most out of similar equipment. It just isn't interesting, except for novelty's sake, to race different configurations against each other and allowing it ultimately dilutes the competition's value.
quote:I think this comment shows that he doesn't really take the concerns seriously or does not understand why people may be concerned about the ramifications of allowing people with prosthetics to compete in the Olympics.
I think this will eventually spell doom for the Olympics. It hasn't been a case of "like against like" for some time now, and will only get less so in the coming decades.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, they ought to have an all-drug, all-bionic, all whatever-performance-enhancement-you-can-come-up-with Extra Special Olympics. It'd be extra cool!
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whynot? The first video claims a running speed as a beginner of 25miles/40kilometres per hour: close to the highest peak running speed achieved by a human. Two engineers designed the first similar system as a more robust version specificly tuned for running. And claimed to have achieved speeds of nearly 45mph/72kph.....which they eventually decided was too dangerous to market.
posted
I'm torn on this, because since when have prosthetic legs ever been considered an "enhancement"? For pretty much all of human history, people without legs would have been laughed out of the stadium, if they managed to get in at all. Now, finally, someone's in a position to actually compete, and he's not allowed because he might be too good?
But then maybe it does give him an unfair advantage.
I don't know. I'd be inclined to see how he does in qualifying races and go from there. Has it got that far yet, or has just been flat out denied?
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would it be illegal for people with functioning legs to strap carbon-fiber stilts on and run that way? I'm assuming the answer is yes.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hook a pneumatic lift up to Stephen Hawking's wheelchair, and let him compete in the weight lifting competitions.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
MightyCow, that's different. Pistorius' legs don't do all of the work for him. He still uses his upper legs and trains just like everyone else. The Cheetas are meant to replace a part of his body that is missing (i.e. ankles and lower legs) and if it can be shown that they provide the same function, then there are more or less equivalent. Hawking's Weight Lifting Machine does not need Hawking to do anything except pushing a button, in fact, he could do it remotely from the sidelines.
I'm not sure if it was a serious comparison, because there are clear differences in these two situations.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: It's not even a matter of having an advantage or not - it's a matter of like vs like. We don't tend to race motorcycles against NASCAR cars or horses against dogs. We race similar configurations of vehicles/animals/people so we can see who can get the most out of similar equipment. It just isn't interesting, except for novelty's sake, to race different configurations against each other and allowing it ultimately dilutes the competition's value.
I think this is very good point. It is, as others have pointed out, very unfortunate for the athlete. I'm guessing that it will be a long time before athletes with prosthetic limbs are ever allowed into the Olympics. Not only do we have to wait until the quality of prosthetics improve but, after that, we will have to standardize competition model prosthetics (all athletes would have to use the same prosthetic model to avoid unfair advantages).
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The differences in support, power, and mobility between different models of prosthetic legs are likely to be much more pronounced than the differences between different models of shoes.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think bike racing offers a very good comparison. The UCI regulates what types of bicycles are acceptable for different kinds of races. People who are involved in innovative design of human powered vehicles are always complaining about it but in truth, unless the types of vehicles permissible in the races is regulated, the race becomes about who has the best technology and not about human physical performance.
Technology races are interesting too, but they are a fundamentally different type of competition.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Hook a pneumatic lift up to Stephen Hawking's wheelchair, and let him compete in the weight lifting competitions.
You know, the more I think about it, the more I think I'd like to see that.
And perhaps we can also have a competition where jocks attempt to explain the esoterica of astrophysics.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then ya get to the ridiculous such as mens tennis, where equipment changes have made it sose ya never hafta learn how to play the game. All the winner needs is an ability to hit the ball hard once per serve.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
aspectre, it took me a few tries to understand "sose ya never hafta," but I got it now.
I can see a competition similar to Battlebots, where...let's say runners...were allowed to use any type of technology, as long as it doesn't have its own power supply and needs to be bipedal. Cheetas and roller blading would be allowed, but bicycling wouldn't. Rocket Powered roller skates would be out, but those jumping stilts aspectre linked to would.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that the runner with a prostetic leg pretty clearly falls into the amputee category for competing in the Paralympic Games, so I'm not sure what the big fuss is about. (Note that this is completely different than the Special Olympics, and the Quad Rugby team will have harsh words with you if you confuse the two.)
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Then ya get to the ridiculous such as mens tennis, where equipment changes have made it sose ya never hafta learn how to play the game. All the winner needs is an ability to hit the ball hard once per serve.
quote:"If you think they're an unfair advantage, then why aren't there more runners who cut off their legs and use them?"
Do you think that's a valid point? And what does this mean for other prosthetic athletes?
I think he's being sarcastic. I mean come on, does anyone really think he cut off his legs on purpose? If this is an issue of fairness to the other competitors, his argument is valid, because it's considerably more unfair to him to have to live without legs.
I'd say let him compete on a demonstration basis at least. If it reaches a point when amputees are consistently outrunning limbed athletes, THEN you can worry about whether it's fair or not.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel a bit callous for saying so, but my initial reaction is for him to not be allowed to compete in the Olympics. Generally everyone in the Olympics is the same. They all have the same body parts, the same physical make up. At that point it's a matter of dedication, natural gifts, in some events a certain inherent artistic ability, etc.
No offense to the athelete, but isn't this why we have the Paralympics? Honest question. It just doesn't strike me as fair, and I know that's UNfair to the athelete himself, but, that's sort of the way it goes.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd make a deal with him. Since he doesn't think that prosthetics give him an unfair advantage, if he was willing to switch to the older versions of prosthetics (that many people still wear to this day) that actually simulate the structure and function of the human leg, I would be willing to let him compete. I think that's fair.
What's that? The other racers would then have an advantage over him? Well, that's EXACTLY what the paralympics were invented for.
Posts: 23 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: But in the four years since he started competing, he has set Paralympic world records in the 100, 200 and 400 meters and it was his dream to compete in the Olympic Games.
If the paralympics were invented to make it competitive for those who do not have the physical or mental capacity to compete in the Olympics, and then someone transcends the paralympics, where else is he or she to go (or try to go) besides the Olympics?
It just seems to me that he's getting the short end of the stick just because there are unknowns associated with his technology and his abilities.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel like a competition should be between people who are equal. It is unfair to the disabled to be forced to compete against the able-bodied and unfair for the able-bodied to be put against people who may have an advantage. I guess the argument could come if his prosthetic legs are just as powerful as normal legs, but it also seems that you could test whether that was really the case.
Regardless, the two are not equal in SOME way, whether it be fatigue on that lower leg, elastic of the prosthetic. Unless it can be shown definitively that his prosthetics don't give him an advantage, it seems that they shouldn't compete.
Posts: 655 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And yet the fact remains that he would be a wild card in the race if he were to join the actual Olympics. Just looking at the prosthetics, I think they give an advantage (and the science seems like it might bear that out), an unfair one that can't be had just by a different training regimen or the very best shoes that money can buy. It's the sort of advantage that we outlaw performance enhancing drugs for.
He's unencumbered by a lot of limitations that regular human bodies have in a race.
I'm sorry that he gets the short end of the stick on this one, but sometimes life just isn't fair. And I don't particularly think this is fair either, but I think letting him compete against the others would be more unfair to them. It's a case of picking the lesser of two evils.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But he hasn't even qualified yet for the Olympics, so the prosthetic legs aren't giving him that much of an advantage. If he did qualify and then did exceed the top times of the able-bodied athletes, then a decision should be made. Or if there was enough evidence to prove that his legs could outperform the natural ankle and muscle system that able-bodied runners have, then there would also be the basis for a decision.
But until then, I think disqualification is premature.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, and I should be paid $27,708,525 per year to play for the Yankees until I have enough years in to prove that I'll never match AlexRodriguez in performance.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Starsnuffer: It is unfair to the disabled to be forced to compete against the able-bodied and unfair for the able-bodied to be put against people who may have an advantage.
So which is he, disabled or advantaged? His prosthetics remove the disability, but he is dis-abled all over again when he's barred from competing.
Really, since he hasn't made a qualifying time yet, I don't understand the fuss. The prosthetics haven't given him a superhuman advantage, it seems to me, or he'd already have met the time.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unless he really just sucks that much. To be fair, they could be giving him a pretty great advantage, but if he was never really good enough to begin with, the advantage wouldn't matter much would it?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm disadvantaged in comparison to AlexRodriguez. However, a baseball bat with a modified tennis racket head could help me overcome that disablement. And it's totally unfair that the Yankees haven't signed me on.
It'd take about a week after being allowed in the qualifiers for an engineer to produce a set of jumping stilts capable of vastly exceeding the running speed of any technologically unenhanced human.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Olympics is about showing human potential and achievement. If a person succeeds or fails based on the quality of his gear, it's no longer about the human, it's about the technology. While that's very cool, it's not the Olympics.
Should a swimmer with no feet be allowed to attach scuba fins?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: But in the four years since he started competing, he has set Paralympic world records in the 100, 200 and 400 meters and it was his dream to compete in the Olympic Games.
If the paralympics were invented to make it competitive for those who do not have the physical or mental capacity to compete in the Olympics, and then someone transcends the paralympics, where else is he or she to go (or try to go) besides the Olympics?
The same place that people who transcend the Olympics go to: nowhere . He's just got to accept that he's the best in his field. Like Lance Armstrong. This isn't Major league/minor league, this isn't heavy weight/middle weight; this is olympics/paralympics, and the reason that athletes don't cut off their own legs is because they want to compete in the former.
Posts: 23 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Yeah, and I should be paid $27,708,525 per year to play for the Yankees until I have enough years in to prove that I'll never match AlexRodriguez in performance.
This comparison is grossly unfair. As Pistorius put it
quote:“I feel that it is my responsibility, on behalf of myself and all other disabled athletes, to stand firmly and not allow one organization to inhibit our ability to compete using the very tools without which we simply cannot walk, let alone run. I will not stand down.”
Pistorius needs his prosethetics simply to walk at all and not solely so he can compete at the highest levels. To compare his situation to those of us who are "disadvantaged" only when compared to elite athletes is a gross injustice. The line between those who need prosthetics to function in the basic human tasks that all able bodied humans enjoy and able bodied humans who might use a prosthetic to enhance their abilities is quite clear. The line between those who have undergone surgery to treat a disease, birth defect or severe injury and those who undergo surgery to enhance their looks or abilities is rarely blurry at all. Our society deals with this issues all the time.
The slope isn't as slippery as is claimed. We have developed and accepted definitions of "legal blindness" which allow individuals to receive special assistance if their best corrected vision is worse than an established standard. And even though some people naturally see better than 20/20, there hasn't been any sliding in the standard nor have there been people demanding special assistance because their vision is only correctable to 20/20.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Serious work needs to be done to determine which prosthetics, if any, could grant an advantage. We have all kinds of technology; there's no reason we can't come up with specifications for which prosthetics reasonably approximate a human body part.
As an aside, if I were an Olympic sprinter, I might worry about the damage one of those legs could do to mine if I were running next to that guy and an accident occurred. Unlikely, probably, but still worth considering.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:"This decision has nothing to do with Oscar Pistorius' athletic merits. What is important is to ensure fair competition," the IOC said in a statement.
quote:Brueggemann found that Pistorius was able to run at the same speed as able-bodied runners on about a quarter less energy.
quote:The professor determined that the returned energy from the prosthetic blade is "close to three times higher than with the human ankle joint in maximum sprinting."
It looks like his racing blades do give him significant advantages and should be banned. The Olympics shouldn't be about who can create the greatest mechanical advantage over their competitors.
Posts: 175 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
