Slashdot Mirror
Prosthetic-Limbed Runner Disqualified from Olympic Games
contraba55 wrote with a link to an Engadget story on a sign of the postmodern times. Oscar Pistorius, a world-class sprinter, has been denied a shot at participating in the Olympics this year. He's a double-amputee, but he's not out because of his handicap; he's disqualified because he's faster than most sprinters. "The runner — who uses carbon-fiber, prosthetic feet — was reviewed by the International Association of Athletics Federations (or IAAF), a review which found the combination of man and machine to be too much for its purely human competitors. According to the IAAF report, the 'mechanical advantage of the blade in relation to the healthy ankle joint of an able bodied athlete is higher than 30-percent.' Additionally, Pistorius uses 25-percent less energy than average runners due to the artificial limbs, therefore giving him an unfair advantage on the track."
I bet he's kicking himself now
I stole this sig from a more creative user.
This is the first time I've heard of a handicapped person being discriminated against because they're too good. As someone who's hard of hearing, I find 99% of bias against me coming from the fact that I'm not good enough.
i am a soviet space shuttle
The runner wasn't disqualified. The artificial limbs he had been using were prohibited.
It's still possible for the runner to compete, so long as he does not use equipment that gives him an unfair advantage.
paintball
I hear the OSI is hiring people with special abilities...ask for Oscar Goldman.
I bet that if he would have been allowed to compete some athletes would have been tempted to have certain parts of their bodies amputated and replace with more efficient artificial parts.
The 'blade' does look like a spring. When he's just walking around, one can see him bouncing up and donw a bit. So this seems reasonable. He might qualify if he used a different prosthetic technology. I just hope athletes don't start thinking about replacing their naturla legs to get 'a leg up'!
based on what they found.
I think Steve Austin wuold qualify either.
OTOH, I would love to see an olympic event with much looser rules. As long as your reasonable human shaped and stand on two upright units thet must me lifted up for movement.
.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I am a transhumanist--behind it all the way. Stories like this trivialize the serious nature of transhumanism. It's not about implanting a bike or something. It's about the relief of suffering, and the unlocking of our true abilities. Read Kurzweil's latest books. Go to Transworld or the Singularity Summit. Betterhumans.com is growing in quality. Sentientdevelopments.blogspot.com feature George Dvorsky, an experienced thinker and speaker. The wise atheists among us don't need to be told the obvious--that our disabled are quickly become our first transhumans. The real developments await.
He isn't disqualified because he is faster (he isn't faster than the fast guys) its because he is more efficient. What this means is that in a 400m race he has more energy coming down the last straight than the competition does which is clearly unfair.
The only real surprise is that he hadn't worked this out and competed at the 800m, 1500m or even the 5,000m as that efficiency would really pay off.
Its an artificial aid in the same was a drugs are or riding a bike would be. Its unfortunate for the chap but its the right decision, otherwise you might as well let Marion Jones back in with a terminator suit and a jet-pack.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
SO "According to the IAAF report, the 'mechanical advantage of the blade in relation to the healthy ankle joint of an able bodied athlete is higher than 30-percent.' Additionally, Pistorius uses 25-percent less energy than average runners due to the artificial limbs, therefore giving him an unfair advantage on the track."
I guess I won't be needing these anymore.
Let him run, his "disability" resulted in the amputation of his legs at only 11 months old iirc. If others want to compete - they can make the choice of cutting off their legs in order to compete on the same level... :)
What I do find very interesting is how more effecient these are compared to normal human legs, surely we could so something similar with specialised running shoes/attachments ?
How would the Olympics make it fair for him to compete? Either he's too fast with the new artificial leg and he can't compete or they could tell him to use a leg that isn't as good and then he may not be fast enough.
for people just like him?
It'd be unfair either way, for him or for the normal athletes.
The summary and the truth are far from the same....
He's not out because he's "too fast"
He's out because his specific prosthetic lower legs and feet have less wind resistance than normal legs, return WAY more energy per stride than normal legs, and offer him what amounts to a competitive advantage over other runners.
If he wants to compete, he's free to do so, just not with those specific prosthesis.
He can submit others to the Committee for acceptance all day long.
This is no different than the way the olympic committee judges the use of certain swimsuits, softball bats, or any other equipment in use during the Olympics.
If you allowed a amputees who became superior athletes after their injuries to participate in the olympics and they began winning, everyone would start cutting off their legs.
Does anyone know of any downside to lopping your legs off below the knee and "installing" a pair of these?
I know someone who's feet and ankle bones are fusing/disintegrating, why shouldn't they look forward to this?
We have the technology. We have the capability to build the world's first bionic man. Oscar Pistorius will be that man. Better than he was before. Better, stronger, faster.
Actually, the guy is amazing, but he is not that fast, in spite of the supposed advantage (and contrary to the FA). I think the IOC doesn't want to set a precedent. His times are comparable to 1920's world records for 100m, 200m and 400m, which is still pretty damn good ! (look up wikipedia for all details). I'm not sure what the qualifying times are for the olympics, but I'm not positive he would make them.
Of course he is also the world record holder in these 3 distances in the paralympics.
I think the far more important question is...
Where can I get some of those carbon fiber feet?!
Even if I just get a smaller version that fit over my shoes, I could walk a lot faster, lessen strain on my joints, jog farther and more efficiently, and slam dunk like nobody's business. Also, I would be taller.
It seems like this would be good technology to work into a soldier's exoskeleton, too.
For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
Is this really that different from just putting him behind the wheel of a car? We would be looking at 0 to 100 meters in ~ 4 seconds upwards of 75mph while the other runners were not even halfway down the track. A preemptive comment regarding those who say it is not human powered. Fine, put him in a bicycle and watch the records fall.
what if they gave him legs that weren't as good, making the advantage negligible?
CORPORATION, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.
I remember back when I was on crutches, I was amazed at how quickly I could go fairly long distances with very little energy expenditure. Basically, you keep your arms stiff, stick the crutches in front of you and swing between them. I would zip by people on the sidewalk and about all it cost in terms of energy was bringing the crutches from behind me to in front of me. In terms of endurance, I could definitely go further at a quick pace on the crutches than I could on just my feet.
Clearly the prosthetic legs provide similar advantages. A fair race would be between this guy and people with similar prosthetic devices, but it would be completely unfair to let him compete against people without the same advantage. That's not to say that having to have your legs amputated is a good thing and I'm sure there are some pretty serious drawbacks. But for a contest like this, it's simply unfair.
I wonder how long it will be before cybernetic sports become a reality?
I mean, think about it. Soccer can be a rough sport but it's nothing compared to American Football. The game is faster and rougher and vastly supported (and in my opinion enhanced) by technology (helmets, pads, shoes, etc). But that would be nothing if players were augmented in such a way to play faster / better / stronger.
Granted, most athletes won't cut their feet off for speed enhancing powers a prosthetic might bestow just yet, but how far off are we from seeing "cybersports" develop and shift into the mainstream?
crazy dynamite monkey
First of all, he got trashed in a race against olympic caliber sprinters earlier this year. Second, as one of the previous posts pointed out, his cyborg legs were disqualified not him. If he grows new legs, he's in. Third, there are at least two problems that led to the disqualification of the prosthetics, 1. the prosthetics provide less air resistance and second, they enable the wearer to reverse his energy efficiency; meaning that he is faster at the end of the race than at the beginning. Human sprinters are usually slower at the end of the race. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=trackandfield&id=2937538 http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/trackandfield/news/story?id=2938043
We willna be fooled again!
http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/olympic_runners_feeling ____
clothing!
Return to the day when Olympic athletes competed naked.
Two days ago my fiancee and I were watching TV and a commercial came on which depicted a female runner with one prosthetic, carbon fiber leg. I turned to her and said, "that's not fair, she'll have an advantage." She asked why and I proceeded to explain that the artificial leg would cause less strain on her body while "normal" runners might be starting to fatigue. She however did not agree. Let's just say the moment I saw this story, I had to tell her right away and prove that a man, in fact, can be right about something.
Technogly gives unfair advantage ;-)
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
Barry Bonds testified today before a Congressional committee that he had never used performance-enhancing double-amputation prosthetic-limb-replacement surgery, in accordance with MLB policy.
He then bounded over the table and out the door at 40mph.
The enemies of Democracy are
He could just go to the Special Olympics and whomp everyone else there.
Should people with longer legs be disqualified for the same reason?
So:
... they might be on to something here. If they did arms too, and there was no loss of motor control... like that guy said in response to someone asking "why," why not?
- less energy consumption
- less load on various blood processing organs
- better performance
- lightweight
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
Sometimes I think sports should have Open Class and Stock Class. Stock Class athletes would be required to compete with a standard human body -- no enhancing drugs, no springy feet, etc. Open Class athletes could use anything they wanted: prosthetics, drugs, whatever.
:-/
There is a down side to Open Class...
"And it's one minute to go... 'Wild Man Jones' is injecting his final enhancers... whoa, look at those convulsions! And there's the bell... they're off and running, except for Jones. Guess those latest enhancers were still Beta-test quality, heh heh... oh wait, he stopped moving. Yikes, look at that head explode! I haven't seen anything like this since I watched Scanners!"
Of course sometimes I think the above would make sports MORE popular.
Should we limit the training time athletes may invest? After all, you shouldn't have to destroy your career to have a chance at winning (these are, after all, supposed to be amature athletes).
It's time to take the gloves off. Let the Olympics be a spectacle of what the human form (which intrinsically includes human technology) can do. Bring on the biotech!
We have the technology... will be better than he was before. Better, stronger, faster, and illegal.
Aljazeera English did an interesting piece on him about a year ago:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=d17vqoH9Xfs/
Clap skates become popular in the late 1990s because they had an advantage over the traditional skates, and now nearly all speedskaters use them. Why did the IOC allow them to use it, but the IAAF prevent him from using his prosthetics? Could it be argued that skates who use clap skates have a technical advantage over those who choose not to?
While I may agree somewhat with Pistorius's disqualification, it is also important to note that his personal record for the 400m is well short of the automatic qualifying time.
As an amputee myself, I can tell you this is pure bullshit. There is no mechanical advantage. There are no super robo-cop attachments to give any sort superhuman powers. If there were, believe me, I'd have them, as I've stayed on the cutting edge of technology throughout my prostheses. The "finish line" for the tech is still to replicate a normal foot, it's not there yet, let alone past it.
This is pure whining, the olympics are a corrupt political joke. Someone simply payed them to DQ an athlete on some technicality.
If the man can run faster than his peers it would be a miracle. The fact that he can compete with them is amazing.
The IOC should be ashamed, but if they were remotely capable of this, they would have committed suicide en masse years ago.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
"...prove that a man, in fact, can be right about something, for now."
There you go, fixed it.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Special olympics are for mentally disabled athletes.
He could however compete in the Paralympics which are geared towards physical disabilities such as amputees or blind people. They are held in the same year and same city as the regular olympics. The one catch with the paralympics is that because there are so many classifications disabilities they have to rotate through which type gets to compete each year. Think: you couldn't very well have someone missing a leg and a half swimming against someone only missing a foot. I can't remember exactly how many classifications of amputees there are but I think there are enough that an athlete might only get to compete in one Paralympics that falls into their particular condition.
And I suppose PitchBot 9000 was just a modified Howitzer?
There are 01 kinds of cars in the world. The General Lee, and everything else.
This is what you get for hiring the wrong engineers.
They rebuild you too good, too strong, too fast.
Seriously, if ONLY he had done some proper cost-cutting, he wouldn't have this problem.
This is the problem with engineering today. You guys are so focused on doing things right that you don't realize the value of failure.
That's my motto. Fail early, Fail often, and then eventually fix your Failures.
If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
FWIW, how long will it be until the special olympics where people can use prosthetics surpasses the regular ones? Hat tip to GitS: SAC (Official Site).
You deserve to be modded as troll or, better yet, banned for starting the myminicity spam.
There are.
The actual question is :
Do you have enough money to give away in order to make sure that, depending on your side,
- either your adversary will get "assigned" to "random screenings"
- or that your "random screening" will come back negative ?
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Those prosthetic legs look fairly high tech; they probably did cost six (6) million dollars, although I suppose that would be a bargain given the going rate for government projects these days.
I'm sure he'll be able to spring back from this. He's not the type to just take a knee.
"Teach a man to build a fire, and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life."
First, why he uses prosthetics isn't the issue. It doesn't matter how you came across the advantage, or even *why*. An unfair advantage is unfair. When asthmatics started competing well in Biathalon, other competitors started coming down with asthma, and taking beta blockers to reduce attacks. And also slow the heart rate to improve shooting accuracy. Darned if those crazy asthmatics didn't ruin it for everyone else, huh? I wonder if an asthmatic can even compete any more, of if they need a lifetime record of their disease to get the IOC to accept them, Albuterol and all.
Second, while most anyone can get a set of limbs like this runner has, actually they can't without significant sacrifice, ie, amuptation. The IOC should, for the sake of decency, not permit that. Speed skaters only had to buy a pair of clapper skates - the barrier was either money or a willing supplier, neither of which was as expensive nor life-altering as amputation for sprinters. Cyclists go through this a lot, with new equipment and all. IIRC, the NBA may have banned a certain Nike sneaker because it assisted jumping too much. Yes, define 'too much'. the IOC has.
Now, if the running community can come up with a similar prosthesis designed for non-amputees that offers the same or nearly equal advantage, then the IOC has an interesting, but easy decision to make. No. The solution isn't to give everyone else some mechanical advantage. It's to resign ourselves to the reality that life is so unfair that a dual amputee needs to use a less effecient prosthetic to compete fairly. And that way lies so much trouble. It becomes some sad exercise in statistics, engineering, and the frustation of figuring out what 'fair' is.
We know fair doesn't include using drugs. And it may not even include using hypobaric chambers to enhance training, someday. It involves runners using the same basic equipment (their natural body, shoes available to all, etc).
I wish this guy could compete. No doubt he will go back and have the limbs redesigned to be more equal to natural limbs. Then he might get a fair shake from the IOC. I hope they let him compete on equal terms.
ps- If he got waxed by Olympic-caliber sprinters with the 'hot' limbs, that doesn't really change anything. It may be that he's not that good, but let him in and surely some runner will say they should be allowed to wear a prosthesis. And another. Chaos. Pure chaos.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
What they really need to do is time someone, cut off their legs, and them give them prosthetics's. That would prove once and for all that they aren't an advantage. Missing 30% of your leg muscle more than makes up for a 30% mechanical advantage.
what sig?
Ok, then, the Olympics can have a race for amputees and a race for non-amputees. He can compete in the former.
I really don't understand why this is an argument given the science behind the ruling. If he used the exact same amount of energy running with the prosthetics as a regular runner and the exact same speeds or slower could be a achieved (admittedly this would be hard to test), then sure, he should have the same shot as non-amputees. But the numbers are different. So, out of fairness to the competitors, he can't.
There are such devices that provide a similar energy storage/release benefit.
http://www.powerskip.de/photogallery.html
http://www.poweriser.cn/pictures.asp
As you can see, they are designed for entertainment; but it is entirely conceivable that they could be tuned to improve running speed.
The third world will be happy to hear about this, but winter Olympic participation might see some shrinkage.
You can't take the sky from me...
I intended to enter the marathon but for some reason they didn't consider a motorbike to be a suitable prosthetic. It's an outrage I say!
How we know is more important than what we know.
I'm a distance runner. I love to run and I'm pretty fast. I also like to compete. The problem comes when you start having to decide what "fair" means. Is it fair for this guy not to be able to compete? Is it fair to give him an advantage in one aspect of biomechanics since he's at a disadvantage in others?
Sports in many ways are doomed. Nothing's fair - environmental and genetic factors outside of one's control determine so much. For me, I run because it makes me feel good. I compete as a means to beating my own previous best. It's a romantic thought that sports are somehow fair and that winning comes solely from dedication and drive, but it's far from reality.
I have no idea if this guy should be allowed to compete. It doesn't sound like he's fast enough to change the final placings. In the end, the most important aspect of him trying to race is that his case will help decide the fate of a number of other runners with different, but similar, stories. I, for one, just hope he keeps competing for himself and doesn't let this rejection sour him on running altogether. In the end, everyone gets slow...I like to think I'll enjoy competing in some sort of sports for the rest of my life.
I've got to start by saying that it's pretty damned cool that prosthetics have advanced to the point where they could be considered an unfair advantage over unmodified humans.
But I can see why he isn't being allowed to compete in this event - it's not a fair comparison of skill and training. Perhaps it would make better sense to open a new division of the race for (for lack of a better term) "modified human" competitors. Define some fairly broad range of prostheses that are allowed in this division, and have a competition there. And then watch over the years until the day that the world record in that division beats the world record in the unmodified division; it sounds like one hell of a challenge, both for the athletes and for the engineers trying to design their prostheses. Not to mention that such a competitive division would likely have significant fringe benefits for people living with prosthetic limbs who aren't also Olympic athletes...
Does anyone know of any downside to lopping your legs off below the knee and "installing" a pair of these?
It's hard to write a response to a comment like this. On the one hand, it _seems_ that most people would generally rather prefer to use their original equipment, rather than replacing it. The advantages of their natural legs are many: you're probably used to using them; less likelihood of infection; no phantom-limb problems; fewer strange looks in public; less maintenance beyond what's standard for the rest of your body; and I'm sure there are others. Wiggling your toes.
You can of course point to situations where most of these "advantages" of natural legs can be mitigated without necessarily losing the limb. Some people are more infection-prone to begin with; some people probably get strange looks. Anecdotally, my mother had a leg-stretching device (an Ilizarov device) on her leg for what seemed to me (and I'm sure to her as well) to be a very long time, and she had many of those problems listed above. However, given the choice between fixing her own leg or having it removed and replaced with one of these, I'm positive she would go with the former, even knowing as she does now what it would entail.
Besides that, given that a person has healthy legs to start with, no ethical doctor would remove them just so they could be replaced. And I'm sure people with unhealthy legs or feet would look forward to the day they could have their healthy legs back again, rather than anticipating the day they could replace them with something better. I'm sure, though, that there probably are people who are excited about the potential to adopt developments like these, but I would expect those would be people who are afflicted with congenital conditions or who are otherwise unable to have completely functional "normal" legs. By and large, most of us are probably better off with what we have now.
How about I replace my penis with a mechanical vibrator? I bet I can get laid more that way.
He's really been banned because his carbon footprint is too large! ;-)
Unfortunate ad placement.
TFA says that they can't use: "any technical device that incorporates springs, wheels or any other element that provides the user with an advantage over another athlete not using such a device."
So, ban shoes, then.
So he should be barred from competing, so it's fair to me.
How long until this isn't spectacular anymore? Technology becomes more and more powerful every day, we'll soon see artificial "aids" that surpass the original in performance. It will most likely not endure the perpetual stress of the 70something years that our original parts can perform, but they will make us faster, better, stronger than our body is.
When you allow those "artificial" parts to become part of the olympic culture, you'll soon see the olympics becoming the tests of the various nations' ability to crank out "better" replacement limbs, organs and other body parts, with the athlet merely being some sort of "pilot" in that artificial body.
Believe me, athlets and even more some countries are insane when it comes to olympic gold. They would do it in pursuit of that shiny medal. Personally, I'm all for some olympic games for "mechanized" people (and I'm fairly sure we'll soon see them outmatch the "all human" athlets by magnitudes), but leave the olympics alone.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
this gets dicey.
do you have double amputee and single amputee divisions?
what if one team can afford better prosthetics?
then it becomes more of a formula one competition, doesn't it? or will it become more like tour de france?
or, what if one runner has more shin on a leg, so the prosthetic is less efficient than the other runner? are there divisions for types of prosthetics?
yikes.
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
Whether or not the factual basis is correct in the argument is of little or no consequence. The fact that you *had* to tell her immediately that she was "wrong" shows that you are WRONG(TM) in the larger sense of putting your male ego ahead of her feelings. By "always having to be right" (who knew that a slashdotter would be like this?), you stifle honest discourse which is not just about the dissemination of cold facts but about the spiritual process of trust-building and sharing emotions.
Don't worry, there'll be plenty of time for you to get schooled about this after you get married...
We'll also include in that list machine grown food, air travel to the games site, physiotherapy...
I'm perfectly fine with people replacing their legs to compete.
I'm kinda intrigued, could he not of just had dampers fitted that would increase the effort needed to match his less well equipped rivals?
of course, the whole thing reminds of when recumbent cycles were banned because they were too much of an advantage.
So, this guy tries to cheat with bionic legs and freaky springs, instead of drugs, hoping he can get away with such cheating by raising the spectre of his disability. He gets ruled against, and what does he do? The honorable thing and admit he was cheating? No, he does the sleazy thing, and appeals. Booo!
I hate how athletes have become sleazy and so disreputable as to cheat and commit sleazy behavior; they are terrible role models.
Wonder how well he can handle an Aperture Laboratories portal gun?
You know there may not be a clear answer to this question, but here are a few thoughts.
If I'm someone from a third world country who can not afford to consume as many calories to develop my muscle tone like people in first world nations, then do they have an 'unfair advantage' over me?
How about if my genetic disposition to putting on muscle tone is greater than the next person's.. can we not call this an 'unfair advange'?
Since his prosthetics' efficiency is compared to an average (vs population or athletes), it would just be an issue of tuning them down to the best runner's efficiency. Then it could be thought of as 'fair', couldn't it?
The line gets blurrier the more information you take into consideration. Some might say that the whole idea of human beings competing against each other is the problem, but the counter-argument that everyone benefits from competition is valid based on results. The #2, #3 etc.. place runners drive themselves harder to try to win which benefits them by achieving better results, developing themselves further, etc..
I guess my comment only raises more questions, but where to draw the line on 'unfair advantages' is fuzzy at best.
Doesn't this put the US Olympic Committee in violation of the ADA?
Bear in mind, though he is very, very fast, even if the new rules were not passed, he still wouldn't be in the Olympics. Why? Because he can't qualify. His fastest times to date are still slower than the minimum qualifying times for the Olympics. Oh well. His career is still young, I bet he has room for improvement.
This really reminds me of an episode of Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex where Batou (a cyborg) talks about how, as prosthetics advanced beyond human capabilities, the Paralympics became a showcase for prosthetic and cybernetic manufacturers. As a result, the Paralympics became more mainstream and the Olympics, where they insisted on remaining unaltered, became a decorative event that merely served tradition.
Speaking of deliberatly handicaping people
Just wait for those 211th, 212th, and 213th amendments to the constitution and the US Handicapper General...
I've read nearly all of the comments thus far, and I have to say I'm pretty disappointed in the general lack of clue. I have had a prosthetic right leg for going on 13 years now. This is my third model.
The first was pretty much carbon-fibre, carbon-carbon, and titanium. The foot provided a bit of energy return to simulate the toe-push on pronation, but was not like the real thing.
The second foot added an articulated ankle which aided on uneven terrain, but was still not very lifelike.
The third has similar foot to the first, but added a shock-absorber and a vacuum system. Although this leg has some of the best of the current technology, at the end of the day, it sucks. [1]
Understand that I can walk pretty well. Most days, or when I'm not tired from walking all day long, my gait is indistinguishable from other folks. However, even though my 'foot' does provide *some* energy return, it in no way approaches the muscular push-off normal toes provide when walking. (I expect most folks don't even know or feel that they do this any longer.) Of course, I don't have one of the sprinter foots this runner will use in competition. They are specific to that function and just wouldn't work as daily 'footwear'.
All of that is immaterial. His feet don't 'give him way more energy' than a naturally footed sprinter. They can't. The only energy they store is that which is put there by the runner. I haven't studied his running style, but I expect that he has modified his style to maximize the energy put into the foot, and that the foot unloads the energy back into his lower leg on rolling off of the toe. Now, this is unnatural and required a great deal of training before he mastered it well enough to beat footed sprinters. I call bullshit on the IAAF.
That energy is not 'free'. He's had to train to get more fit than footed runners because his gait will not be a natural bone/muscle gait.
Oh, yeah, aerodynamics my ass...
[1] Compared to a real foot.
In the immortal words of Socrates, who said; 'I drank what?'
All the other runners use the same legs to run with as they use to go to the grocery store. He doesn't. These are special devices that he uses only for running. It would be fair for him to use three foot long springs as long as all the other runners could use three foot long springs.
Was a blern-hitting MACHINE!
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
It's something that I would never recommend, counsel, or facilitate, but it does seem to fit your needs.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I just don't quite get how they draw the line at this guy's prosthetic legs. Do they have specifications for "permitted shoes"? What if the shoes had some super springy soles and heels, would they be disqualified? At what point do "great shoes" become "illegal shoes"?
Of course, the guy in the ferrari will win the sprint, but would really suck at swimming.
The rules would have to be changed to make the winner the most flexible being. ie. No medals for winning at a sport, but only combinations of sports.
Oh. And being able to fit yourself and your mods through a standard door....
This way to the future of the Human Race.
The ugly truth is people care about what is normal and what is not normal.
Imagine a future somewhat like Ghost in the Shell where having an entire artificial body is not uncommon for average everyday people. In such a scenario "completely natural" competitions would only exist as a special category. If we imagine a future in which completely natural bodies are rare (say less than 1% of the population), interest in completely natural competition would be nonexistent.
I'm not sure if I would ban this guy. But I wouldn't ban artificial hearts if they were better than normal hearts.
I can see their point. Here's a guy has no feet, so gets mechanical do-dad add-ons. They work quite well, and I am glad technology is able to help the guy and people in similar situations, but he is now modified to an unreasonable competitive advantage compared to plain joe normal runners. How about guys who have no functional lower half of their body? They run wheelchair marathons, and some of those guys are way faster on some courses than the normal runners, so they run completely separate class. I give the guy props for being a good athlete, but I think the officials made a good call there as well. He can still compete, but not in that class of Olympics event. Just like they announced this week they have the new bionic arms now, same guys who built the bionic hand, so let one of those guys participate in world wrist wrestling championships, or let them do the shotput at the olympics? Wouldn't be even close to being fair.
Now if they want to offer an "unlimited class" Olympics, sure, go for it, who cares, all the drugs, steroids, performance enhancing surgery and implants and attachments and mechanical bolt ons and assorted androidiness you want. Top fuel, anything goes. Probably get better ratings than the "normal" Olympics... imagine "stilt man" with the titanium leg stretcher implants and the high jump, walks up, steps over a ten foot bar, stuff like that.
I think that, if you want to compete with his technical advantage, chopping your own legs off
and wearing similar prosthetics is a viable option. Maybe a biotechnology or prosthetics
manufacturer will pay to put logos on your jersey.
The modern Olympic Games is overrated, anyhow.
I think the maths is wrong here. He does not have ankles to begin with, which means he is 100% less efficient compared to an able bodied athlete, being 30% more efficient means he is still 70% less efficient. Imagine how much more energy you expand running without legs.
Why are clap skates OK, but Spyder suits aren't?
One of those is a mechanical device whose failure could result in the death of competitors by massive bleeding through high-speed contact with other competitors. The other is a passive part of the costume that doesn't have a mechanism to fail.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
I cant believe that, but its true, according to the guy I met online :) He had one of the top 20 characters on the game, a very popular worldwide game, and said he had an even stronger character he sold to make really good money. He had an LCD tv before they were common, probably has every gadget you could think of. I dont think he ever really touches the money he was awarded from what he told me, so hes making good interest, while living off welfare (so to speak)
---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1so1ZMgpg2w Those prosthetic legs do have the potential. But, the best thing of the clip is the enthusiastic Italian commentator. :)
It was about a baseball player who had "bionic" parts and was told he couldn't play because it was an unfair advantage.
Sounds aboot the same
Success is not the result of spontaneous combustion, you must set yourself on fire.
I'm surprised no one has raised this point. I'm speaking purely as a devil's advocate here, but explain to me how this is any different from a genetic advantage? are NBA players thrown from the game for being "too tall"? certainly many of the larger players fall well outside of the normal human range. I don't see much difference, except that one was a man-made gift, the other a genetic one.
Let me put it another way. being a world class sprinter takes 2 things . dedication, and genetic predisposition (in my mind. regardless, my point remains). take me for example. I could train 12 hours a day, every day for the next 10 years, but being of the 5'8, broad-shouldered, short-legged eastern european descent that I am, I will never be able to compete with these olympic athletes. it's just not an option. So how does one say that the tall, lanky sprinters of the world, with their natural selection-based superiority, not have an unfair advantage over one such as myself, but a man with ingenuity-based superiority does? As a matter of fact, what about when gene therapy becomes commonplace. What if you can CHOOSE for your child to be born to grown up 6'5 with legs like braided cable. 100% real human, nothing but genes and discipline fuelling him. Any unfair advantage there? seems like awfully murky water to be diving into head-first.
*removes spooky advocate robe and devil horns*
I forsee an 'anything goes' league, and an 'au naturale' league at some point in the future. or these sorts of competitions will become moot when physical accomplishment stops being a point of pride because physical traits can be altered on a whim.
But on the other hand, it's brought to light an old thought of mine, because I've seen those springy "shoes" before: if they are so much more effective, then why don't we see more springs in regular running shoes?
I mean sure, for competitions there might be strict rules (as for racing bicycles, for instance), but for amateur or non-competition use there should be a huge benefit to incorporating springs. Maybe not as exaggerated as in disabled runners' "feet" (because care and training would be involved), but some form of booster between the shoe and the sole should be possible, as more than a mere kid's toy that is.
If people are walking, running, skating and biking across town, why not add 'bouncing' to the mix!
"Good news, everyone!"
The IOC worked out from tests that his prosthetic limbs were more efficient at running than regular legs are, which is why he was not allowed to run. He DOES have an unfair advantage because of his prosthetics. The prosthetics are better at running than normal legs are.
It sickens me that people are trying to spin this as "disabled runner is not allowed to compete in regular olympics". Flat-out disagreeing with the IOC's tests and results on the simple basis of personal opinion doesn't hold much water.
(at least for some of them)
That is the problem: if you put springs on your shoes, you will run faster, but you will bust your knees faster too. This guy apparently has mechanical knees -- which can be easily user-serviced in case of wear and tear. I would like to see someone trying to do a meniscectomy to itself.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
If the Olympic Committee won't allow Pistorius to enter formal competition, a PR coup would be to have him participate in exhibition mode, with all fanfare and limelight.
Even if his race results are not made official, on the publicity front, this has all the tug-at-the-heartstrings elements of that classic story, "human spirit triumphs against all odds", you know the drill.
In fact, Pistorius should carry his country's flag during the opening ceremonies of the regular Olympics. He has all the makings of the first Paralympics superstar, where he'll surely obliterate all competition, in turn creating excitement and greatly increasing public awareness of this often overlooked event.
What's not to like? It's a win-win situation.
Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
At first they told him he could race, but they were just pulling his leg.
He was kicking himself. Went to appeal to his congressman. Got the runaround. Couldn't even get his foot in the door. Had his legs completely cut out from under him. What a heel. Felt the agony of defeat. He didn't tiptoe around that. He would have played the race card, but he didn't have a leg to stand on.
Eventually he just took it in stride.
These are some lame jokes.
__ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
this is sad. an unfair advantage? come on. let the guy run. i'm sure their are disadvantages as well. but the advantages to the human spirit this would bring are countless.
Olympic committee = heartless.
nature loves variety::society hates it get your variety at http://www.monkeypantz.net
So, classical sci-fi cyborgs become a reality. I mean, yeah, we had implants and prosthetics for some time now, but those people was considered disabled. And this is the first time I hear about prosthetics being better than the real thing. I'm already waiting for Johnny Mnemonic and Motoko Kusanagi to appear.
Events, plural, actually. Try:
Decathalon - mens sport with 10 events: 100 m, long jump, shot put, high jump, 400 m, 110 m hurdles, discus, pole vault, javelin throw, 1500 m
Heptathalon - womens outdoor sport with 7 events: 100 m hurdles, high jump, shot put, 200 m, long jump, javelin, 800 m
Heptathalon (again) - mens indoor version with 7 events: 60 m, long jump, shot put, high jump, 60 m hurdles, pole vault, 1000 m
Pentathalon - ancient mens sport with 5 events: long jump, discus, javelin, a sprint, wrestling
Modern Pentathalon - mens sport with 5 events: épée, pistol, 200 m freestyle swimming, horseback show jumping, cross-country run
So which of those is your pick for the right way to judge the ability of an enhanced athlete? (I love modern pentathalon.) Or would you come up with a new collection of events and give it a new name?
Interesting topic, this.
You're going way back. The last time I was involved in Olympic sports administration was the late 80s and by then shooters had already gone past crude beta blockers and on to more sophisticated and less detectable drugs. So when did the biathlon community catch on to this?
You're way late to the party. Athletes have dreamed of this kind of thing since forever. In 1986 I was in charge of an Olympic trials event and had a fascinating, horrifying talk with a very sincere pistol shooter who was seriously investigating the potential of amputating several fingers to enhance his performance. Pistol shooters, he explained to me, needed their middle finger to hold the pistol and their index finger to press the trigger. Everything else on their hand was just a collection of useless muscles that trembled, had to be controlled, and hurt performance. He wanted to slice off his thumb on a line from the side of his index finger to his wrist. He also wanted to slice off his ring finger and pinkie on a line from the webbing between his middle and ring finger to the outside of his wrist.
The guy was serious. He never did it but if he had thought he could do it without being sanctioned by the International Shooting Union, he would have started interviewing doctors. Sanctions and the difficulty of finding a doctor willing to do something so unethical were apparently the things that stopped him.
Since that time, I've heard similar (though not as sincere) speeches from a number of athletes.
We wouldn't want people having their legs amputated to win races would we.
Cause you know people would be doing it.
Atheism has no a jot to do with accepting or discarding human augmentation. Not always, no. But you've got to admit that a religion with no afterlife might inspire people to strive for more than just the brief time we get as humans. We're not limited by a concept of blasphemy like some other people are. I'm not counting on posthumanity like some deluded cultist, but I certainly wouldn't object to the idea.
So let's give the sprinters some freakin' bikes, cause they get only out of it what they put into it. Looks like you are the one that is clueless here.
...are created by postmodernists themselves, solely from the bullshit that flows from their mouths. The signs say, "IF YOU CAN READ THIS YOU'RE NOT REAL".
Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone.-rms
HUGE SUCCESS!
If runners can't keep up with the $6,000,000 man, they can always participate against Special Olympians to prop up their handicapped egos.
Were you kidding? Because there's an episode of Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex where we find that the paralympics have a higher standard of competition than the regular ones because prosthetics became a lot more sophisticated than a limb-shaped piece of plastic.
What sound do people on rollercoasters make? Hint: it's not Xbox 360.
I'm a bit surprised at the prevailing sentiment on this thread. The guy has no frickin' legs, for pete's sake. The Olympics are supposed to celebrate human achievement and the will to overcome. If he hasn't overcome, then I don't know who has.
It's also a bit hypocritical to watch this guy teach himself not only how to walk again, but run again, and not only run, but compete like crazy, and criticize him for being 'enhanced' while turning mostly a blind eye to all the athletes with their legs who enhance themselves chemically. Sure, we feign outrage when they're caught, but if they get away with it we pretend they did it on their own.
Let him compete. I know I would feel a lot better about the future and humanity to see him overcome those odds and win.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
No. Synthetic drugs aren't atom-for-atom identical to the body equivalent. Simply because they are produced using bacteria, which lack the advanced bio-molecular chemistry to append all post-transcriptional modifications. Also synthetic drugs tend to be built using only the active fragment of the compound.
Thus, synthetic EPO (erythropoietine - growth factor for red blood cell) is shorter and lack the side chains of the natural one. But it does work nonetheless. Modern test can find the difference (although more human-like synthetic EPO is being developed). That's why most doping scheme also involve washing out the drugs by using diuretic drugs (drugs that make you pee, thus peeing out the suspect), which, you guessed it, are also forbidden and could be detected.
The red blood cell themselves may be compatible, but you could find obscure and rare trace of reaction : there might still be a couple of antibodies left from the donor serum that weren't removed when centrifugating the red cells, and similarly other coumpounds against which the transfusee may be able to react might still be there - it's not enough to trigger an actual graft reject reaction or graft-vs-host reaction, but there are ways to detect it. Also the act of transfusion it self may introduce some visible artefact (increased hemolysis).
With the proper tools and methodologies, it could be detected, too.
This method counts on the body reacting to the low concentration of O2 and secreting it's own endogenous EPO. It's legal because no exogenous drug were injected. It's slightly less dangerous (specially for athlete that do actually train in high altitudes in the Alps instead of just sleeping in a capsule) because the doping is happening more slowly over time, using the natural body mechanism.
None of the less, it does introduce notable change (hematocrite going up) which could both be detected (although, given the current air-plane paranoia, tracking the movement of the athlete would be probably easier) and which *are* dangerous for the health of the athlete (although a lot less than medical doping due to the slower speed and lower extent).
And the same doctors also do hunt the adversary's doping to find way to disqualify them if they did perform better than the payer, as a living.
It's actually just a huge game of better mousetrap/better mouse, with the doping methods on one side and the detection methods on the other.
It's just that the most modern methods of both doping and detection are really expensive and sometime the race boils down to who has the biggest war-chest to pour money in the chase.
Disclaimer: IAAMD, with also experience in research in both fields of genomics and proteomics. Although I don't have extensive knowledge in terms of doping and those few exemples are only the pale tip of the immense iceberg of all crazy stuff that is currently happening in the mad race between doper and dope-busters.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Transvision. Seems I need to have implanted flash memory.
Well if the dollar keeps falling the way it is maybe the
6 million peso man will start to get some respect.
They ARE out to get you simply because They are in it for themselves and they don't care about you.
So I expect to see the "legal" runners in bare feet from now on.
Pop: You've been showboating a bit lately, haven't you?
Clark: Yeah. But gosh, guys like that Brad just make me so...
Pop: Angry?
Clark: Yeah! Is it so wrong to use your abilities? Is it wrong for a bird to fly? For a fish to swim? I could score a touchdown every time. Every time.
Pop: Look, I don't know what it is, but you're hear for a reason. Maybe...well, I don't know. But I know it's not to score touchdowns. (Gives him a daddy-like pat on the shoulders.) Come on, I'll race you to the barn!
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Clearly the guy in a 1 tonne exoskeleton won't do well in the horse riding (unless he is carrying the horse :-)), but on the other he doesn't need a horse.
So I think you could chuck Modern Pentathalon out of the list straight away.
The throwing things are essentially ancient displacements for slingshots, lacking rifles, cannon, so you can skip discus / javelin / shot put.
Well, thats the whole list gone.
I'd concentrate on "Specialization is for Insects" meme.
How fast can you move?
How fast can you accelerate? Sprint
How far and fast can you move? Long distance / marathon.
How high can you jump/fly?
High jump.
How much can you move? Weight lifting.
Over what terrain can you move?
Rough terrain? Orienteering
Water? Swimming.
How fast can you recover from exertion / how good is your sight / how steady?
Rifle Target shooting.
Are you just a clumsy muscle bound idiot?
Some fine motor control delicate work puzzle.
Are you vaguely human?
Can you move through an average human habitat? Free running / Parkour.
It's a competition. If the participants were all completely equal, the outcome would be entirely random. Why not just roll dice?