Slashdot Mirror
Amputee Sprinter Wins Olympic Appeal to Compete
Dr. Eggman writes "Oscar Pistorius, a 21-year-old South African double-amputee sprinter, has won his appeal filed with the Court of Arbitration for Sport. This overturns a ban imposed by the International Association of Athletics Federations, and allows Mr. Pistorius the chance to compete against other able-bodied athletes for a chance at a place on the South African team for the Beijing Olympics. He currently holds the 400-meter Paralympic world sprinting record, but must improve on his time by 1.01 seconds to meet the Olympic qualification standard. However, even if Pistorius fails to get the qualifying time, South African selectors could add Oscar to the Olympic 1,600-meter relay squad."
...to all athletes that have to drag their lower legs at each step, and not having the benefit of springlike limbs.
Since they can't compete with Black Mesa, now they're in the sporting equipment business?
Look out Nike.
Jeez, why don't we just give the guy a jet pack and let him fly to the finish line?
i get debilitating headaches when running, except when on a bicycle.
Sweet. Now I'm gonna go get my left arm hacked off and get a harpoon launcher installed for the javelin throw.
Or, to put it in a way slashdot understands...
1: Get amputation(s).
2: Get prosthetics with a mechanical advantage over mere flesh.
3: ???
4: Profit!
This sets a really nice precedence. When people with artifically created, better, limbs can compete. What's so wrong with somebody who just takes some amphetamines or something? At least they're still using human body parts ...
Once it takes robotic limbs to win olympic medals we've really taken all the fun out of competing.
1.01 seconds! I can't even type this post that fast.
Although it might sound rude, but people with non-natural body part should not compete with other "able-bodied" athletes. This is almost the same as using enhancement drugs. One thing for sure, able-bodied runner could sprang their ankle. This athlete is immune to that. There are other unfair advantage(s) for this and other able-bodied athletes. He should be allowed to compete, but just not on the same ground. Maybe start another league of Olympics specially designed for amputees?
Maybe Lieutenant Dan's destiny wasn't to die in battle after all.
Someday, we'll look back at this event, with the power of hindsight and wonder how we failed to see the Cyborg War coming.
...the engineering team that actually created his legs? Geez. How many body parts can I have replaced before I cease to be a full-human athlete? I guess I could just have a brain wired up with an android and qualify?
I dont like where this is going years down the road.
This is a triumph!
The guy was 11 months old when his legs were amputated below the knee. Regardless of whether these J blades give him a slight edge or not (personally I am not a sports person oddly enough!), he deserves a chance to compete based on his determination if nothing else!
He is a great role model for other disabled persons in his way - just as Stephen Hawking is in his.
Awful UID - but I have been here ages...
I personally think this is the right decision. While obviously there is a line where replacement turns into enhancement, unless it's clearly crossed I'm in favor of letting everybody who has the ability compete. The IAAF did not show that there was enhancement (and even so, his best 400m time of 46.56s is over a second off the Olympic qualifying time of 45.55s).
My favorite part, where the panel finds that the IAAF biased the testing against him, and then told the press they were DQ'ing him before voting on it is here: 60. At this stage, in the Panel's view, the process began to go "off the rails". The correspondence between the IAAF nad Prof. Bruggemann shos that his instructions were to carry out the testing only when Mr Pistorius was running in a straight line after the acceleration phase. By the time that the IAAF commissioned the Cologne tests it was known that this was the part of the race in which Mr Pistorius usually ran at his fastest.
61. [...] IAAF's officials must have known that, by excluding the start and the acceleration phase, the results would create a distorted view of Mr Pistorius' advantages and/or disadvantages. [...]
62. The stori is not enhances by the fact that Dr. Robert Gailey, the scientist nominated by Mr Pistorius [...] was effectively "frozen out" to such an extent that he declined to attend the Cologne tests. He was informed that he would be allowed to attend only as an observer, with no input on the testing protocol or on the analysis.
68. The impression of prejudgement is also enhanced by the fact that Dr. Locatelli and other IAAF officials told the press before the vote was taken that Mr Pistorius would be banned from IAAF sanctioned events.
70. In the Panel's view, the manned in which the IAAF hendled the situation of MR Pistorius in the period from July 2007 to January 2008 fell short of the high standards that the international sporting community is entitield to expect from a federation such as the IAAF.
Artificial limbs, I see that. Now what is with someone who had laser surgery on his eyes so he/she can see better ? Would you ban that person from a shooting match ? Even if he/she still can't see better than a top athlete ? If the person can see on par ? Or better ?
In the end, the questions we should ask ourselves probably are not about fairness but about the purpose of such games.
clearly these artificial limbs store kinetic energy in a radically different way. the biomechanics are obviously different. he's using different muscle groups. watch a video of him, and he clearly starts off slower than everyone else, and then speeds up a lot faster than everyone else: he's running on springs
god bless the guy, he's a phenomenal athlete. but he shouldn't be allowed to compete with runners with real feet. he's playing checkers when everyone else is playing blackjack. what he is doing is just not the same sport as what the other guys on the track are doing. and so he shouldn't compete with them. not because he doesn't deserve to just because he doesn't have feet, but simply because he's playing a different biomechanical game
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
For some long distance events they've banned amputees because they have an advantage over normal runners. How long before sprinters gain an advantage as well?
Will athletes start hacking their own legs off to get ahead?
No sig today...
The /. article summary text should really specify that the man is a cyborg. Or change the title to "Augmented Amputee Sprinter..." Because reading the text as-is, I was about to say---if Hopalong Cassidy wants to "roll" with the big boys, why not let him?
At the same time, he's fighting against a lot of people who pretend that all the other athletes compete on a level field. Between genetics, economics, training resources, secret drugs and unethical (or illegal) techniques - and plain old luck - that myth is hopelessly naive and misleading.
As I see it, this is about strength of mind and will more than about strength of body. That's what separates the real champions from the rest. The Olympics serve to remind us what is best in us. This example would touch millions of people, far, far more than someone shaving another three hundredths of a second off the 100 meter record or whatever.
His legs were amputated. He should not be amputated from the idea he's still 100% human.
I'll have a Sybian installed on mine.
I know the article says they considered this, but his blood doesn't need to travel to his legs to service oxygen to his muscles. Risk of ankle spraining: zero. Heighth and weight determined by length and bulk of the prosthetics. Other than not having legs he owns and defines any disadvantages he has. If something hurts he should be able to modify it. If he cant get traction he can revise the rubber contact spots.
Why do I get the feeling that this is a result of:
1. Lawyers preying on human emotion, empathy and sympathy.
2. The stereotypes associated with the special Olympics.
3.The "winning a battle to win it," for disabled people.
Instead of having olympic teams be defined by country, why not have each "Metropolis" compete against each other?
:)
Then, instead of having countries like the U.S. and China dominate everything, you would suddenly have a completely different character to every sport.
Imagine an event where there is one contestant each from Omaha, Ongole, Osaka, Ordu, Orlando, Ottawa, Oslo, Ocala, Oued, and Oudtshoom.
Sorta like metagovernment for the Olympics.
see that picture?
no reason a person with two full legs couldn't bend them at the knees to use a contraption like his. Are you going to allow runners to do that, Olympic Committee?
No? Why not?
Where he can compete with other people with disabilities and artificial limbs.
Next thing you know. Steve Austin will be competing. And people will be having legs removed so they can compete on their 'bionic' ones. If the artificial ones prove to be faster than the natural ones, you can bet that some people will in fact go that far in the name of competition.
It's not enough that he gets all the primo parking spaces... now he wants to show up us able-bodied guys in the Olympics too?!? I say we gang up on him and break his legs... oh, wait...
His personal best is still more than a second behind the qualifying time for the Olympics.
I can assure you, the best way to get rid of dragons is to have one of your own.
...if they're letting regular athletes compete in the disabled categories as well. After all, what's good for the goose...
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
the issue isn't this guy.....the issue is the precedent it sets. /. should be completely onboard with the olympic committe. In 50 years we WILL have cyborg legs....should that be allowed in the olympics?
I want a separate olympics.......an entertain me monkey olympics.
that's the only way to be fair.
The spring in a natural human ankle is not nearly as efficient as the spring in a roo's ankle or the spring in this athlete's ankle.
If this truly is at best neutral, or a disadvantage for this person, then there's no reason not to allow anyone who desires to put on a gadget of this sort, and use them instead of sneakers.
I believe the outcome would show that there's a significant advantage.
This seems like a very bad precedent.
/., I must bring up the vision of the patents for the design of the limbs being owned by IP firms who grant the right to use the limbs in exchange for large cut of the endorsement deals the "enhanced" athletes land.) Once someone with such limbs begins setting records, the protests will be loud and they will either be banned or a new category of records ("Unenhanced Athletes") for those without assists and no one will care about the "Enhanced Athlete" records -- which takes us back to where we are now with separate records for disabled vs. non-disabled athletes. This will be a cruel trick on those amputees who worked hard thinking they could aspire to "real" world records.
Now, or in the near future, scientists and engineers may well be able to build an artificial limb with better performance characteristics than a natural limb. This is especially true in the case of a specialized application -- for example, sprinting in a straight line on a level surface for 100 meters as opposed to a somewhat more general application like basketball with more varied forces and requirements.
To determine if each such limb gives an "unfair" advantage to an athlete will move sports competition from the realm of the field almost entirely into the realm of the lab and courtroom. The decisions from such cases are not going to be widely accepted and will be very controversial. Neither of these will be "good" for the sport.
It's likely that some people can't imagine an amputee competing effectively with the current generation of performance enhancing limbs so are comfortable with this particular case. However, I suspect that the response would be somewhat different if/when artificial limb development matures to the point that all the world sprinting records are held by a handful of amputees who all use performance enhancing limbs. (Since this is
From an "fairness" standpoint, it seems unfair to allow artificial limbs in sports such as running. The unenhanced athlete can't swap from her "100 meter" legs to her "400 meter" legs between races. The unenhanced athlete can't simply swap in a new leg when she damages one. The unenhanced athlete can't pick the "cold weather" legs vs. the "warm weather" legs depending on the weather at the meet. The unenhanced athlete can't shed the parts of her natural legs which are not needed (and in the way) for short sprints but useful for everyday things like walking on sloped surfaces or climbing stairs.
Perhaps we will need a sort of "Turing Test" before accepting enhanced limbs in general competition -- they must be indistinguishable from natural limbs to a skilled tester.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
First, there is a cycling category in racing games so I would find bicycling in the 400-meter little more than a hilarious scheduling error.
Second, chemical doping of atheletes once was an accepted practice (The 1904 games marathon winner,Thomas Hicks, was using strychnine.) It was banned not because it gave an unfair advantage, but instead because it put the athelete's health at risk.
Finally, I still fail to see any real proof that Mr. Pistorius' entry into the 400-meter would be unfair. The closest I have seen to a video like the one you describe, in which he starts slow and picks up at the end, would be this one. And even in this one, the race was not even long enough for this unproven advantage to make a winning difference. My point about friendly competition was an argument against the original ruling, which I still regard as little more than a poorly founded bias against the sprinter. That is to say it is not a friendly competition that rules against a participant on this shaky basis; as this successful appeal apparently concurs.
Demented But Determined.
Sometimes I'm like, I saw this earlier today and there was a reason I didn't submit this story...
:(
Oh well
Interesting article on Hugh Herr, a scientist and also a double amputee, and how his opinions may have changed once he was an expert paid witness. http://scienceofsport.blogspot.com/2008/05/how-much-does-it-cost-to-buy-scientific.html
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Just watch a video of him running. Considering how the guy starts off slow and gradually gains amazing advantage (enough to overtake several people in a short time) he should compete in longer distances like 5km. Or even a marathon (may be he'll beat the world record).
please mod parent down...seriously
"it's not too much of a stretch" is his thesis, supported by the fact that a *few* pro baseball players had Tommy John's surgery before it was medically necessary.
These two things are not analogous in any current context. First of all, the amputee runner hasn't qualified for the olympics yet (needs to shave of 1 second off his personal best which is an eternity in sprinting), let alone accomplished a feat that would warrant any sort of envy from the medal contenders.
Second, this is not analogous b/c the MLB pitchers who were getting Tommy JOhn's surgery were most likely going to need it eventually due to ligament strain already present. They just got it earlier than what some doctors would have recommended. Parent is talking about CUTTING OFF THEIR LEGS. Big difference.
parent is not flaming...but he is totally raping logic to get attention. Low level troll I'd say...no offense fleaplus...but c'mon
Thank you Dave Raggett
I'm not sure how people can complain about him getting an advantage. The summary states that he's currently too slow to even qualify.
I have no idea if those artificial legs are an advantage or disadvantage, and I'm not sure it's relevant. He is differently abled. Where does the line get drawn? Can a specially designed prosthetic arm be used for javelin or shot-put? If he won a race, would there forever be an asterisks by his name? In a competitive world that considers using your own previously-drawn red blood cells as "doping," how can this be considered "fair?"
Could a "normal" marathoner use running stilts? I doubt anyone, anywhere, would accept that. How are these prosthetics different? How much length could he add to his stride before it would break the rules?
Are performance "modifiers" allowed or not?
This puts a different twist on the LZR Swimsuit Controversy. When use of a specialized, passive fabric causes a stir and calls of "technological doping" there have to be serious questions about the use of entirely artificial limbs.
Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
Look, I wasn't born with legs that can run at Olympic sprinter speeds either. Why should this guy get a free pass when I don't just because he was born with a birth defect? Envy? Maybe (probably) but I was a pretty good athlete many moons ago (yes a few of us are here on Slashdot... save your insults) and I would have liked a shot at the Olympics too. While he's not cheating (I greatly admire what he's accomplished) I think there is a double standard here. Most of us are not born with the ability to be Olympic athletes. That's supposedly the entire point. Perhaps not anymore?
you are flat out admitting that the competition is between unequal forms in your last paragraph
and lets forget fairness for a moment, even though i can't fucking believe you actually think chemical doping is banned just because of health!
just focus on MEANING right now
the MEANING of the olympics
your pov basically lessens the meaning of the olympics, it doesn't increase it
why don't we have a guy on a horse, a guy on a jet engine and a a guy on a skateboard? hey! its just about the spirit of friendly competition! hey, why even have an olympics competition? competition is too unfriendly, too stressful, too much grunting. people might even cry or get hurt. so just have a big party for fat people from all the nations!
stop, just stop. you're over the edge
the competition must be level and fair, then it becomes friendly, interesting to watch, and meaningful as to the pursuit of international appreciation
your attitude is just sort of this loosey goosey empty feel good bullshit that is probably more appropriate for the special olympics or self-esteem building exercises in kindergarten classes. everyone gets a gold star! competition hurts feelings!
GROAN
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
You sure? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatigue_(material) "In materials science, fatigue is the progressive and localized structural damage that occurs when a material is subjected to cyclic loading. The maximum stress values are less than the ultimate tensile stress limit, and may be below the yield stress limit of the material."
For the sarcastically impaired, most of us aren't physically gifted enough to be Olympic athletes. That's the WHOLE FLIPPIN' POINT.
A friend of mine wrestled in high school and likes to tell the story about the toughest match he ever had. His opponent was an amputee: one arm missing. This gave him several advantages.
- his weight class was effectively lowered
- many moves would became ineffective against him (you can't grab an arm if it isn't there).
- years of living with one arm had made that arm very, very strong. This combined with the weight class issue meant that his arm was generally absurdly stronger that his opponent's.
- surprise. Most folks had no experience wrestling a one-armed opponent and were not prepared. It changed the game.
Of course, there were also disadvantages. Many moves require two arms, and his armless side was a zone he could not reach into. My friend was able to capitalize on this, attacking from the armless side. In the end, my friend won, but not easily.
All this without prosthetics even.
Do I think this guy and an unfair advantage? Well no. But it is not an easy situation to analyze.
There was a guy, back in the 1930s or so (i think) who was an amputee. He had only one leg, and without any prosthetics, he qualified for the olympics, competing against two-legged people and scoring well enough that he could have been a contender for the gold. His sport- the high jump. I'm not making this up.
Unfortunately, he was disqualified as well. His unfair advantage- less weight to get over the bar, and fewer muscles requiring oxygen.
Times and public sentiment were different then. I'd bet that today he'd be allowed to compete. Ironic that we had a "crippled" president, but a one-legged man wasn't allowed to be an olympian. But imagine a presidential candidate in a wheelchair today...
This guy should more fully embrace his "differences" and move forward rather than aspiring to compete with normal humans.
;)
That said, it's time for the new era of Altered Olympics.
Unrestricted use of technology, implants, body mods, anything goes!
Unrestricted drug use and doping!
I want to see a tweaked-to-the-max behemoth of a man, who's pounded his body with "roids" for four years, doing a 1500 lb cling and jerk. (The crowds really roar when the bones snap!)
I want to watch cyber-limbed athletes hitting their meth pipes and throwing them into the crowds before performing a stunning decathlon!
The possibilities? Endless! The ratings? Through the roof!
PM
Next thing you know, they'll be letting folks with breasts compete...
I'm glad that the initial ruling was overturned. Seeking out an advantage over others is competition. Other racers obviously feel threatened that an individual with a physical disability might have an unfair advantage due to his prosthetic legs. This despite the fact that as a species, we create our own obsticles called rules, and then we call it a game.
This is a (perhaps not uniquely; I'm unsure about that) human trait that we begin with in childhood. Who didn't at one point or another play "hide and go seek?" Who didn't play the expanded the rules, called "kick the can" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kick_the_can to include the idea of a safe zone? As the seeker, why did you count to 100? Why wouldn't you cheat? As a prisoner, why didn't you "escape" from your cell?
We do the same thing in our "professional" sports. There are a set of seemingly clearly defined rules that govern how we play baseball. When you are at bat, the pitcher delivers the ball over the plate, and then you swing your bat, making contact with the ball, only once, before trying to advance to the next base. When you run, your feet slip -- to overcome that problem, you wear cleets. Perhaps you can't hit as far -- to overcome that problem, you cork your bat. Hold on, they are both enhancements, which anyone can aquire, yet corking your bat is "illegal" against the arbitrary rules.
Boxing introduces this intersting notion of a cutman. During a boxing bout, it is the cutman's responsibility to prepare their boxer between rounds by controlling bleeding, and otherwise treating cuts and swelling. Without such treatment, you can be sure that the boxer would continue to bleed, or they'd continue to swell, until they could treat their injuries. Straight from Wikipedia on the subject, "A cotton swab soaked in epinephrine is applied with pressure to decrease blood flow even more." Adrenaline. Last time I checked, adrenaline is also "performance enhancing". Its treatment in boxing is somewhat more topical, but it is nonetheless allowed since a fighter who can see and who isn't bleeding, can prolong the match.
The point is that all our sports have aspects in one way or another that are either allowed by the rules or considered against the rules. Running, to my knowledge, does not explicitly make allowances for amputees to compete, but neither does it disallow. Like corking a bat before it was banned, we mustn't ban a runner because his limbs are slightly different. While getting prosthetic limbs will never be as widely sought as cleets, the rules must be reassessed. Each opponent seeks to "enhance" their ability; they either workout more, they get different equipment, they take steroids, they wear braces, they wear grease under their eyes, etc. This "infraction" is causing such an uproar because others certainly won't be able to use a similar enhancement... at least not in time for the Summer Games.
Time flies like an arrow;
Fruit flies like a bananna
Going to the Olympics is an honor. It means you are one of the best in the world at your sport. If I had my place on the team taken by someone who had a mechanical performance enhancement no one else had, I'd be rightfully pissed. I feel bad for the guy but 99.9999% of the world's population isn't gifted enough to go to the Olympics either. He shouldn't get any special privileges, technological or otherwise.
at least you put forth some effort, that's respectable
my original criticism still stands: cutting off your legs and getting Tommy John's surgery (even if it's REALLY early or not truly necessary) are NOT analogous.
the article you linked to showed that:
1. the number of tommy john's surgeries performed are increasing
2. one doctor interviewed for the story has a piece of anecdotal evidence that some young ballplayers are exaggerating symptoms to get the surgery
3. many coaches, parents, and players at the high school level have a misconception that Tommy John's surgery is a shortcut to good pitching
None of these things directly contradicts my criticism of you spurious analogy. Yes, it appears there is alot of misconception and a little lying going on with regards to the surgery, but...it just does not compare in scope...lying to get ligament surgery vs. cutting off your leg to enhance athletic performance... c'mon...
also, you didn't respond to my point about how no adapted sprinter has even come close to doing anything that an olympic hopeful would desire to emulate performance-wise.
you seem like a reasonable person, so allow me to lay out a scenario in which your analogy would apply:
If several sprinters with adapted apparatuses were qualifying for national and world class events, some even winning and setting records, and it continued to progress such that adapted runners were winning in, say equal numbers to non-adapted runners...then your point of "this is bad, it will cause people to cut off their legs to be able to compete" will be viable...not until then.
_j
Thank you Dave Raggett
Drug taking IS NOT illegal because it is dangerous.
Anabolic steroids have legal uses. I have an aunt who has been using them for a few years.
Aspirin and similar drugs in that category kill more people than ALL illegal drugs in the US (not the war on the drugs violence).
Water can kill you is you drink too many cases too.
We can go on forever but my point is that most all legal medications have dangerous side effects.
Saying that performance enhancing drugs are somehow more dangerous is only used to convince feeble minded dolts that 'all drugs are bad'.
Eat a McDonalds every day and you'll be worse off than the guy who uses Anavar for a cycle or two.
Anavar used to be popular drug to treat osteoporosis but because of bad publicity, NOT DANGER, Searle decided to stop production.
Savient Labs brought it back a decade later under the name Oxandrin and is very popular because it can be use a low dosages, doenst cause gynecomastia - bitch tits- and so on.
Savient uses it to treat alcoholic hepatitis, Turner's syndrome, HIV weight loss caused by HIV and a few other diseases.
IT IS NOT LIQUID EVIL.
Its probably is safer to use tahn the thing you pop to make your weiner go up.
So go spread your WOD FUD elsewhere,
That point was long lost when the artificial chemical enhancement took over to push the limit of what the human body can achieve.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I think we've got to the bottom of this pretty well...wish all /. posts were of your quality
The survey you're referring to may be one that was done by Sports Illustrated as part of a story about steroids. It's at least 5 years old, but I remember it b/c of the type of answers you mentioned. Yep...I agree with your point that once the tech gets going heavy, there will need to be something proactive done to mitigate eager athletes. maybe an "organic" and "non-organic" category?
I've only seen basic info about transhumanism, but I like the idea of putting tech in my body to help me snowboard better. Not sure about all the philosophical underpinnings, but i'd def. get something done to my eyes for better than natural vision...if it were cheap enough, i'd get some LED lights or something just for the hell of it...
_j
Thank you Dave Raggett
The Olympic committee has already banned performance enhancing drugs, I can't see them allowing this. I could learn to "run" really fast with a pair of these...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powerbocking
I think people who say "its not an unfair advantage because he's still too slow" are missing the point. It's unfair because there is a possibility that, without these mechanical legs, he would be even slower. Performing better with mechanical legs than with normal legs is the definition of unfair advantage.
I know the article mentions an MIT study that says there isnt a mechanical advantage, but I find that hard to believe.
Are performance enhancing drugs more dangerous than others? Absolutely not. But they are dangerous just like every other drug, especially when used at the limits of human capability.
Wouldn't he be better off cheating^H^H^H^H^competing in the 800m if he starts slower than other athletes, but speeds up quicker and uses far less energy and doesn't suffer from as many lactic acid issues?
I'll buy one of those pairs of petrol-powered boots and enter the high/long jump and the sprint.
35mph FTW!!!
Hey, I'm disabled: I'm a fat lazy bastard!
with getting a little leg up on the competition?
Checking out http://www.ossur.com/prosthetics/feet who make Pistorius's feet, I can't help but wonder about what something like that could do for the able bodied. I spend all day on my feet in a warehouse, & shock absorbing speed & height increasing power boots would be really helpful. Using kinetic energy from body weight & gravity instead of muscles would mean a lot less fatigue too.
Full plate and packing steel! -Minsc
Can the Cheetah Flex-Foot be adapted as a running shoe/stilt for runners with feet?
That would give a sensible way to measure the putative performance advantage.
If they are better, this decision should allow all runners to use them.
If they are worse, then they should be allowed, but nobody with feet would bother.
The gun fires
Oscar runs down the track
The others are catching up
A girl screams, "RUN OSCAR RUN"
His mechanical legs shatter off and it turns out he could run faster then the wind all along
Now if you'll excuse me it is time for my electro shock treatments!
LPGA women can compete with the PGA men, but not vice-a-versa? Who came up with this nonsense? Same for the female hockey goalie playing in the NHL, but I presume no men allowed to play in the women's league.
Once you hear of something like this it is time to find your sports fix elsewhere. This is really more of a political correctness / "we are all equal but some of us are more equal than others" movement than a sports one.
It all comes back to one group wanting a one-way advantage over another. This furthers the "minority" advantage everywhere, tilting the playing field even more toward pig rule. P.C. = irony challenged.
I come here for the love
Here's an ideia, why dont they all compete bare naked,no more help from high tech, i'm sure no one as ever thought of that.... >_>
His prosthetics are actually less efficient than human legs for running so they confer no advantage. If you want to know more try searching the New Scientist archive. They have a good article on this at http://technology.newscientist.com/channel/tech/mg19426055.200 although I think you need to subscribe to see it.
To quote from the article "Most prosthetic leg specialists say such concerns are ill-founded, for now at least. The prosthetic legs, which are made by the Icelandic company Ossur, act like springs which store energy as the foot is pushed into the ground, and then return much of it to the runner, just as tendons do in a natural ankle. However, unlike natural legs, the Ossur prosthetics lack the muscles to generate their own power, and so provide much less energy overall than natural legs, the experts say."
I think there is a case for banning amputee runners from using power assisted prosthetics or prosthetics that were unnaturally long but I think that would be an obvious move that could be made even without the expert opinions ofwhat about owning everyone with one of these.Grindhouse:Planet Terror
In my Mini Cooper S Convertible! It's only fair. This is an inane decision.
Salut,
Jacques
We are using the same kind of feet (kindly donated by Ã-ssur) for our robot that is being built to run 100m. It has a battery that can deliver 165A at 40V or 50V, which drives a motor of 4.5kW which in turn drives the hydraulic pump. The hyrdraulic pressure of 200bar drives the hydraulic cylinders in the hips. We are aiming at 100m in 9.5 seconds, and the name of the robot is Dasher!
What cannot be argued is that they do enhance his performance. They do so in very much the same way that steroids enhance performance. My legs don't work well enough to get me to the Olympics either but with some good drugs and/or a mechanical assist I would definitely have a better shot at it. I admire the guy but I don't think he deserves a shot at the Olympics either because he cannot compete fairly with the other athletes.
Furthermore you are forgetting about the guy who's place he would take in the games. Why should that guy get screwed just because he couldn't use a mechanical assist? He shouldn't.
That's ok, as long as they follow the three laws of cyborg athletes
1) Thou shalt not beat another human in any competition
2) Thou shalt not use performance enchancing drugs/modchips
3) Thou shalt run Linux unless in conflict with laws 1 or 2
Would be funnier if it weren't so true...
Using a mechanical assist to overcome a disadvantage and simply being born with an advantage are very different issues. The rules and equipment are supposed to be the same, not the outcomes.
The article says that the Court of Arbitration for Sport overturned an IAAF decision banning Oscar Piscatorius from the Olympics. What the IAAF had actually banned was his prsotheses, not Piscatorius himself.