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."
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
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
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
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