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."

Comments

How unfair...

[HetMes]

...to all athletes that have to drag their lower legs at each step, and not having the benefit of springlike limbs.

Re:How unfair...

[Anonymous Coward]

Call me sentimental, but I tend to think that the inspirational value -- to everyone, not just aspiring legless athletes -- of letting this fellow compete trumps any concerns over fairness.

In any case, it matters not at all to me and I'm content to let the Olympic bureaucrats make whatever decision they see fit.

Re:How unfair...

[vertigoCiel]

If they think he has an unfair advantage, why don't they get their legs amputated, too?

Re:How unfair...

[Hankapobe]

If they think he has an unfair advantage, why don't they get their legs amputated, too?

If this guy takes home a gold and considering how competitive some folks are, it wouldn't surprise me if elite athletes start getting into "accidents" and having these put on them.

Re:How unfair...

[NoobixCube]

How is that unfair? He holds the Paralympic world record for the 400m, and he STILL has to improve on that by 1.01 seconds to meet qualification standard. I'm by no means an athlete, but I know that professional sprinters and swimmers find it so hard to improve on their own personal bests. Each second is a hardly won battle in it's self. I think he has a hard challenge ahead of him to be selected, and will still probably on place in an average middle position at the Olympics.

Re:How unfair...

[element-o.p.]

If this guy takes home a gold...it wouldn't surprise me if elite athletes start getting into "accidents" and having these put on them.
I don't think it is likely to become an issue. From the summary: "He ... must improve on his time by 1.01 seconds to meet the Olympic qualification standard."

So if I understand correctly, he has to go 1.01 seconds faster than the best he has already done to meet the minimum standard that other Olympic sprinters need to meet in order to race at the Olympics.

Not to knock him -- it's very cool to overcome a disability and compete at the Olympics -- but it doesn't sound like he will be a top contender in the races; it sounds more like he just wants to participate in the Olympic races. In any case, I wish him the best!

Re:How unfair...

[WK2]

Call me sentimental, but I tend to think that the inspirational value -- to everyone, not just aspiring legless athletes -- of letting this fellow compete trumps any concerns over fairness.

Yeah, that's usually how short-term benefits over long-term consequences work. They are sentimental, feel good, and you don't really see how bad it is for a long time. The worst part is that there aren't much feel good short-term benefits. This is guy is good, but according to what I've read, including TFS, isn't quite good enough for the Olympics. So in just a years time, the only thing we will be left with is the precedent that allows cyborgs in the Olympics.

Re:How unfair...

[slutsker]

Did you actually read the article? It said that the legs did not give him a mechanical advantage:

Pistorius' lawyers countered with independent tests conducted by a team led by MIT professor Hugh M. Herr that claimed to show he doesn't gain any advantage over able-bodied runners.

CAS said the IAAF failed to prove that Pistorius' running blades give him an advantage.

"The panel was not persuaded that there was sufficient evidence of any metabolic advantage in favor of a double-amputee using the Cheetah Flex-Foot," CAS said. "Furthermore, the CAS panel has considered that the IAAF did not prove that the biomechanical effects of using this particular prosthetic device gives Oscar Pistorius an advantage over other athletes not using the device."

Let's face it - if someone is qualified to compete in other respects, but needs accommodations that provide no advantage, he should be allowed to compete. This is the same standard that people have used to try and prevent those with learning disabilities from getting extra time or other accommodations.

Re:How unfair...

[psychodelicacy]

This is the kind of argument which makes the question difficult to debate. I sincerely doubt anyone is saying that this guy's having his legs amputated was a good thing, or a deliberate cheat, or anything of the sort. What they are saying is that, as an unintended consequence of his physical impairment, he has found himself in the situation of having mechanical aids which put him outside the scope of the Olympics' competition specifications and potentially give him an advantage which he could not have gained from his natural physique and training alone.

By translating that into "they say that having your legs amputated is an advantage, the insensitive clods", you skew the argument in the direction of disability rights, which is really not what it's about at all.

this is ridiculous

[circletimessquare]

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

Re:So where do you draw the line ?

[megaditto]

In the end, the questions we should ask ourselves probably are not about fairness but about the purpose of such games. Main purpose: Milking the cash of pseudo-patriotic idiots.

Nailed it, didn't I? Be honest now...

That's fine...

[LordLucless]

...if they're letting regular athletes compete in the disabled categories as well. After all, what's good for the goose...

inspiration v. tech

[filthpickle]

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.

Re:inspiration v. tech

[couchslug]

"In 50 years we WILL have cyborg legs....should that be allowed in the olympics?"

Standardize all the legs and inspect them the way NASCAR does cars. Restrict those with cyborg legs to racing in their own class.

Re:inspiration v. tech

[Darinbob]

What if I have a pair of shoes that can simulate the extra springiness that were similar to these artificial "legs"? I'm sure many sports groups would disqualify me for having non-standard or unfair equipment.

Granted, this guy isn't so good with these artificial legs that he's going to get a medal, or even qualify. But the idea that the rules that apply to an abled bodied person can be changed in a competitive sport to accommodate someone with disabilities just seems wrong.

What next, someone running a marathon with an oxygen bottle because of a medical condition? Maybe Tee Ball at the Olympics?

Inspirational is when someone overcomes their limitations at the Paralympics; not when someone asks the IAAF to change the rules.

Re:inspiration v. tech

[psychodelicacy]

Absolutely. It might be inspirational to see a dyslexic child competing in a spelling bee with the aid of a spellchecker, but it's hardly the point of the competition. The point of the Olympics is to look at the extremes which the human body can achieve. Whether prosthetics are an advantage or a disadvantage is almost beside the point, which is that they go beyond the remit and the purpose of the competition.

Re:inspiration v. tech

[penguin king]

I think he has overcome his limitations at the Paralympics given he's the current champion (summary), so now he wants a crack at this. I say let him have it, if he's not already running circles around everyone I fail to see the advantage, if they allow it, they can always moderate/restrict classes later, there wouldn't be much point whilst there is only one of him to have a seperate race would there? I don't see why we shouldn't have mens races, womens races and `able amputees` races.

Re:inspiration v. tech

[hibji]

I would like to argue that olympics are not only about the human body. It is also very much about technology. Think of the skis and the fancy swim suits used in the swim competitions. Of more relevance are the spiked running shoes used by the runners. They offer a huge advantage. Sports are very much intertwined with technology. It is simply that for this athlete the line in drawn at a different point.

Re:inspiration v. tech

[FleaPlus]

Restrict those with cyborg legs to racing in their own class.

Sure... that's where this guy used to be competing (in the Paralympic Games). The issue is whether he should be competing in the Olympic Games "class".

Re:inspiration v. tech

[Reziac]

I think the line needs to be drawn at the point where something *replaces* part of the human body, rather than being *added* to it (as with skis, etc.) Also, in the case of those high-tech *additions*, everyone has exactly the same opportunity to use them. Of course, this could change -- frex, let *every* runner use spring-loaded gear! surely the same principle could be fitted to an intact leg and foot.

Otherwise, as someone above mentioned, you lose the whole point of the Olympics: to demonstrate what the =human= body can achieve.

Re:inspiration v. tech

[JonathanBoyd]

Replace "handicapped" with "black" above and you'll get a better perspective of what my views are.

Replace "handicapped" with "black" and you're talking about an entirely different issue with entirely different problems. the issue here is not the equality of races/different ethnicities, but rather the level playing field that is required for fair competition.

I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is that competitions like the Olympics should be open to all humans, as long as they have not flouted the rules to get an unfair advantage.

Which strangely enough, no-one disagrees with. Read the comments and you'll see that people have an issue with the unfair advantage that prosthetics/cybernetics provide.

Anyway, while it's nice that handicapped folk have the option of competing in special events, wouldn't it be infinitely better to (assuming they qualified) let them compete in the actual mainstream event?

Only if they can do so without the aid of technology. What's the difference between this case and someone 'running' a marathon in a wheelchair?

Especially since -- athletes have been using technology to improve their performance since, well, forever. Would you disqualify an archer for wearing glasses (Archery is IIRC an Olympic event)? Would you disqualify an athlete for wearing a pacemaker implant (assuming he got it for sound medical reasons and he's fit enough to perform?)

Glasses are an aid to an existing organ that imperfectly correct a problem without altering how vision works beyond what is possible for a normal eye. Pacemakers ensure that an existing heart beats normally, just like a regular heart.

If not, what's wrong with allowing a guy born without legs to wear blades?

Because they're not fixing an imperfection in an existing limb/organ without altering how it fundamentally works; they're replacing limbs and fundamentally changing how they work in a way that is not available to able-bodied people. If someone had a cybernetic eye fitted or a cybernetic heart, I'd take issue with them competing. This isn't about rights because we're not discussing people taking part in society. This is a competition which requires a level playing field and therefore precludes those with an unnatural advantage. If handicapped people want to compete, they should do so without prosthetics/cybernetics/wheelchairs/etc. To suggest otherwise is either political correctness taken to absurd extremes or would require the rules to be relaxed to a much greater extent to allow other aids, which completely changes the nature of the competition.

Performance enhancing - legs vs drugs

[sjbe]

So in just a years time, the only thing we will be left with is the precedent that allows cyborgs in the Olympics. Actually the more immediate and interesting question is how do they justify this in the face of their ban on performance enhancing drugs? Cold and heartless maybe but I cannot see a logical difference between performance enhancing legs (and they ARE unquestionably performance enhancing) and performance enhancing drugs. Forget cyborgs 50 years from now, there is a double standard now because of this ruling.

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?

Re:Performance enhancing - legs vs drugs

[HybridJeff]

Well, if you really wanted too you could et your legs chopped off and attach a pair of cheetas instead.