Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Amputee Sprinter Wins Olympic Appeal to Compete

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the cyborg-olympics dept.

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."

13 of 366 comments (clear)

  1. How unfair... by HetMes · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:How unfair... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:How unfair... by vertigoCiel · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    3. Re:How unfair... by Hankapobe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:How unfair... by WK2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
    5. Re:How unfair... by slutsker · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.
    6. Re:How unfair... by psychodelicacy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      A closed mouth gathers no foot.
  2. That's fine... by LordLucless · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...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
  3. inspiration v. tech by filthpickle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:inspiration v. tech by couchslug · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "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.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    2. Re:inspiration v. tech by psychodelicacy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      A closed mouth gathers no foot.
    3. Re:inspiration v. tech by hibji · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  4. Performance enhancing - legs vs drugs by sjbe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?