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."
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.
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...
I don't understand why he deserves a chance. My body is not physically able to compete in the Olympics either. Same goes for almost everyone in the world. It's really no big deal.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
You guessed wrong: Lance Armstrong.
But back on topic, this guy DOES enjoy a measurable mechanical advantage over his flesh and blood competitors. Yes, he had extra work to do to be able to use the devices, but by the same token we don't let pole vaulters (with pole) in the high-jump.
You have to flex your ankle to use them as springs. He doesn't. If that doesn't convince you, consider this. When you squat up and down, your legs essentially work like springs. Squat up and down. You'll get tired around 20-30 reps. Now imagine an actual spring. It does not get tired.
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).
I wasn't born with legs fast enough to run 400 meters in 45 seconds either even with feet. Yes it sucks to not have two feet but that doesn't mean anyone should get an advantage in getting to the Olympics. Not me and not anyone else.
I competed in the state championship in this distance (and that would narrow down who I am too much for me, so AC), I can tell you without one doubt this guy has an advantage. Not only the reason you talk about, but more:
This guy has never had to worry about his shoes coming off, rubbing him wrong, etc. Granted he may have issues that I didn't, but every difference like this is just another reason he isn't like a normal human and that translates to _not_equal_
Not only that, but I went through HELL running with shin splints. I had a career ending injury to my lower leg. My calfs were usually the sorest part of my body after hard workouts. My heart had to provide blood to all that extra body mass.
Another difference is easy to see when you find out he runs slower on the curves. While that is somewhat true for others, not as dramatic as this guy. That is the time when you lean and use the muscles in your lower legs to help you make the curve. This is a disadvantage to him, but he easily makes up for it in the straight away.
When the next guy comes along and he actually has the physical ability without the cheetahs, he will be breaking all the records. Then everyone will realize that this is a bad idea.
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...
Just to emphasize the fact that players have only become interested. No one goes and gets Tommy John surgery without needing it.
I'm not sure how reliable the info is, but the examples in this NY Times article seem to disagree:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/20/sports/baseball/20surgery.html
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
if he's not already running circles around everyone I fail to see the advantage,
He's not running circles around everyone else, because the rest of his body isn't up to it.
What if we put cybernetic legs on the current second or third place dude? Might he then be the world record holder, solely because of the artificial legs?
And how long is it before some otherwise-healthy person has their legs amputated so they too can be a spring-loaded sprinter, because they feel that will give them that final edge they need to make the Olympics?
Don't think it won't happen. Obsessed athletes are among the absolute worst for ignoring long-term consequences in favour of short-term goals.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
When I was in the 9th grade, a wheelchair basketball team gave a demo at our school, then played a regular game against our team -- who were damned good for junior-high kids, in fact they'd *beaten* a pretty good *high school* junior-varsity team.
Despite which, the wheelchair team thoroughly trounced our able-bodied team.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Oh please. This isn't a human rights issue; it's an issue of what a competition is about. If you're so keen for the handicapped to compete in able-bodied sports, why not the other way round? Because it wouldn't be fair, right? Well this is just applying the same criteria. Handicapped people are in no way being separated from society; everyone is being given the opportunity to compete in a competition where no-one has an advantage by virtue of having been born with or without certain bits of their body. In fact, if you're saying that a competition doesn't really count unless it involves able-bodied people, what are you saying about the value of handicapped competition and by implication the value of handicapped people?
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