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.
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!
Someday, we'll look back at this event, with the power of hindsight and wonder how we failed to see the Cyborg War coming.
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...
Ever watch that stupid robot battle show?
The O'Reilly factor?
Monstar L
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 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
I'll have a Sybian installed on mine.
Here's what's wrong with someone who "just takes some amphetamines":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_at_the_Tour_de_France#Tom_Simpson_dies_in_the_Tour
Drug taking is mostly illegal because of the seriously negative side effects of many of the performance enhancing drugs.
If drugs were allowed, I can imagine seeing "suicide winners" appearing. People prepared to push the doping so far that they'd keel over and die on the finish line. Who wants to compete with that? I like winning, but I'm not really prepared to die because I've overridden a bunch of my body's built-in self protection mechanisms.
Comparing prosthetic limbs to drug-taking doesn't really seem like comparing apples to apples, but there are some parallels. If prosthetic limbs are allowed and they become so good that only people with them can win, how many people will be prepared to "cripple" themselves to win, and is it fair on those who don't want to chop off a leg or two? I don't think it is.
Like there are categories of physical ability in the Paralympics now, and weight classes in boxing, martial sports, etc, I think that everything should just be categorised, and "able-bodied" just becomes another category. If prosthetics continue to improve, "able-bodied" might not even be the best performing (i.e. fastest) category in all sports. If you want to move into the "faster" category, sure, go ahead and chop off a leg, but you can't compete against non-prosthetic-endowed athletes any more.
You run on bicycles??
...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.
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).
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?
But people with glasses don't see better than people without glasses and so far it doesn't seem like they ever will, whereas prosthetics have already shown the ability to improve a person's performance, perhaps not (yet) against top athletes, but very certainly in comparison to an average human being.
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.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/20/sports/baseball/20surgery.html The procedure is commonly known as Tommy John surgery, named after the former major league pitcher on whom it was first performed in 1974. The surgery has become so reliable, with a success rate of 80 to 85 percent, that it has prolonged the careers of hundreds of major leaguers. About one in seven pitchers in the major leagues this season has had the surgery.
Yet, several leading orthopedists say there are some troubling aspects to the procedure. First, it is becoming more commonplace among teenage pitchers who are injuring their arms through overuse at what surgeons call an alarming rate.
Second, the surgery's reliability has spawned misconceptions that a healthy arm can be enlivened by the surgery and that the procedure will increase an injured pitcher's velocity, making him better than ever.
The success of the surgery, and the resulting myths, are prompting young pitchers with marginal injuries, or overly optimistic assessments of their talent, to push for Tommy John surgery when they might not have in the past, doctors said.
Dr. Petty mentioned one patient, a minor leaguer whose elbow injury did not appear to warrant surgery, who later trumped up his symptoms and had the procedure performed by another physician.
One of them was Jeff Hughes, 18, who will pitch at Austin Peay State University beginning this fall. Nick Hiter, who has coached Hughes, said the pitcher's father, Pete Hughes, once asked him: " 'What about that Tommy John surgery? I hear it makes you throw harder. If it works, we'd consider it.' "
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
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
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
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 of