Oscar Pistorius to Compete in London 2012!

[lorei]

From Deadspin.com (http://deadspin.com/5923448/double-ampu ... 2-olympics)

Double Amputee Oscar Pistorius Will Compete In The 2012 Olympics: Tom Ley

Less than a week ago, it appeared that Oscar Pistorius's feel-good story had come to an end, as the double amputee sprinter had failed to post a worthy time in the 400 meter race at the Olympic qualifiers, effectively killing his chances to represent South Africa at this summer's games.

The South African Olympic committee made a surprise decision today, though, when it selected Pistorius to compete in the 400 and 4x400 relay as a member of the South African team. Pistorius will become the first ever amputee to run at the summer games.

Pistorius walked a hard road to get this moment, first being told that he wouldn't be allowed to compete in the 2008 Olympics, and then failing to qualify for the games once his ban had been overturned. Whether Pistorius wins a medal or not seems beside the point. The fact that he has even made it this far is a monumental accomplishment.

This is very exciting news!

[Jo-Jo]

I heard that on CBC earlier today...it is exciting news

[MichaelMc]

I find it disappointing news: he is not doing the same event as the others.

He is an inspiration to many people, and I honor that, but his prosthetics make the event different.

[Jwolf]

I find it disappointing news: he is not doing the same event as the others.

He is an inspiration to many people, and I honor that, but his prosthetics make the event different.

I agree.

[DougG]

.I find it disappointing news: he is not doing the same event as the others.

He is an inspiration to many people, and I honor that, but his prosthetics make the event different.

+2

[jamix]

I find it disappointing news: he is not doing the same event as the others.

He is an inspiration to many people, and I honor that, but his prosthetics make the event different.

+3

I recall reading somewhere on "Science of Sport" I think, that this "Sprinter" has a Running Economy of 176 mg/kg/km. That's even better than what most world class "Distance" runners can achieve.

[ceileigh]

Every time I see this topic I see "Oscar Peterson to Compete ..." and think "how can that be???? He's a dead pianist!"

[HCcD]

Will he still be allowed to compete in the Paralympics the following week, as well ???

[Dstew]

I find it disappointing news: he is not doing the same event as the others.

He is an inspiration to many people, and I honor that, but his prosthetics make the event different.

How is it different?

It is not as if he has a chance to win.

Plus the inspiration is maybe more important than adhering to some running pursuit ideal of what the sport should be. I think people may look at a guy that like and say that they can go out and run. I know that when a coworker told me to enter my first race my reply was that I was not a Kenyan so why bother. And it is not as if he is taking the space of a more worthy runner.

[Dstew]

Will he still be allowed to compete in the Paralympics the following week, as well ???

Yes, 100, 200 and 400.

[erinmcd]

I find it disappointing news: he is not doing the same event as the others.

He is an inspiration to many people, and I honor that, but his prosthetics make the event different.

How is it different?

It is not as if he has a chance to win.

Because it's no longer "apples to apples."

Whether or not he has a chance to win isn't really relevant. What if Bolt was in an accident and lost his legs, got fitted for these prosthetics, and came back running sub 9 sec 100m? Would that be different?

[Jwolf]

I find it disappointing news: he is not doing the same event as the others.

He is an inspiration to many people, and I honor that, but his prosthetics make the event different.

How is it different?

It is not as if he has a chance to win.

Because it's no longer "apples to apples."

Whether or not he has a chance to win isn't really relevant. What if Bolt was in an accident and lost his legs, got fitted for these prosthetics, and came back running sub 9 sec 100m? Would that be different?

the current decision by south Africa to let him compete (making the standard but not in the way they originally specified) is somewhat secondary to the original decision by the IOC to let him compete against the able-bodied athletes at all. That was the disappointing part, IMO. The Science of Sport had an analysis a while back about how the blades allow him to run faster without fatiguing. In the 400m this advantage "evens out" the slower start he has with the blades, but If he were to compete in distances longer than 400m, the advantage would be too obvious.

[jamix]

the current decision by south Africa to let him compete (making the standard but not in the way they originally specified) is somewhat secondary to the original decision by the IOC to let him compete against the able-bodied athletes at all. That was the disappointing part, IMO. The Science of Sport had an analysis a while back about how the blades allow him to run faster without fatiguing. In the 400m this advantage "evens out" the slower start he has with the blades, but If he were to compete in distances longer than 400m, the advantage would be too obvious

Not sure about this. If it were true, then surely he would at least contest the 800 meters, as he doesn't seem quite fast enough to have medal potential in the 400 as of right now.

[Dstew]

I find it disappointing news: he is not doing the same event as the others.

He is an inspiration to many people, and I honor that, but his prosthetics make the event different.

How is it different?

It is not as if he has a chance to win.

Because it's no longer "apples to apples."

Whether or not he has a chance to win isn't really relevant. What if Bolt was in an accident and lost his legs, got fitted for these prosthetics, and came back running sub 9 sec 100m? Would that be different?

So are you saying that because those "legs" are such an advantage that athletes will now go out and get their legs amputated to get shave off a second or two? Not having legs may have an endless list of benefits such as not having to worry about that missing sock.

To answer your hypothetical, it would be extremely inspirational if that happened. Showing the world how to overcome adversity rather than the current system of whoever has the best designer drugs wins.

[Dstew]

I find it disappointing news: he is not doing the same event as the others.

He is an inspiration to many people, and I honor that, but his prosthetics make the event different.

How is it different?

It is not as if he has a chance to win.

Because it's no longer "apples to apples."

Whether or not he has a chance to win isn't really relevant. What if Bolt was in an accident and lost his legs, got fitted for these prosthetics, and came back running sub 9 sec 100m? Would that be different?

the current decision by south Africa to let him compete (making the standard but not in the way they originally specified) is somewhat secondary to the original decision by the IOC to let him compete against the able-bodied athletes at all. That was the disappointing part, IMO. The Science of Sport had an analysis a while back about how the blades allow him to run faster without fatiguing. In the 400m this advantage "evens out" the slower start he has with the blades, but If he were to compete in distances longer than 400m, the advantage would be too obvious.

Another hypothetical not support by facts as he does not run the 800 meter. He is an exceptional exception. South Africa likely put him on the team because it will generate good publicity for their program but not a medal. I heard the same arguments when a golfer, Casey Martin with a leg that eventually will need to be amputated went to court to use a cart. He did well in one US open and all the legends of the game said slippery slope, etc. What actually happened was that he had a relatively short and unimpressive professional career, became a golf coach and qualified for the recent US open again with everyone accepting he was an exceptional exception and the "flood" of cart requests never materialized

Let us be realistic about it. How many amputees are there. How many even want to run. How many have the talent to even come close to competing at the world class level. How many of those are recognized and get the support. The facts are we know of one in four billion but were it even one in a billion, the inspiration value of that has to exceed yet another running robot with an inflated ego looking to market his gold medal into gold. I can watch the races and appreciate the pure athleticism of the event but I have to hold my nose and look away when I see what it means once the race is over.

[erinmcd]

I find it disappointing news: he is not doing the same event as the others.

He is an inspiration to many people, and I honor that, but his prosthetics make the event different.

How is it different?

It is not as if he has a chance to win.

Because it's no longer "apples to apples."

Whether or not he has a chance to win isn't really relevant. What if Bolt was in an accident and lost his legs, got fitted for these prosthetics, and came back running sub 9 sec 100m? Would that be different?

So are you saying that because those "legs" are such an advantage that athletes will now go out and get their legs amputated to get shave off a second or two? Not having legs may have an endless list of benefits such as not having to worry about that missing sock.

To answer your hypothetical, it would be extremely inspirational if that happened. Showing the world how to overcome adversity rather than the current system of whoever has the best designer drugs wins.

Of course I'm not suggesting that athletes would purposely get their legs amputated, but now that you suggest if, if the technology would put them in world record contention, who knows? Lots of athletes are willing to take very dangerous performance enhancing drugs for short term gains, so I suppose anything is possible.

What makes this a tricky issue is that it's not "black & white." In this guy's case, it seems black and white- he has no legs, so he has prosthetic legs that allow him to compete at a world class level. That's great, and I'm glad he can do that.
How about if Nike develops a shoe based on the same technology as these prosthetic legs, with the blades, and that allows runners who wear them to run much faster? Where do you draw the line at technology vs human ability? I'm sure people a lot smarter than me are giving that lots of thought- that debate must come up in any sport or event where equipment is used.

[babysteps]

It's evolution. (I'm only kind of half kidding). I agree with Dstew on this one. Overall I think it's good for humanity and that's more important than the other concerns.

[Spirit Unleashed]

Where do you draw the line at technology vs human ability? I'm sure people a lot smarter than me are giving that lots of thought- that debate must come up in any sport or event where equipment is used.

Ask Speedo? check into tennis rackets or baseball bats? (spit balls or pine tar?)

[Dstew]

What makes this a tricky issue is that it's not "black & white." In this guy's case, it seems black and white- he has no legs, so he has prosthetic legs that allow him to compete at a world class level. That's great, and I'm glad he can do that.
How about if Nike develops a shoe based on the same technology as these prosthetic legs, with the blades, and that allows runners who wear them to run much faster? Where do you draw the line at technology vs human ability? I'm sure people a lot smarter than me are giving that lots of thought- that debate must come up in any sport or event where equipment is used.

It is not all that tricky in my opinion. If in your hypothetical all runners had access to the same shoes, then it is an even playing field. The next question is does the technology hurt the integrity of the sport - such as swimming with the performance enhancing suits that the association decided to ban. This is a common question in all sports. In golf they had considered a "tournament" golf ball but sales are based upon the public playing the same ball as Tiger Woods so that get nixed. The little bike race in France - electronic gears, radios, etc. And of course drugs.

Having said all of that, it is a tangent to the main point that allowing this one guy to compete in the Olympics has a greater net benefit than a negative to the sport so why not let him compete.

[MichaelMc]

What makes this a tricky issue is that it's not "black & white." In this guy's case, it seems black and white- he has no legs, so he has prosthetic legs that allow him to compete at a world class level. That's great, and I'm glad he can do that.
How about if Nike develops a shoe based on the same technology as these prosthetic legs, with the blades, and that allows runners who wear them to run much faster? Where do you draw the line at technology vs human ability? I'm sure people a lot smarter than me are giving that lots of thought- that debate must come up in any sport or event where equipment is used.

It is not all that tricky in my opinion. If in your hypothetical all runners had access to the same shoes, then it is an even playing field. The next question is does the technology hurt the integrity of the sport - such as swimming with the performance enhancing suits that the association decided to ban. This is a common question in all sports. In golf they had considered a "tournament" golf ball but sales are based upon the public playing the same ball as Tiger Woods so that get nixed. The little bike race in France - electronic gears, radios, etc. And of course drugs.

Having said all of that, it is a tangent to the main point that allowing this one guy to compete in the Olympics has a greater net benefit than a negative to the sport so why not let him compete.

So why not wheelchairs? If a person has no legs at all, why should he be less enabled to compete than someone with no lower legs? Wheelchairs should be allowed too: it is inspiring! Not fair because it is faster, are you saying no legs is better than no lower legs? Will we have people with legs cutting them off so they can qualify to race in the Olympics in wheelchairs. The science is pretty clear now that there is a considerable mechanical advantage, it just so happens Oscar is not (yet) physically gifted enough to be faster even WITH the advantage.

Different mode of transport in BOTH cases of wheelchairs and blades vs. running. Saying "Oh he should be allowed because he won't win" is a totally ridiculous argument: he beats a LOT of runners. Do we let him race until he DOES win, then ban him? If another blade runners comes along and is more athletically gifted than Oscar do we allow Oscar to compete and NOT the guy who can win?

[Jwolf]

What makes this a tricky issue is that it's not "black & white." In this guy's case, it seems black and white- he has no legs, so he has prosthetic legs that allow him to compete at a world class level. That's great, and I'm glad he can do that.
How about if Nike develops a shoe based on the same technology as these prosthetic legs, with the blades, and that allows runners who wear them to run much faster? Where do you draw the line at technology vs human ability? I'm sure people a lot smarter than me are giving that lots of thought- that debate must come up in any sport or event where equipment is used.

It is not all that tricky in my opinion. If in your hypothetical all runners had access to the same shoes, then it is an even playing field. The next question is does the technology hurt the integrity of the sport - such as swimming with the performance enhancing suits that the association decided to ban. This is a common question in all sports. In golf they had considered a "tournament" golf ball but sales are based upon the public playing the same ball as Tiger Woods so that get nixed. The little bike race in France - electronic gears, radios, etc. And of course drugs.

Having said all of that, it is a tangent to the main point that allowing this one guy to compete in the Olympics has a greater net benefit than a negative to the sport so why not let him compete.

So why not wheelchairs? If a person has no legs at all, why should he be less enabled to compete than someone with no lower legs? Wheelchairs should be allowed too: it is inspiring! Not fair because it is faster, are you saying no legs is better than no lower legs? Will we have people with legs cutting them off so they can qualify to race in the Olympics in wheelchairs. The science is pretty clear now that there is a considerable mechanical advantage, it just so happens Oscar is not (yet) physically gifted enough to be faster even WITH the advantage.

Different mode of transport in BOTH cases of wheelchairs and blades vs. running. Saying "Oh he should be allowed because he won't win" is a totally ridiculous argument: he beats a LOT of runners. Do we let him race until he DOES win, then ban him? If another blade runners comes along and is more athletically gifted than Oscar do we allow Oscar to compete and NOT the guy who can win?

exactly!

[Dstew]

What makes this a tricky issue is that it's not "black & white." In this guy's case, it seems black and white- he has no legs, so he has prosthetic legs that allow him to compete at a world class level. That's great, and I'm glad he can do that.
How about if Nike develops a shoe based on the same technology as these prosthetic legs, with the blades, and that allows runners who wear them to run much faster? Where do you draw the line at technology vs human ability? I'm sure people a lot smarter than me are giving that lots of thought- that debate must come up in any sport or event where equipment is used.

It is not all that tricky in my opinion. If in your hypothetical all runners had access to the same shoes, then it is an even playing field. The next question is does the technology hurt the integrity of the sport - such as swimming with the performance enhancing suits that the association decided to ban. This is a common question in all sports. In golf they had considered a "tournament" golf ball but sales are based upon the public playing the same ball as Tiger Woods so that get nixed. The little bike race in France - electronic gears, radios, etc. And of course drugs.

Having said all of that, it is a tangent to the main point that allowing this one guy to compete in the Olympics has a greater net benefit than a negative to the sport so why not let him compete.

So why not wheelchairs? If a person has no legs at all, why should he be less enabled to compete than someone with no lower legs? Wheelchairs should be allowed too: it is inspiring! Not fair because it is faster, are you saying no legs is better than no lower legs? Will we have people with legs cutting them off so they can qualify to race in the Olympics in wheelchairs. The science is pretty clear now that there is a considerable mechanical advantage, it just so happens Oscar is not (yet) physically gifted enough to be faster even WITH the advantage.

Different mode of transport in BOTH cases of wheelchairs and blades vs. running. Saying "Oh he should be allowed because he won't win" is a totally ridiculous argument: he beats a LOT of runners. Do we let him race until he DOES win, then ban him? If another blade runners comes along and is more athletically gifted than Oscar do we allow Oscar to compete and NOT the guy who can win?

I will grant you that from a logical perspective it does not matter whether he does or does not beat people but a even more ridiculous argument is to suggest wheelchairs are on the same level as a blade. There are obvious lines where a little common sense can be used. There is one study out there that suggested a blade may be more effective but again from a common sense and practical perspective, I think that this issue only needs to be addressed if it were a real issue with a number of such athletes. And only once there is some real evidence that there is a real level playing field where NONE of the athletes has found their speed in a chemical lab. I find it somewhat amusing that there is any concern about this one in 4 billion exception that his blades make it "different" when the real battle is trying to keep up to the drug users. In other words, to protect the integrity of a tainted sport against an athlete with an issue that may never arise again.

I may have a slightly tainted perspective as I saw the same thing happen in golf in the mid 90s. Casey Martin with a leg that caused a significant limp and increase pain that will eventually have be amputated went to court to be able to use a golf cart. All of the legends of golf made the same arguments you have made - the game will be different, a slippery slope and a flood of exceptions will come. Casey won the right to use a cart, he did ok in one US open and then his professional career was over. He qualified again this year and there was virtually no reaction other than good for him. One guy with blades is a small blip that may never happen again so to me, not such a big deal.

[MichaelMc]

I will grant you that from a logical perspective it does not matter whether he does or does not beat people but a even more ridiculous argument is to suggest wheelchairs are on the same level as a blade. There are obvious lines where a little common sense can be used. There is one study out there that suggested a blade may be more effective but again from a common sense and practical perspective, I think that this issue only needs to be addressed if it were a real issue with a number of such athletes. And only once there is some real evidence that there is a real level playing field where NONE of the athletes has found their speed in a chemical lab. I find it somewhat amusing that there is any concern about this one in 4 billion exception that his blades make it "different" when the real battle is trying to keep up to the drug users. In other words, to protect the integrity of a tainted sport against an athlete with an issue that may never arise again.

Logic is probably the best thing to base it on. There are a number of studies now which show the blades are a significant advantage once pure acceleration stops being the most important element, including the research Oscar arranged himself. Common sense says "case closed" there rather than falling back on "it doesn't happen very often" (far from only once, mind you), or "until we can prove no one else has an unfair advantage" (there are already rules against that), or "he is inspirational".

Pure and simple: it is a different event. There are other athletes who run with these blades, they are a commercial product. Nike has actually developed a shoe (the Nike Sole) to work with them and is SELLING them. Oscar is currently the fastest in his distance, but far from unique. There is a venue to compete, with many other inspirational athletes competing.

[Dstew]

Logic is probably the best thing to base it on. There are a number of studies now which show the blades are a significant advantage once pure acceleration stops being the most important element, including the research Oscar arranged himself. Common sense says "case closed" there rather than falling back on "it doesn't happen very often" (far from only once, mind you), or "until we can prove no one else has an unfair advantage" (there are already rules against that), or "he is inspirational".

Pure and simple: it is a different event. There are other athletes who run with these blades, they are a commercial product. Nike has actually developed a shoe (the Nike Sole) to work with them and is SELLING them. Oscar is currently the fastest in his distance, but far from unique. There is a venue to compete, with many other inspirational athletes competing.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport said that Pistorius probably gets some advantages from the springy, curved blades, but also suffers some disadvantages, and they even out in the end.

The CAS panel unanimously determined that Dr. Brüggemann only tested Oscar’s biomechanics at full-speed when he was running in a straight line (unlike a real 400m race), that the report did not consider the disadvantages that Oscar suffers at the start and acceleration phases of the race, that Dr. Brüggemann did not consider disadvantages that Oscar suffers, and that overall there was no evidence that Oscar had any net advantage over able-bodied athletes

Hugh Herr, an associate professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and an expert in biomechanics and bionics who has conducted studies on Pistorius, agreed with the decision to reinstate Pistorius, saying there is no evidence the blades give Pistorius an edge.

Pistorius' leg speed is quicker than that of some other athletes but not all of them, Herr said, meaning he's "not abnormal." And in terms of the energy he uses and the way he tires, there is, crucially, no difference, Herr said. Pistorius is probably at a disadvantage because he cannot hit the ground as hard as other athletes, the professor said.

Herr said Pistorius was forced to come up with a different running style from a young age because he had no lower legs, and developed bigger hips as a result. Those hips, and to a lesser extent his knee joints, are the key to his running, Herr said.

"The view that he's a robot that doesn't fatigue is nonsense," Herr said. "The science is immature. We don't know very much, but what we do know says there's no overall advantage for Pistorius in a 400-meter race."




Logic would say that if the ruling body entrusted to protect the integrity of the sport and of the other athletes made the ruling they did and for the reasons they did, then the subjective opinions for and against are just that, opinions.

I will grant you this, it does appear that the science involved is in its infancy and should be pursued. But for now, I am quite content to let the potential inspirational story trump the concerns of pampered professional athletes who may have found their speed through drugs.

[Mark.AU]

Logic would say that if the ruling body entrusted to protect the integrity of the sport and of the other athletes made the ruling they did and for the reasons they did, then the subjective opinions for and against are just that, opinions.

Lots of straw-man argument but a dearth of logic. Your only real argument is that it's an inspriational story - which it might be - but that has zero value in the larger context of the discussion.