Slashdot Log In
Amputee Sprinter Wins Olympic Appeal to Compete
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Fri May 16, 2008 06:28 PM
from the cyborg-olympics dept.
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."
Related Stories
[+]
Hardware: Prosthetic-Limbed Runner Disqualified from Olympic Games 509 comments
contraba55 wrote with a link to an Engadget story on a sign of the postmodern times. Oscar Pistorius, a world-class sprinter, has been denied a shot at participating in the Olympics this year. He's a double-amputee, but he's not out because of his handicap; he's disqualified because he's faster than most sprinters. "The runner — who uses carbon-fiber, prosthetic feet — was reviewed by the International Association of Athletics Federations (or IAAF), a review which found the combination of man and machine to be too much for its purely human competitors. According to the IAAF report, the 'mechanical advantage of the blade in relation to the healthy ankle joint of an able bodied athlete is higher than 30-percent.' Additionally, Pistorius uses 25-percent less energy than average runners due to the artificial limbs, therefore giving him an unfair advantage on the track."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
How unfair... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How unfair... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
inspiration v. tech (Score:5, Insightful)
I want a separate olympics.......an entertain me monkey olympics.
Parent
Re:inspiration v. tech (Score:5, Insightful)
Standardize all the legs and inspect them the way NASCAR does cars. Restrict those with cyborg legs to racing in their own class.
Parent
Re:inspiration v. tech (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure... that's where this guy used to be competing (in the Paralympic Games [wikipedia.org]). The issue is whether he should be competing in the Olympic Games "class".
Parent
Re:inspiration v. tech (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:inspiration v. tech (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:inspiration v. tech (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Parent
Re:inspiration v. tech (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:inspiration v. tech (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:inspiration v. tech (Score:5, Insightful)
Otherwise, as someone above mentioned, you lose the whole point of the Olympics: to demonstrate what the =human= body can achieve.
Parent
Re:inspiration v. tech (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you are intentionally being a troll, here.
This sets a precedent. That being, artifical replacements to human body parts does not disqualify one from competing in the Olympics.
The problem comes 10-20 years from now, when you have athletes willfully lopping their limbs off to get cybernetic implants all to win the gold.
At that point, at the point where cybernetic limbs will actually outperform natural.. what's the difference between a cyberathlete and a steroid athlete? why not let THEM compete?
Keep them seperate.
One day, the Paralympics will be the ones with the better times, distances and scores.
Parent
Re:inspiration v. tech (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:inspiration v. tech (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:inspiration v. tech (Score:4, Informative)
In the 1964 Olympics in Tokyo, Bob Hayes won the 100 metres in 10.06 on a soaking wet cinder track with actual holes in it, running in very heavy primitive spiked shoes. To this day, the Olympic record is 9.84 by Donovan Bailey in 1996, running on a vastly superior modern synthetic track. The difference between these two times is about six feet - not a huge improvement, even allowing for the distinct possibility that Hayes was a faster sprinter than Bailey.
At the other extreme, Abebe Bikila won the Olympic marathon in both 1960 and 1964. The first time he ran barefoot; the second time he wore shoes. Admittedly he ran three minutes faster in 1964, but that may reflect his own improvement, stronger competition, and a faster (flatter) course. Today the top marathon runners cover the 26.2 miles 8 minutes faster than Bikila in 1964, but I don't think you could find any expert to agree that technology has anything to do with that.
Parent
That point is long lsot (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:How unfair... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Performance enhancing - legs vs drugs (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Parent
Re:Performance enhancing - legs vs drugs (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Performance enhancing - legs vs drugs (Score:4, Insightful)
But this suggestion goes right to the heart of the controversy. The implication, it seems to me, is that Pistorius has suffered terribly (right), and is at a great disadvantage (right); moreover, he has struggled nobly (right). Therefore, some people argue, he deserves to get whatever he wants; and if that is to run in the Olympics, so be it.
I suspect that people who argue this way don't take the Olympics very seriously. After all, it's just a lot of people playing silly games, isn't it? Besides, many of us nowadays disapprove morally of competition, because most of the competitors must lose. It's often urged how unfair this is, which is why school events are often arranged so that everyone gets prizes. After all, aren't we all very special?
This is a very clear instance of the legal dictum that "hard cases make bad law". Pistorius is extremely admirable, and what's more we would very much like to do something to help him. Letting him into the Olympics is quick, and easy, and makes us glow with moral righteousness. The only downside is that it pretty much destroys the integrity of the Olympic Games.
Parent
Re:Performance enhancing - legs vs drugs (Score:4, Insightful)
In light of that, there are a reasonable fraction of athletes who would willingly sacrifice their future too. Most performance enhancing drugs have very serious negative consequences down the road, and yet you see athletes at almost every level now who willingly make that trade whenever they think they can get away with it. There was an anonymous study once of Olympic hopefuls which asked if they would take a drug if they knew it would guarantee a gold medal, was undetectable, but would kill them in ten years. I can no longer find the reference, but almost unbelievably, a nontrivial fraction of the athletes said they would take the drug.
Parent
Re:Performance enhancing - legs vs drugs (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:How unfair... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:How unfair... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:How unfair... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think it is likely to become an issue. From the summary: "He
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!
Parent
Re:How unfair... (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:How unfair... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:How unfair... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:How unfair... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:How unfair... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it's important to acknowledge the difference between accommodations in, say, the workplace or public facilities, versus competing in the Olympics. As it turns out, *most* people in the world are simply not physically qualified to participate in those events - they are by nature elite events. It seems a bit of a stretch to complain about disqualification because of a physical disability when physical competition is the entire the focus of the games. It seems a little like complaining that a person with an average IQ is being discriminated against when attempting to acquire his Ph.D. in neurosurgery. It would be a sad day when we pretend that everyone can compete equally at everything.
Still, despite my misgivings, I don't think I'll begrudge this guy's chance to compete (not like I have a say in it anyhow). Potentially a tricky precedence and all, but it's still hard not to root for the guy.
Parent
Re:How unfair... (Score:4, Informative)
I recalled reading an article about this earlier and after some searching I found it again:
And yes, it's about the same runner.
From this article:
http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/17/prosthetic-limbed-runner-disqualified-from-olympics/ [engadget.com]
"According to the IAAF report, the "mechanical advantage of the blade in relation to the healthy ankle joint of an able bodied athlete is higher than 30-percent." Additionally, Pistorius uses 25-percent less energy than average runners due to the artificial limbs, therefore giving him an unfair advantage on the track... or so they say"
Now I am wondering about why the MIT is saying that there's no difference. No difference vs 25-30% difference is ehm, a huge difference...
Parent
Re:How unfair... (Score:5, Informative)
It's not too much of a stretch. Apparently in baseball there's something called Tommy John surgery [everything2.com], where a ligament in the elbow is replaced by a (stronger) ligament from the wrist. It was originally intended to deal with injuries, although after pitchers found that their performance was better than it was before the injury some healthy players have become interested in getting the surgery performed.
Parent
Re:a big stretch (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/20/sports/baseball/20surgery.html [nytimes.com]
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.' "
Parent
Re:How unfair... (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.
Parent
Re:How unfair... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Aperture Science is branching out, I see (Score:4, Funny)
Look out Nike.
Cyborg Olympics (Score:5, Funny)
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!
While you two losers are duking it out... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Cyborg Olympics (Score:5, Funny)
Trust me on this one.
Parent
Re:Cyborg Olympics (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Some Day (Score:5, Funny)
PDF of full decision (Score:5, Informative)
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:
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.
this is ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
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:this is ridiculous (Score:5, Informative)
Not only that, the leg below the knee's importance in sprinting is relatively minor. Aside that the ankle/calf acting as an active shock absorber, nearly all the leg's energy is spent in the upper leg to drive the entire leg forward. His legs are considerably lighter than real human legs, and very much does make him run completely different.
Pistorius really does run differently. Because of the way his legs are constructed, his maximal running speed may never reach that of an unamputated human being, but his efficiency is beyond anything anyone else can achieve. He's running speed (measured in 10m segments) is far more consistent then any other runner, because he can maintain his full speed for much longer and with relatively less effort than anyone else.
This is not to say that he is an amazing athlete. He is. He has overcome incredible challenges, and he deserves recognition. But he does not belong in the Olympics the way that they are formulated right now. His artificial allow him to achieve feats of efficiency that simply cannot be reached with any human body no matter how well born and trained. I feel that many are letting themselves being clouded by the emotional aspect of this issue, and ignoring that this would be like letting someone on rollarblades grafted onto their feet compete in a standard track event.
Parent
That's fine... (Score:5, Insightful)
A wrestling parallel (Score:5, Interesting)
- 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.
So where do you draw the line ? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:So where do you draw the line ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nailed it, didn't I? Be honest now...
Parent
Re:Doping goes to a whole new level (Score:5, Funny)
The O'Reilly factor?
Parent
Re:i'm an amputee too (Score:5, Funny)
Parent