Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Medicine Robotics

Amputee Sprinter Wins Olympic Appeal to Compete 366

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Amputee Sprinter Wins Olympic Appeal to Compete

Comments Filter:
  • by wanax ( 46819 ) on Friday May 16, 2008 @07:44PM (#23441516)
    can be found here. [tas-cas.org]

    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.
  • Re:How unfair... (Score:5, Informative)

    by FleaPlus ( 6935 ) on Friday May 16, 2008 @08:01PM (#23441680) Journal
    If they think he has an unfair advantage, why don't they get their legs amputated, too?

    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.
  • Re:How unfair... (Score:2, Informative)

    by yesteraeon ( 872571 ) on Friday May 16, 2008 @08:10PM (#23441768)
    Two points:
    1)I don't think we can give too much credence to what we think stupid/crazy people will do in response to a certain policy. Personally, I'd be fine if amputees have a shot at competing in the Olympics and the cost is a few whack jobs cutting off their legs. I'd rather not see anyone lose their legs. But better that than deny these tremendous athletes the chance to compete in the world's most prestigious sporting event (despite having the technology to allow them to do it!).
    2)If losing your legs and having prostheses put in is such an advantage how come this guy is over a second slower than the standard to even qualify for the Olympics?
  • by icegreentea ( 974342 ) on Friday May 16, 2008 @08:33PM (#23441940)
    Normally when running, you tense up certain muscles just before foot strike, so your muscles acts like a spring to release part of that energy afterward. Normally, this means that you get tired cause your muscles are constantly in use (active energy storage). His legs are so set up so that they passively store this energy. He does not need put any effort into that part of the stride.

    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.
  • Re:a big stretch (Score:5, Informative)

    by FleaPlus ( 6935 ) on Friday May 16, 2008 @10:18PM (#23442654) Journal
    Um... sorry to offend? I admittedly don't know much about the surgery and its use, but this NY Times article had some more interesting tidbits:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/20/sports/baseball/20surgery.html [nytimes.com]

    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. ... ... Some parents and young pitchers, hoping for college scholarships or multimillion-dollar professional contracts, misguidedly view the surgery as a performance-enhancement technique instead of a last-resort corrective procedure, said Matt Poe, a speed and strength coach in Nashville. ... ... Yet that appears to be a growing, if mistaken, notion. Dr. Petty and Poe, the strength coach, polled high school and college players with healthy arms in Nashville last month, asking if they believed that Tommy John surgery would allow them to throw the ball faster. Nine of the 46 respondents answered yes.

    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.' "
  • Re:Cyborg Olympics (Score:5, Informative)

    by krazytekn0 ( 1069802 ) on Saturday May 17, 2008 @12:05AM (#23443144) Homepage Journal
    Guy who had cancer != guy is disabled
  • Re:How unfair... (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 17, 2008 @05:32AM (#23444332)
    Right, you have no idea about the physics and biology involved.

    What do you think are the muscles and sinues of your calves for? They are far from being dead weigth but are much more effective than any spring protheses in existance.

    Please, people, tell me how this post could get modded insightfull?
  • Re:How unfair... (Score:4, Informative)

    by StarfishOne ( 756076 ) on Saturday May 17, 2008 @06:15AM (#23444478)

    "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."


    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...
  • by Archtech ( 159117 ) on Saturday May 17, 2008 @08:28AM (#23444902)
    Whatever may be true of swimming or cycling, in the case of running technology has made relatively small differences. Spiked shoes actually give very little advantage, as witness the fact that a few world-class runners have always run barefoot. Spikes give a slight edge, of course, which is why they are so popular.

    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.

This file will self-destruct in five minutes.

Working...