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."
How unfair... (Score:5, Insightful)
Cyborg olympic (Score:1, 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.
And the medal goes to... (Score:1, Insightful)
I dont like where this is going years down the road.
Re:How unfair... (Score:5, Insightful)
Deserves a chance (Score:1, Insightful)
He is a great role model for other disabled persons in his way - just as Stephen Hawking is in his.
Re:How unfair... (Score:1, Insightful)
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: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.
He's using undoped human muscles (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:How unfair... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How unfair... (Score:3, Insightful)
If doping is bad, this is bad too. If he could somehow run without his devices or could substitute a non-springy prosthesis, then it would be okay again. But as it stands, there will be those who are obsessive enough to follow in his prosthetic footsteps.
Re:Doping goes to a whole new level (Score:3, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_at_the_Tour_de_France#Tom_Simpson_dies_in_the_Tour [wikipedia.org]
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.
Re:How unfair... (Score:3, Insightful)
What if they do? What if it that becomes what it takes to win? The olympics is already a freakshow... but it could descend much much further... we could attach flipper feet to swimmers, and implant gills designed to breath in chlorinated pools...
At what point do we draw the line?
And if we don't draw a line and let the olympics devolve into a league for pharma-cyborg-supermen, can we start up a new 'new olympics' for natural human beings?? Because I'd find that more interesting.
Re:So where do you draw the line ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nailed it, didn't I? Be honest now...
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!
That's fine... (Score:5, Insightful)
inspiration v. tech (Score:5, Insightful)
I want a separate olympics.......an entertain me monkey olympics.
Re:So where do you draw the line ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Lets keep things in perspective, track and field is a sport about human performance, this ruling just introduced engineering into track and field as a major factor. I find this far more preposterous than the use of steroids, at least steroids are just hormones increasing performance through biological means and hence still 'human performance'.
And what are you trying to imply is the 'purpose of such games'? Good will, giving everybody a chance, blaah blaah? The purpose is a fair competition amongst the best the world has to offer. The keep time for a reason, the test for ban substances for a reason, the call false starts for a reason. That's right not everybody gets a chance to compete and only one gets the gold.
Re:How unfair... (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps this prosthetic doesn't give the guy an advantage... but mechanically it's pretty clear there *are* such prosthetics, and I rather suspect this is one.
I mean... imagine someone has a medical condition that prevents them from growing significant muscles. Now imagine that this person could overcome this physical disability by using steroids. Should he be allowed to compete in olympic weight lifting competitions where steroids are banned?
It's pretty clear that a normal athlete with a spring attached to their foot wouldn't be allowed... We have the special olypmics for a reason. I'm sure this guy can win there, and wish him luck in that... but not in the normal olympics.
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.
Re:How unfair... (Score:2, Insightful)
Furthermore, placing in the average middle position at the Olympics is a sign that you are at the top of your sport.
Re:How unfair... (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
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.
Re:That's fine... (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure. Why should the LPGA be allowed to discriminate on gender grounds?
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.
Re:How unfair... (Score:2, Insightful)
I could probably overcome this challenge with sufficient technology, if they'd only let me. But it wouldn't be an inspirational story.
Re:inspiration v. tech (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Doping goes to a whole new level (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Performance enhancing - legs vs drugs (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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.
Re:inspiration v. tech (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How unfair... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:inspiration v. tech (Score:5, Insightful)
That point is long lsot (Score:4, Insightful)
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".
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.
Re:inspiration v. tech (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:inspiration v. tech (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Precedents. (Score:3, Insightful)
Granted, the mass media was much smaller then, but there were ample photographs of Roosevelt in his wheelchair. The newspapers decided not to publish them. All the newspapers.
It wasn't a conspiracy, that's just the way things were. It would have been considered rude and disrespectful to point out a man's frailties. This same attitude contributed to the disqualification of the one-legged high jumper in the olympics. It was a blatant flaunting of a disability, regardless of the fact that he could still compete. It wasn't "humble" in a time when humility was more important than being "cool" is today.
Re:inspiration v. tech (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
wow - ignorance rules (Score:2, Insightful)
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 [newscientist.com] 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 ofRe:inspiration v. tech (Score:2, Insightful)
To get a line position in racing, they give all the contestants a single lap, the fastest lap time getting front position
The interesting thing is that the drivers drive their cars past their limits attempting this, after the single lap is over, the gearbox needs to be replaced because they didn't bother with things like a clutch, heavens knows how their engine is.
But that doesn't matter to them, their budget is simply so big they can afford to throw away/repair their cars between races.
Thats what would happen in these "anything goes" races.
You'd have athletes who's entire career would be for 1 game. After that their bones, brains, organs would be so shot that they wouldn't be usable, and their nations would just discard them.
Now thats just not a sport I'd want to support.
I want to support a game where with a bit of talent and hard training, you'll be able to best the world.
Re:inspiration v. tech (Score:5, Insightful)
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.