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."

How unfair...

[HetMes]

...to all athletes that have to drag their lower legs at each step, and not having the benefit of springlike limbs.

Re:How unfair...

[Anonymous Coward]

Call me sentimental, but I tend to think that the inspirational value -- to everyone, not just aspiring legless athletes -- of letting this fellow compete trumps any concerns over fairness.

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.

inspiration v. tech

[filthpickle]

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.

Re:inspiration v. tech

[couchslug]

"In 50 years we WILL have cyborg legs....should that be allowed in the olympics?"

Standardize all the legs and inspect them the way NASCAR does cars. Restrict those with cyborg legs to racing in their own class.

Re:inspiration v. tech

[FleaPlus]

Restrict those with cyborg legs to racing in their own class.

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:

[Reziac]

When I was in the 9th grade, a wheelchair basketball team gave a demo at our school, then played a regular game against our team -- who were damned good for junior-high kids, in fact they'd *beaten* a pretty good *high school* junior-varsity team.

Despite which, the wheelchair team thoroughly trounced our able-bodied team.

Re:inspiration v. tech

[Darinbob]

What if I have a pair of shoes that can simulate the extra springiness that were similar to these artificial "legs"? I'm sure many sports groups would disqualify me for having non-standard or unfair equipment.

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:inspiration v. tech

[penguin king]

I think he has overcome his limitations at the Paralympics given he's the current champion (summary), so now he wants a crack at this. I say let him have it, if he's not already running circles around everyone I fail to see the advantage, if they allow it, they can always moderate/restrict classes later, there wouldn't be much point whilst there is only one of him to have a seperate race would there? I don't see why we shouldn't have mens races, womens races and `able amputees` races.

Re:inspiration v. tech

[YrWrstNtmr]

if he's not already running circles around everyone I fail to see the advantage,

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?

Re:inspiration v. tech

[psychodelicacy]

Absolutely. It might be inspirational to see a dyslexic child competing in a spelling bee with the aid of a spellchecker, but it's hardly the point of the competition. The point of the Olympics is to look at the extremes which the human body can achieve. Whether prosthetics are an advantage or a disadvantage is almost beside the point, which is that they go beyond the remit and the purpose of the competition.

Re:inspiration v. tech

[hibji]

I would like to argue that olympics are not only about the human body. It is also very much about technology. Think of the skis and the fancy swim suits used in the swim competitions. Of more relevance are the spiked running shoes used by the runners. They offer a huge advantage. Sports are very much intertwined with technology. It is simply that for this athlete the line in drawn at a different point.

Re:inspiration v. tech

[Reziac]

I think the line needs to be drawn at the point where something *replaces* part of the human body, rather than being *added* to it (as with skis, etc.) Also, in the case of those high-tech *additions*, everyone has exactly the same opportunity to use them. Of course, this could change -- frex, let *every* runner use spring-loaded gear! surely the same principle could be fitted to an intact leg and foot.

Otherwise, as someone above mentioned, you lose the whole point of the Olympics: to demonstrate what the =human= body can achieve.

Re:

[JonathanBoyd]

Oh please. This isn't a human rights issue; it's an issue of what a competition is about. If you're so keen for the handicapped to compete in able-bodied sports, why not the other way round? Because it wouldn't be fair, right? Well this is just applying the same criteria. Handicapped people are in no way being separated from society; everyone is being given the opportunity to compete in a competition where no-one has an advantage by virtue of having been born with or without certain bits of their body. In f

Re:inspiration v. tech

[Kreigaffe]

No, the fear is NOT that he is "equal, but seperate".

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.

Re:inspiration v. tech

[JonathanBoyd]

Replace "handicapped" with "black" above and you'll get a better perspective of what my views are.

Replace "handicapped" with "black" and you're talking about an entirely different issue with entirely different problems. the issue here is not the equality of races/different ethnicities, but rather the level playing field that is required for fair competition.

I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is that competitions like the Olympics should be open to all humans, as long as they have not flouted the rules to get an unfair advantage.

Which strangely enough, no-one disagrees with. Read the comments and you'll see that people have an issue with the unfair advantage that prosthetics/cybernetics provide.

Anyway, while it's nice that handicapped folk have the option of competing in special events, wouldn't it be infinitely better to (assuming they qualified) let them compete in the actual mainstream event?

Only if they can do so without the aid of technology. What's the difference between this case and someone 'running' a marathon in a wheelchair?

Especially since -- athletes have been using technology to improve their performance since, well, forever. Would you disqualify an archer for wearing glasses (Archery is IIRC an Olympic event)? Would you disqualify an athlete for wearing a pacemaker implant (assuming he got it for sound medical reasons and he's fit enough to perform?)

Glasses are an aid to an existing organ that imperfectly correct a problem without altering how vision works beyond what is possible for a normal eye. Pacemakers ensure that an existing heart beats normally, just like a regular heart.

If not, what's wrong with allowing a guy born without legs to wear blades?

Because they're not fixing an imperfection in an existing limb/organ without altering how it fundamentally works; they're replacing limbs and fundamentally changing how they work in a way that is not available to able-bodied people. If someone had a cybernetic eye fitted or a cybernetic heart, I'd take issue with them competing. This isn't about rights because we're not discussing people taking part in society. This is a competition which requires a level playing field and therefore precludes those with an unnatural advantage. If handicapped people want to compete, they should do so without prosthetics/cybernetics/wheelchairs/etc. To suggest otherwise is either political correctness taken to absurd extremes or would require the rules to be relaxed to a much greater extent to allow other aids, which completely changes the nature of the competition.

Re:inspiration v. tech

[sjbe]

Think of the skis and the fancy swim suits used in the swim competitions.Of more relevance are the spiked running shoes used by the runners. They offer a huge advantage.

All of which are available to every competitor. This guy's prosthetic legs are performance enhancing technology that is not available or usable by any other competitor. Technology that provides an unfair or unsafe advantage can be accounted for in the rules but those rules have to be applied uniformly. Performance enhancing drugs have been ruled illegal primarily for safety reasons but also because it becomes a technological arms race defeating the whole point of fair competition. I cannot find a logical distinction between performance enhancing drugs and performance enhancing prosthetics.

Sports are very much intertwined with technology. It is simply that for this athlete the line in drawn at a different point.

Which is exactly the problem. The line CANNOT be drawn in a different place for different competitors. The rules have to be applied uniformly and fairly.

Re:inspiration v. tech

[Archtech]

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.

That point is long lsot

[aepervius]

That point was long lost when the artificial chemical enhancement took over to push the limit of what the human body can achieve.

Re:How unfair...

[WK2]

Call me sentimental, but I tend to think that the inspirational value -- to everyone, not just aspiring legless athletes -- of letting this fellow compete trumps any concerns over fairness.

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.

Performance enhancing - legs vs drugs

[sjbe]

So in just a years time, the only thing we will be left with is the precedent that allows cyborgs in the Olympics.

Actually the more immediate and interesting question is how do they justify this in the face of their ban on performance enhancing drugs? Cold and heartless maybe but I cannot see a logical difference between performance enhancing legs (and they ARE unquestionably performance enhancing) and performance enhancing drugs. Forget cyborgs 50 years from now, there is a double standard now because of this ruling.

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:Performance enhancing - legs vs drugs

[HybridJeff]

Well, if you really wanted too you could et your legs chopped off and attach a pair of cheetas instead.

Re:Performance enhancing - legs vs drugs

[Archtech]

Well, if you really wanted too you could et your legs chopped off and attach a pair of cheetas instead.

I've seen a lot people making that suggestion in the various discussions of this issue. It's very disingenuous, because even for the most fanatical competitor there is a lot more to life than sport. Nobody would make such an extreme sacrifice (voluntarily, at least) just to win a gold medal or set a world record. The obvious pain, suffering, and disadvantages of being legless far outweigh any possible sporting advantage.

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:Performance enhancing - legs vs drugs

[SnowZero]

I've seen a lot people making that suggestion in the various discussions of this issue. It's very disingenuous, because even for the most fanatical competitor there is a lot more to life than sport. Nobody would make such an extreme sacrifice (voluntarily, at least) just to win a gold medal or set a world record.

Olympians are not normal people. They are people who really will sacrifice their entire childhood and early adulthood to a single-minded pursuit of a sport, everything else be damned (at least for the most competitive sports). Read books about their lives, or watch some documentaries; The same sort of story repeats, and its both astoundingly brave and tragic at the same time.

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.

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?

No, I just think its fine to adjust things until they are deemed fair. A athlete cancer patient can get all the help they need to get them back to normal, and that's fair as far as I'm concerned. Athletes routinely get exceptions for drugs to treat serious medical conditions, even using drugs that would otherwise be banned. A lot of thought goes into the allowances for exceptions, and they are difficult to get. However its a defined process, and I think the same thing should apply here (and from the looks of it, that's happening).

The only downside is that it pretty much destroys the integrity of the Olympic Games.

In any competition, loss of integrity is the norm, and the controlling body must constantly struggle to keep it. It's not something to be lost, it is something already lost that we must try to gain and keep with constant maintenance. Looking at exceptional cases on top of the already large burden isn't really that much additional work.

Re:Performance enhancing - legs vs drugs

[Reziac]

And how long is it before some otherwise-healthy person has their legs amputated so they too can be a spring-loaded sprinter, because they feel that will give them that final edge they need to make the Olympics?

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.

Re:

[quantaman]

Call me sentimental, but I tend to think that the inspirational value -- to everyone, not just aspiring legless athletes -- of letting this fellow compete trumps any concerns over fairness.

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.

Inspirational that one guy in the present day can overcome his disability and (almost) compete at the highest level of the world.

Not so inspiration in 10 years when some incredibly fit and dedicated runners are staring down the track at some much less fit amputees bounding down the track like rabbits.

Re:How unfair...

[vertigoCiel]

If they think he has an unfair advantage, why don't they get their legs amputated, too?

Re:How unfair...

[Hankapobe]

If they think he has an unfair advantage, why don't they get their legs amputated, too?

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.

Re:

[erroneus]

You are most correct. There are people who would give up their legs to become faster runners. This is setting up a very bad precedent.

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:

[yesteraeon]

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 le

Re:How unfair...

[slutsker]

Did you actually read the article? It said that the legs did not give him a mechanical advantage:

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.

CAS said the IAAF failed to prove that Pistorius' running blades give him an advantage.

"The panel was not persuaded that there was sufficient evidence of any metabolic advantage in favor of a double-amputee using the Cheetah Flex-Foot," CAS said. "Furthermore, the CAS panel has considered that the IAAF did not prove that the biomechanical effects of using this particular prosthetic device gives Oscar Pistorius an advantage over other athletes not using the device."

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:How unfair...

[sjbe]

Did you actually read the article? It said that the legs did not give him a mechanical advantage:

But the ARE performance enhancing. How is that ANY different than someone taking performance enhancing drugs? It isn't. This ruling misses the point. While he's not cheating he's not competing under the same rules as everyone else either. The prosthetics allow him to do things his body cannot naturally do and none of his competitors will have a similar chance to (legally) enhance their performance the same way.

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.

Re:How unfair...

[Dutch Gun]

See, that's the thing, though... Can we ever be 100% certain that there is no bio-mechanical advantage? I can't think of an absolute way of determining that - it's very likely that we're simply hearing (albeit an expert's) opinion. Maybe someone can think of a way of determining this that I can't - the article was sketchy on details. Essentially, one expert says yes, one says no, and the committee picked which one they wanted to listen to.

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:How unfair...

[StarfishOne]

"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...

Re:How unfair...

[krazytekn0]

Think about it this way... You cut off your leg that means you have less body mass to support, meaning you don't have to eat as much or have as big of an impact on the planet. Cutting off your legs is not only a good way to get ahead in athletics but it's GREEN too!!!

Re:How unfair...

[element-o.p.]

If this guy takes home a gold...it wouldn't surprise me if elite athletes start getting into "accidents" and having these put on them.

I don't think it is likely to become an issue. From the summary: "He ... must improve on his time by 1.01 seconds to meet the Olympic qualification standard."

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!

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is the precedent it sets. Perhaps this guy isn't a near olypmic quality sprinter, but his artificial leg gives him a boost to the point where he's even close. If so... on what grounds do you refuse the guy who was already going to break the record and then gets one of these and uses it to go even *faster?*

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

Re:How unfair...

[Culture20]

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.

I can't wait until the special olympics are outperforming regular olympics, kind of like a super-hero olympics made up of bionic people.

Re:

[Cathoderoytube]

If any athlete decides to chop their legs off to be able to use faster prosthetic legs I would invite them to do a bit of reading on phantom limb beforehand. From my understanding it's one of the more unpleasant things a human being can go through.

Re:How unfair...

[FleaPlus]

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:a big stretch

[FleaPlus]

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:

[FleaPlus]

Just to emphasize the fact that players have only become interested. No one goes and gets Tommy John surgery without needing it.

I'm not sure how reliable the info is, but the examples in this NY Times article seem to disagree:

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

Re:

[vux984]

If they think he has an unfair advantage, why don't they get their legs amputated, too?

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 natur

Re:How unfair...

[psychodelicacy]

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:

[OECD]

Remember where you are. I think it's safe to say that a *lot* of people around here would. Myself, I'm going to get a souped-up golf cart and cite Casey Martin [nytimes.com] as a precedent.

Re:

[SL Baur]

An unfair advantage at dire cost. Where do you think Flo-jo's http://womenshistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ/Ya&sdn=womenshistory&cdn=education&tm=4&f=00&tt=14&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//sportsillustrated.cnn.com/olympics/features/joyner/gallery/ [about.com] muscles came from? And why she died of a heart attack at age 38?

Re:

[Knuckles]

Are you not aware that they are doped up to the ears?

Re:How unfair...

[NoobixCube]

How is that unfair? He holds the Paralympic world record for the 400m, and he STILL has to improve on that by 1.01 seconds to meet qualification standard. I'm by no means an athlete, but I know that professional sprinters and swimmers find it so hard to improve on their own personal bests. Each second is a hardly won battle in it's self. I think he has a hard challenge ahead of him to be selected, and will still probably on place in an average middle position at the Olympics.

Re:

[neoform]

Just because he might not set a new record, doesn't mean there wont be others like him who are faster and given an advantage by their prosthetic legs. The Olympics are supposed to be about athletes competing on a fair playing field. He should be competing in an entirely different category against others with comparable abilities.

Re:

[nick_davison]

You'll notice, no one with an amputation at the ankle has managed to compete on a close to competetive level.

Which is a pretty clear indicator the kinetic energy store of a giant freaking spring for a leg adds something.

Springlike limb != springlike limb

[tepples]

The spring in a natural human ankle is not nearly as efficient as the spring in a roo's ankle or the spring in this athlete's ankle.

Re:

[icegreentea]

You have to flex your ankle to use them as springs. He doesn't. If that doesn't convince you, consider this. When you squat up and down, your legs essentially work like springs. Squat up and down. You'll get tired around 20-30 reps. Now imagine an actual spring. It does not get tired.

Aperture Science is branching out, I see

[Anonymous Coward]

Since they can't compete with Black Mesa, now they're in the sporting equipment business?

Look out Nike.

Re:

[TypoNAM]

There might be cake involved I hear too..

Wait, wasn't cake a lie the last time?

Cyborg Olympics

[neomunk]

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!

Re:

[Hankapobe]

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!

I'm getting a chainsaw on mine!

While you two losers are duking it out...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll have a Sybian installed on mine.

Re:

[Joe Tie.]

I'm getting the discarded arm from one of you guys on mine! I will be known as "Mr. Two Arms", and fight crime when I'm not busy winning the olympics.

Re:Cyborg Olympics

[eln]

Just make sure you always masturbate with the OTHER hand.

Trust me on this one.

Re:

[nick_davison]

Technically, a harpoon launcher allows you to use an external power source (compressed air, explosive, etc.) while his legs don't directly add power to the equation.

What they do however is take an inherrently inefficient task (the loss of kinetic energy from a running stride) and make it more efficient (storing that energy in a spring and then re-releasing it to power forward).

What he's doing is closer to a high jumper entering on a state of the art pogo stick.

Of course, I think it's a brilliant idea. I'm t

Re:

[willyhill]

Laser-wielding sharks cannot be far behind now.

Re:

[neomunk]

You guessed wrong: Lance Armstrong.

But back on topic, this guy DOES enjoy a measurable mechanical advantage over his flesh and blood competitors. Yes, he had extra work to do to be able to use the devices, but by the same token we don't let pole vaulters (with pole) in the high-jump.

Re:Cyborg Olympics

[krazytekn0]

Guy who had cancer != guy is disabled

Some Day

[KidKadaver]

Someday, we'll look back at this event, with the power of hindsight and wonder how we failed to see the Cyborg War coming.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

When you say "the power of hindsight", you mean having cybernetic eyes implanted in the backs of our heads, right?

PDF of full decision

[wanax]

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:

[QuantumG]

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).

Wow, so by that logic I could enter on a moped and, so long as I don't hammer the throttle during qualifying, that would be ok.

Re:

[wanax]

I think this article [go.com] sums up my opinion fairly well. But using a moped is clearly enhancement. The IAAF didn't show that these particular legs allow superior overall biomechanics to a natural leg. But my main point is that this needs to be regulated, rather than banned. This is because there are already many border-line cases. Is this really very different from a runner with a titanium rod in their leg? Or with Speedo's new swimsuit that's causing controversy? What about Tiger Woods' LASIK surgery? Or Flo

this is ridiculous

[circletimessquare]

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

Re:

[Dr. Eggman]

It seems to me the spirit of the Olympic games is to invite friendly competition between nations, not to foster a giant "my country is better than yours" competition. To me, that means that it need not be so strictly regulated. I think the practice of including any able-bodied athelete, as defined as being as capable as any other athelete of their field, is more true to real spirit of inclusion than that if banning any athelete who might have an advantage over, or disadvantage against, any other opponent. I

Re:

[Dr. Eggman]

First, there is a cycling category in racing games so I would find bicycling in the 400-meter little more than a hilarious scheduling error.

Second, chemical doping of atheletes once was an accepted practice (The 1904 games marathon winner,Thomas Hicks, was using strychnine.) It was banned not because it gave an unfair advantage, but instead because it put the athelete's health at risk.

Finally, I still fail to see any real proof that Mr. Pistorius' entry into the 400-meter would be unfair. The closest I ha

Re:this is ridiculous

[icegreentea]

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:

[jpatters]

In TFA, it says that the Court of Arbitration for Sport, after hearing from expert testimony, ruled unanimously that:

A) To exclude him the IAAF would have to prove that he had an undue advantage.
B) The IAAF failed to do so.

Obviously, they didn't have the benefit of your profound insight into this issue.

For long distance it can be an advantage

[Joce640k]

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?

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Will athletes start hacking their own legs off to get ahead?

Or---stranger still---will they start hacking their own heads off to get a leg?

what advantage?

[Yurka]

His personal best is still more than a second behind the qualifying time for the Olympics.

That's fine...

[LordLucless]

...if they're letting regular athletes compete in the disabled categories as well. After all, what's good for the goose...

Specialized limbs not fair.

[uncqual]

This seems like a very bad precedent.

Now, or in the near future, scientists and engineers may well be able to build an artificial limb with better performance characteristics than a natural limb. This is especially true in the case of a specialized application -- for example, sprinting in a straight line on a level surface for 100 meters as opposed to a somewhat more general application like basketball with more varied forces and requirements.

To determine if each such limb gives an "unfair" advantage t

Scientific experts for hire

[Hans Lehmann]

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 [blogspot.com]

A wrestling parallel

[zarathud]

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.

Precedents.

[RonTheHurler]

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...

Re:

[RonTheHurler]

All that is true, but he (Roosevelt) could not have gotten away with hiding his condition without the help and support of the mass media. ALL of the mass media.

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 t

Isn't this like the PGA vs LPGA tour?

[justthinkit]

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.

So where do you draw the line ?

[erlehmann]

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.

Re:So where do you draw the line ?

[megaditto]

In the end, the questions we should ask ourselves probably are not about fairness but about the purpose of such games.

Main purpose: Milking the cash of pseudo-patriotic idiots.

Nailed it, didn't I? Be honest now...

Re:

[wass]

That would depend on how much one's improved sight actually helps them shoot. Ie, what is the limiting factor in sharpshooting, is it sight, or the plethora of other factors that requires steadily aiming and firing a gun. Does going beyond 20/20 actually help out significantly beyond the other factors?

Re:

[Kjella]

Well, we already have the ban on drugs in sports. IMHO the line that has been drawn is quite clear - you can use enhancements outside your body like all sorts of fancy equipment and high altitude training, but the body itself must start out and be natural (I include this because there's drugs that are out of your system come competition time, but are still illegal) and during competition time you must rely on your natural body. Clearly you wouldn't let him "run" in an exoskeleton or a F1 car, why would you

Re:

[icegreentea]

No. But that is a false analogy. Laser eye surgery at best will not allow to see better than the human maximum, nor will it allow to see in a fundamentally different way. Pistorius' legs do. His efficiency is beyond the reach of any human, simply because he doesn't have to flex his large segments of his leg when he lands each stride. His race performance bares it out. He maintains an almost constant top speed for the entire race, something that is impossible for any human runner. His legs are BUILT for runn

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Laser eye surgery doesn't fundamentally change how you see, but these prosthetics fundamentally change how he runs. What do you do when new prosthetics are developed that increase performance X%, just allow him to upgrade while the rest of the field sticks there thumbs up their asses?

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,

He's using undoped human muscles

[xmark]

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 mi

Re:

[Kjella]

The short counterpoint to your post is that we know running isn't the most efficient way to use the muscles. Using equipment we can make humans go much faster. We can make a non-amputated man go faster than the track world record with ease on for example a bicycle. Fair? No. Using these legs? Certainly they could make him "run" faster than any other man on earth, but it wouldn't be the same sport.

Re:

[danpat]

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 [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 pre

Re:Doping goes to a whole new level

[antifoidulus]

Ever watch that stupid robot battle show?

The O'Reilly factor?

Re:

[Dr. Eggman]

No, he must improve by that much. His time is 46.56 seconds. He needs 45.55 seconds to qualify for the 400-meter

Re:

[amRadioHed]

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.

Re:

[uniquename72]

Agreed. My body can't naturally go as fast as even a slow Olympian, so why not let me ride my motorcycle in the race? Would it help if I were paraplegic? Could I use a trampoline for the high jump, too?

Re:

[danpat]

Ever see how many of the Paralympic events are run? Everyone is thrown into the same race, no matter what your disability. The winner, however, is judged as the person who gets closest to the world record for their category of disability.

So sure, stick him in the race with everyone else. However if an able-bodied athlete breaks the able-bodied world record, and this guy doesn't break the "two-amputated-legs" record, then he doesn't win, even if he crosses the line first.

That's why he has the paralympics.

[CatOne]

Where he can compete with other people with disabilities and artificial limbs.

Next thing you know. Steve Austin will be competing. And people will be having legs removed so they can compete on their 'bionic' ones. If the artificial ones prove to be faster than the natural ones, you can bet that some people will in fact go that far in the name of competition.

Re:

[tepples]

Then why do the Paralympics get hardly any airtime?

Re:

[Nullav]

Don't forget that you can't feel a prosthetic, which makes it that much harder to coordinate. As for your comment on traction, what do you think we wear shoes for?

Re:i'm an amputee too

[Slashdot Suxxors]

You run on bicycles??