Jump to content

Should Oscar Pistorius be allowed to compete in the Olympics?


jawillwill

Recommended Posts

Well, he finished last in his semi-final... I did think it was a nice touch however that the winner of his semi, a 19-year-old tipped for the gold, wanted to swap the name badge with Oscar, and then in an interview afterwards said that he was honoured to run against him and thought it was great that he was competing. Fair play.

 

For all the arguments and POV's above, I still maintain that the only way to settle this is through some pretty thorough bio-mechanical analysis, but even then, to ensure parity you need to be happy that his prosthetics deliver the same performance as the average calf/ankle/foot combination... and how do you know what that is? Do you measure the top 100 athletes to find out?

 

Very, very difficult one to overcome IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm solidly in the "no" camp, if he wants to run he should have to use the limbs he was born with/those still attached. With the amount of effort that goes into anti-doping it seems rather silly to allow artificial aids like prosthetics to be used.

 

You can't use certain nasal clearing products because they contain stimulants which are banned in the tiniest doses, but you can use fake legs ? Seems rather a failing of the rules. Besides, that's what the Paralympics are for.

 

No need to run complicated analyses to justify participation, he doesn't meet the criteria without the artifical aids.

It's not infant school egg and spoon, and not everyone gets the Fruit Gums at the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course he should be allowed, his blade things obviously help him but he's got no f*cking legs, give him a break.

 

I'm deaf in one ear, can someone sort me out with the opportunity to join some of the bands at the Closing Ceremony?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might have been able to if you had practised your trumpet for years and years to be able to play at a high enough standard to join said band.

 

I trained like **** to be better than Hampshire juniors standard but I just didnt have the tidal lung volume. I deserve another chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I trained like **** to be better than Hampshire juniors standard but I just didnt have the tidal lung volume. I deserve another chance.

 

Pistorius isn't there because he is disabled. He is there because he qualified with one of the best times on his own merit in the South African trials.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pistorius isn't there because he is disabled. He is there because he qualified with one of the best times on his own merit in the South African trials.

 

 

He is only there because he is disabled, as a token gesture of inclusion. Where would you stop? with the no armed guy who uses a springloaded slingshot for the shot put? laser guided rifle for the blind guy? Billions of people worldwide dont have what it takes to compete in the Olympics 100m. Pistorius is no different.

Edited by buctootim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is only there because he is disabled, as a token gesture of inclusion. Where would you stop? with the no armed guy who uses a springloaded slingshot for the shot put? laser guided rifle for the blind guy? Billions of people worldwide dont have what it takes to compete in the Olympics 100m. Pistorius is no different.

 

If having prosthetic limbs is such an advantage, why don't amputee runners consistently beat the times of non-amputee runners?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because they're not elite athletes in a lot of cases?

 

You think someone like Oscar Pistorius doesn't train like an elite athlete? With that training and the HUGE advantage of the prosthetic limbs surely he should be miles ahead!

 

He got there on merit because he qualified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You think someone like Oscar Pistorius doesn't train like an elite athlete? With that training and the HUGE advantage of the prosthetic limbs surely he should be miles ahead!

 

He got there on merit because he qualified.

 

He got there because some idiot decided people with springs instead of lower limbs should be allowed to compete in an event where even leaning forward at the start line leads to disqualification, and somehow not regard that as an advantage.

 

Anyway, mine's not even an argument about "advantage" its an argument about eligibility. My argument is that he is eligible when he doesn't use artificial aids. It's pretty simple, just as him breaking that rule is easy to detect.

 

However, if he's so elite, what are his times like without the prosthetics?

Edited by The9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He got there because some idiot decided people with springs instead of lower limbs should be allowed to compete in an event where even leaning forward at the start line leads to disqualification, and somehow not regard that as an advantage.

 

Anyway, mine's not even an argument about "advantage" its an argument about eligibility. My argument is that he is eligible when he doesn't use artificial aids. It's pretty simple, just as him breaking that rule is easy to detect.

 

However, if he's so elite, what are his times like without the prosthetics?

 

Around 3 hours in the 400m I believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He got there because some idiot decided people with springs instead of lower limbs should be allowed to compete in an event where even leaning forward at the start line leads to disqualification, and somehow not regard that as an advantage.

 

Anyway, mine's not even an argument about "advantage" its an argument about eligibility. My argument is that he is eligible when he doesn't use artificial aids. It's pretty simple, just as him breaking that rule is easy to detect.

 

However, if he's so elite, what are his times like without the prosthetics?

 

Exactly this

 

Unfortunately some people are so interested in equality and total inclusion that they lose sight of the real issues here.

 

Far fetched I know, but someone did say it earlier, what with this as a precedence what is to stop someone like china trying double amputee athletes with some v high level prosthetics ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember the 'full on' Olympics in 2000 AD -steroids, prosthetics, the lot - this really is the beginning of that. Have you read 'Machine Man'? - it's a pretty funny novel about a man who develops super efficient prosthetics and then starts having 'accidents' in the lab so that he becomes the recipient of the prosthetic. Such an approach would not be beyond the less morally constrained nations of the world, and other nations would follow.

 

There's not a massive difference between super high tech trainers and the prosthetics - consider the banning of the full body suits in swimming. It's illogical to ban these and not artificial legs. IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of the above comments are why, IMO, my point is so important.

 

The prosthetics are key, but to just assume that are an advantage (or even that they are definitely not) is wrong. They need to be looked at closely to decide what is or is not acceptable. As I said previously, I do not think he should compete until this is looked into in some depth, but I think it is wrong to rule him out entirely. Where it is feasible, and the authorities are happy that athletes are competing on a level playing field, then I see nothing wrong with allowing as many people as possible the chance to compete and run the qualifying times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of the above comments are why, IMO, my point is so important.

 

The prosthetics are key, but to just assume that are an advantage (or even that they are definitely not) is wrong. They need to be looked at closely to decide what is or is not acceptable. As I said previously, I do not think he should compete until this is looked into in some depth, but I think it is wrong to rule him out entirely. Where it is feasible, and the authorities are happy that athletes are competing on a level playing field, then I see nothing wrong with allowing as many people as possible the chance to compete and run the qualifying times.

 

 

That view is admirable, idealistic and unachievable imo Minty. What are you going to do - approve one standard set of prosthetic legs for everybody? or are you going to allow them to be tailored for each individual? tailored by the type of track? tailored by the race - longer springs for long distance events maybe?

 

'Normal' runners have one set of equipment - their bodies. You cant have runners whose heart and lungs only have to service a much smaller, lighter body (no legs) and can adjust their equipment to varying distances and conditions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That view is admirable, idealistic and unachievable imo Minty. What are you going to do - approve one standard set of prosthetic legs for everybody? or are you going to allow them to be tailored for each individual? tailored by the type of track? tailored by the race - longer springs for long distance events maybe?

 

'Normal' runners have one set of equipment - their bodies. You cant have runners whose heart and lungs only have to service a much smaller, lighter body (no legs) and can adjust their equipment to varying distances and conditions.

Note that I didn't actually say I thought it *was* possible... I just said that's the only way it could really happen and for everyone to be happy that the athletes are competing fairly. My personal opinion is actually the same as yours, that it probably IS unachievable, but that's based on entirely non-expert POV. I'm not a bio-mechanical scientist and don't know what they are capable of these days.

 

That said, I guess the other key thing to look at here is the reaction of the other competitors. The Olympic champion quite openly welcomed him and wanted to exchange his name badge, because he recognised the significance of the event. I don't know about all the other competitors, but if the majority of them are happy to compete against him, I would happily defer to them. After all, they are the ones with the most to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess the other key thing to look at here is the reaction of the other competitors. The Olympic champion quite openly welcomed him and wanted to exchange his name badge, because he recognised the significance of the event. I don't know about all the other competitors, but if the majority of them are happy to compete against him, I would happily defer to them. After all, they are the ones with the most to lose.

 

Perhaps, but then they knew his personal best was well outside what would be needed to reach the final. Would they have been so welcoming if a medal was at stake?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps, but then they knew his personal best was well outside what would be needed to reach the final. Would they have been so welcoming if a medal was at stake?

Who knows. Probably the same for the Athletics governing body, knowing it isn't a major issue because of his PB, and so less risk of controversy, but if he'd been quicker, perhaps there would be more scrutiny of his prosthetics?

 

The net result as things stand is that the results weren't affected at all but there has been widespread credit for his inclusion. As a legacy of these games, I think that's fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The net result as things stand is that the results weren't affected at all but there has been widespread credit for his inclusion. As a legacy of these games, I think that's fine.

 

I agree. Im not unhappy with this as a one off. I hope however that it hasnt opened Pandora's box. Prosthetics are only going to improve and in time will likely enable ordinary athletes to outperform the elite imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. Im not unhappy with this as a one off. I hope however that it hasnt opened Pandora's box. Prosthetics are only going to improve and in time will likely enable ordinary athletes to outperform the elite imo.

 

Maybe to even things up a bit we could make him run with one arm tied behind his back and a butt plug up his arse?

 

Wouldn't want to open the pandora's box of giving hope to thousands of disabled people that one day they could compete on the biggest stage alongside the greatest athletes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe to even things up a bit we could make him run with one arm tied behind his back and a butt plug up his arse?

 

Wouldn't want to open the pandora's box of giving hope to thousands of disabled people that one day they could compete on the biggest stage alongside the greatest athletes.

 

 

Well done stupidest post on the thread by a long way. No doubt I can look forward to being able to use drugs to increase oxygen uptake since my lung capacity was never big enough to compete at top level. I consider myself disabled and demand the right to compete at the Olympics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prosthetics are only going to improve and in time will likely enable ordinary athletes to outperform the elite imo.

I doubt it personally, not on any significant scale... it would only be certain athletes who are already at a certain level, who could then use something to give them an edge.

 

All depends on what function the prosthetic replaces, and to what degree. Of course they could easily be designed to improve upon what is 'humanly possible' and give greater power/flexibility/spring or whatever, than a human limb, but this is where the rules and regulations must come in to ensure that that is not the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All depends on what function the prosthetic replaces, and to what degree. Of course they could easily be designed to improve upon what is 'humanly possible' and give greater power/flexibility/spring or whatever, than a human limb, but this is where the rules and regulations must come in to ensure that that is not the case.

 

Thats my whole point though. There is no standard for a human limb. The performance of each part of the human body varies enormously from individual to individual - its weight, its oxgen uptake/ size of blood vessels, the pain signals sent to the brain, the ratio of fast twitch to slow twitch muscle. What is good for marathon running is not good for 100m.

Edited by buctootim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, completely agree. This is why I suggested a *possible* way forward (and remember, what they decide doesn't have to be acceptable to us, only to the relevant authorities) might be that they only permit a prosthetic which performs equally or less than, say, the 'average' measurements from the top 20 athletes in the world at that time.

 

I know I'm heading off deeper into the realms of unlikeliness here, so don't take what I'm saying too seriously, but who knows what the future holds? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol, jus read some of these posts, and u talk like he's the million dollar man. he's the same as every athlete from the knees up, no?

 

Yes, but other athletes cannot add extra length to the lower leg as and when they want to aid stride length.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe to even things up a bit we could make him run with one arm tied behind his back and a butt plug up his arse?

 

Wouldn't want to open the pandora's box of giving hope to thousands of disabled people that one day they could compete on the biggest stage alongside the greatest athletes.

 

What a complete ton of arse, and basically backing up what I said earlier.

 

I take it your part of the "he is disabled so he must be able to compete with the top athletes brigade no matter what" then ?

 

My issue isnt about his personal inclusion, jesus christ if he managed it legally than fair play, all I am saying is how can a pair of spiked springs with no physiological constraints of their own be deemed legal ?

 

Would you allow a boxer with a metal arm ? A paraplegic swimmer with four paddles for limbs ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you allow a boxer with a metal arm ? A paraplegic swimmer with four paddles for limbs ?

 

That's a bit silly.

 

To try and bring it back to decent debate, perhaps the questions on this thread should actually be aimed at the sports' governing body... they did after all decide that it WAS legal for him to compete and must have sufficient reason to have done so. The answer to your (and several other peoples) question 'How can it be legal?' must've been answered by them at some point. It just seems that lots of people are saying it shouldn't be allowed without actually looking into how and why it WAS.

 

(And once again, for the avoidance of doubt, I personally am not sure it is the right decision at this time, but clearly a decision was made based on something tangible and we should respect that and challenge it based on the facts rather than our own amateur perceptions or interpretation of things.)

 

Actually, I'll follow my own advice... Here's a link to the first press release issued when Pistorius was cleared to run: http://www.iaaf.org/aboutiaaf/news/newsid=44917.html

 

So, interestingly, after appeal to the CAS he was cleared to run because of a LACK of evidence that he DOES gain an advantage (innocent until proven guilty I guess?) rather than being able to prove that he doesn't.

 

Here's some interesting independent analysis and commentary: http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/08/scientific-interpretation-of-oscar.html and http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/08/scientific-evidence-for-advantage-for.html

 

Now, reading that (an hour after I started typing this reply!), I actually find myself thinking there is plenty enough doubt out there to justify NOT allowing him to run, but that the IAAF, or rather the CAS, perhaps made their decision based on the wider 'human interest' angle? Quite interesting though IMO.

 

But for balance, here's some more reading from one of the guys who conducted the CAS research: http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2012/aug/03/ui-profs-blade-runner-research-aims-better-prosthe/

 

No offence to some of you guys, but I find the above far more engaging and evidence-based than our debate thus far!

Edited by Minty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a bit silly.

 

blah blah blah...

No offence, but a lot of people have seen the story and some of the evidence for why he's running. And, funniliy enough, still don't agree with it.

 

He's running with artificial aids. Without which, naturally, he would be much slower. When sports like swimming, cycling, athletics even are doing all they can to cut out the effect of artificial influence (in the form of banning swimming suits, having regulation bicycles, banning performance enhancing drugs, and all sorts of other regulations) its weird how the sport suddenly wants to bend the rules to 90 degrees to allow one competitor in. Although he is clearly an inspiration (and a media dream) it just isn't right. He runs the 400M. what if he did the high jump? What if he got "springier" springs? Where does it stop?

 

Edit: Really, the only question should be is this. His springs on his feet are now, apparently, legal. So if an able-bodied 400m runner found a way to convert those "blades" to running with them strapped on, and they improved his/her times, would they be allowed? If not, why not?

Edited by The Kraken
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or the long jump? Or the triple jump?

 

 

 

I think he should be going for smashing the high jump world record. I think with the right engineering he's clearing the pole vault bar. Easy and what a spectacle for the neutral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he should be going for smashing the high jump world record. I think with the right engineering he's clearing the pole vault bar. Easy and what a spectacle for the neutral.

 

I'm sure I used to read about Sports Days like that, Dennis the Menace in the Beano trying it on with massive springs on his boots. Although I'm pretty sure Dennis always used to get found out and disqualified back then, maybe if the rules have apparently changed he'd get away with it now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No offence, but a lot of people have seen the story and some of the evidence for why he's running. And, funniliy enough, still don't agree with it.

 

None taken. I hadn't seen any of it and thought some others might be interested, plus I think the debate is better with some informed opinion in it so make no apologies for posting it. I would argue that those links provide far more information than was actually in the media too.

 

And actually, the more interesting links of those I posted were ones that AGREE that he SHOULDN'T compete and on reading it all, it has actually reinforced my view that he shouldn't also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...