Oscar Pistorius to Compete in London 2012!

[Jo-Jo]

Logic would say that if the ruling body entrusted to protect the integrity of the sport and of the other athletes made the ruling they did and for the reasons they did, then the subjective opinions for and against are just that, opinions.

Lots of straw-man argument but a dearth of logic. Your only real argument is that it's an inspriational story - which it might be - but that has zero value in the larger context of the discussion.

I'm one of those people who thought it was great he was going to the Olympics...but that's before I remembered that there had been studies on the performance advantage the blades give.
I've read all the posts on this thread.
My conclusion...do not agree with the decision.
And allowing him to then compete in the ParaOlympics looks like being able to "have your cake...and eat it too"

I've really enjoyed this discussion...it made me rethink my initial reaction...thanks guys...and gals!

[Dstew]

Logic would say that if the ruling body entrusted to protect the integrity of the sport and of the other athletes made the ruling they did and for the reasons they did, then the subjective opinions for and against are just that, opinions.

Lots of straw-man argument but a dearth of logic. Your only real argument is that it's an inspriational story - which it might be - but that has zero value in the larger context of the discussion.

There was very little logic against - the blade may give him an theoretical advantage on the straights but the ruling body of the sport and other expert have suggested that the disadvantages he has cancels that out. The straw man include the horde of disabled athletes competing as this one decision opens a slippery slope and it even went as far as Bolt losing his legs, getting blades and winning the gold. A golden straw man. Drug cheating in track is not a straw man and well documented with the cheaters always one or two steps ahead.

So the argument does come down not to logic but does one see the inspirational value over riding a pursuit notion of the sport with no hint of an advantage. I suspect those who can name the last 4 Olympic 400 meter champions as against and those who cannot, for with exceptions of course.

And as a tangent of drugs used by professional athletes to secure performances and hence cash - about as far from the Olympic ideal as one can get - look at cycling. Advantages in training, technology, tactics, etc, etc but when they were able to get EPO out, the average mountain times were slowing by several minutes. The cynic in me says in track the attraction is a WR or OR so ...

[HCcD]

And allowing him to then compete in the ParaOlympics looks like being able to "have your cake...and eat it too"

This ^^^^^^

With regards to having a technical advantage ... one of the most compelling comments that I heard recently was .... "Would anybody with two functional legs be willing to give them up for these "blades" to have a technological advantage to race agains other runners with two functional legs ?? "

No comment ...

[Spirit Unleashed]

Wow, those legs are LONG!

Anyway, the result of my google is that he is not cute enough to warrant special treatment.

[Pat Menzies]

People always talk about the theory of an exceptional runner losing limbs so a direct comparison of ability can be made.
This guy may answer that.
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/world/88254 ... s-trainers

[MichaelMc]

The Court of Arbitration for Sport said that Pistorius probably gets some advantages from the springy, curved blades, but also suffers some disadvantages, and they even out in the end.

The CAS panel unanimously determined that Dr. Brüggemann only tested Oscar’s biomechanics at full-speed when he was running in a straight line (unlike a real 400m race), that the report did not consider the disadvantages that Oscar suffers at the start and acceleration phases of the race, that Dr. Brüggemann did not consider disadvantages that Oscar suffers, and that overall there was no evidence that Oscar had any net advantage over able-bodied athletes

Hugh Herr, an associate professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and an expert in biomechanics and bionics who has conducted studies on Pistorius, agreed with the decision to reinstate Pistorius, saying there is no evidence the blades give Pistorius an edge.

Pistorius' leg speed is quicker than that of some other athletes but not all of them, Herr said, meaning he's "not abnormal." And in terms of the energy he uses and the way he tires, there is, crucially, no difference, Herr said. Pistorius is probably at a disadvantage because he cannot hit the ground as hard as other athletes, the professor said.

Herr said Pistorius was forced to come up with a different running style from a young age because he had no lower legs, and developed bigger hips as a result. Those hips, and to a lesser extent his knee joints, are the key to his running, Herr said.

"The view that he's a robot that doesn't fatigue is nonsense," Herr said. "The science is immature. We don't know very much, but what we do know says there's no overall advantage for Pistorius in a 400-meter race."


Logic would say that if the ruling body entrusted to protect the integrity of the sport and of the other athletes made the ruling they did and for the reasons they did, then the subjective opinions for and against are just that, opinions.

I will grant you this, it does appear that the science involved is in its infancy and should be pursued. But for now, I am quite content to let the potential inspirational story trump the concerns of pampered professional athletes who may have found their speed through drugs.

Interestingly, when Herr issued his own report OUTSIDE the panel he clartified his position and cited an even LARGER advantage than the other testing had shown. Really the science is not in its infancy, it is clear and he has a massive advantage. http://www.sportsscientists.com/search?q=pistorius
The IAAF took the politically expedient approach with this just as they did with Semenya. Principles should be followed. It is pretty clear that the blades Oscar uses can be modified to produce a variety of different effects. Frankly the longer the race the more likely a person will benefit, so if we do get a distance runner double amputee (like the one above) it might become an overwhelming advantage. At that point we'll have people citing the Pistorius example and suggesting we're making a distinction based on the fact the new guy can win (its OK if he shows up and loses, but not Ok if he wins?), or race or some other predjudice.

[La]

And if I wear flippers on my feet I can swim a LOT faster, but I'll never be able to race against Phelps. Though it might give some people enough of an advantage to get them to that level.

[HCcD]

http://sports.nationalpost.com/2012/07/10/oscar-pistorius-feel-good-story-on-slippery-slope/

Oscar Pistorius’ feel-good story on slippery slope
Joe O'Connor Jul 10, 2012 – 9:24 PM ET | Last Updated: Jul 11, 2012 10:31 AM ET


South Africa's Oscar Pistorius competes during the 400m Men event at the KBC Night of Athletics in Heusden, Belgium, Saturday, July 7, 2012.


I am a sucker for a feel-good story, for Disney endings, for watching the little guy triumph against all odds. All of which makes me a sucker for the Oscar Pistorius story.

Maybe you know it? Born without fibula bones in his legs and with deformities in his feet, Oscar’s parents made a heart-rending decision to amputate their baby boy’s legs below the knees when he was 11 months old.

Oscar didn’t let it stop him. Oscar dreamed big dreams. And he ran. And now here we are, a few weeks short of the 2012 London Summer Olympics, waiting for little Oscar’s greatest race yet. Waiting for a handsome, well-spoken, 25-year-old South African with no legs — and nicknamed the Blade Runner — to blaze down the track on his “Cheetah” brand prosthetics alongside the fastest able-bodied men on the planet in the 400 and 4 x 400-metre relay.

The trouble with this Disney moment is where does the story go from here? Oscar Pistorius has zero chance of medalling. Fast as he is, he simply isn’t as fast as his two-legged peers.

[La]

The trouble with this Disney moment is where does the story go from here? Oscar Pistorius has zero chance of medalling. Fast as he is, he simply isn’t as fast as his two-legged peers.

Um, he HAS two legs!

[La]

And the other side of the coin asks, "Who says people with disabilities want to be seen as inspiring?"

http://disabledfeminists.com/2010/02/25 ... spiration/

[DougG]

And the other side of the coin asks, "Who says people with disabilities want to be seen as inspiring?"

Whoever wrote that has a chip on their shoulder.

As far as the Oscar goes, the inspirational aspect is there whether he likes it or not. As to the argument that "he won't likely win a medal, so what is the harm" goes, would your opinion be the same if he was a serious threat to win? What about the next guy who is faster and is a serious threat? Should he (she) be allowed to compete?

[Dstew]

And the other side of the coin asks, "Who says people with disabilities want to be seen as inspiring?"

Whoever wrote that has a chip on their shoulder.

As far as the Oscar goes, the inspirational aspect is there whether he likes it or not. As to the argument that "he won't likely win a medal, so what is the harm" goes, would your opinion be the same if he was a serious threat to win? What about the next guy who is faster and is a serious threat? Should he (she) be allowed to compete?

I loved La's analogy about the flippers and Phelps. Give 100,000 double amputees those blades and have them run a marathon and given all of the other factors that goes into how fast and far, would any of these hypothetical marathoners actually come even close to competing at an elite level? So if we assume that the same percentage of amputees would even want to run a marathon, of that 100,000, about a 100 would even try to run a marathon. 10% of those even have the time and money to properly train, that leaves 10. Of those, how many have even remotely the amount of talent to come even close to an elite level and even be able to break 3 hours, maybe 1 or 2. Odds of that 1 or 2 breaking 2:30, 2:15, etc.

Add in that the amputee would have to be at a fairly young age in order to be able to properly train with the blades. Would a 25 year old who loses both legs have enough time to get up to the hypothetical speed that may be there?

When one really looks at this, the numbers are so incredibly small there would be a very significant question as of if there will ever be a "next" one. Aside from a very, very small percentage of people, almost no one can tell you who won the 400 meters four years ago. So if a guy with blades were to win, would it really matter to the sport? Is it really that bad to suggest someone can overcome significant disadvantages as opposed to working very hard to take advantage of genetic gifts?

[turd ferguson]

http://sports.nationalpost.com/2012/07/10/oscar-pistorius-feel-good-story-on-slippery-slope/

Oscar Pistorius’ feel-good story on slippery slope
Joe O'Connor Jul 10, 2012 – 9:24 PM ET | Last Updated: Jul 11, 2012 10:31 AM ET



The trouble with this Disney moment is where does the story go from here? Oscar Pistorius has zero chance of medalling...

Not true. He can do anything he sets his mind to. There are no limits. I learned that from a picture of a tshirt a friend of mine reposted on Facebook.

[Mark.AU]

I loved La's analogy about the flippers and Phelps. Give 100,000 double amputees those blades and have them run a marathon and given all of the other factors that goes into how fast and far, would any of these hypothetical marathoners actually come even close to competing at an elite level? So if we assume that the same percentage of amputees would even want to run a marathon, of that 100,000, about a 100 would even try to run a marathon. 10% of those even have the time and money to properly train, that leaves 10. Of those, how many have even remotely the amount of talent to come even close to an elite level and even be able to break 3 hours, maybe 1 or 2. Odds of that 1 or 2 breaking 2:30, 2:15, etc.

Add in that the amputee would have to be at a fairly young age in order to be able to properly train with the blades. Would a 25 year old who loses both legs have enough time to get up to the hypothetical speed that may be there?

When one really looks at this, the numbers are so incredibly small there would be a very significant question as of if there will ever be a "next" one. Aside from a very, very small percentage of people, almost no one can tell you who won the 400 meters four years ago. So if a guy with blades were to win, would it really matter to the sport? Is it really that bad to suggest someone can overcome significant disadvantages as opposed to working very hard to take advantage of genetic gifts?

You know, I honestly am having a hard time believing that you actually believe in this position you're taking on this matter. But, I guess you do.

One point though; if I were Oscar - and I'm obviously not - but if I were, I'd be more pissed at your position that it's okay for me to compete because I won't win than I would be at Michael's position that the blades give me an unfair advantage, or at least I'm not running the same event as able bodied athletes. If I were Oscar, I'd think that your position is patronizing and condescending. But I'm not Oscar, am I.

[Jwolf]

I loved La's analogy about the flippers and Phelps. Give 100,000 double amputees those blades and have them run a marathon and given all of the other factors that goes into how fast and far, would any of these hypothetical marathoners actually come even close to competing at an elite level? So if we assume that the same percentage of amputees would even want to run a marathon, of that 100,000, about a 100 would even try to run a marathon. 10% of those even have the time and money to properly train, that leaves 10. Of those, how many have even remotely the amount of talent to come even close to an elite level and even be able to break 3 hours, maybe 1 or 2. Odds of that 1 or 2 breaking 2:30, 2:15, etc.

Add in that the amputee would have to be at a fairly young age in order to be able to properly train with the blades. Would a 25 year old who loses both legs have enough time to get up to the hypothetical speed that may be there?

When one really looks at this, the numbers are so incredibly small there would be a very significant question as of if there will ever be a "next" one. Aside from a very, very small percentage of people, almost no one can tell you who won the 400 meters four years ago. So if a guy with blades were to win, would it really matter to the sport? Is it really that bad to suggest someone can overcome significant disadvantages as opposed to working very hard to take advantage of genetic gifts?

You know, I honestly am having a hard time believing that you actually believe in this position you're taking on this matter. But, I guess you do.

One point though; if I were Oscar - and I'm obviously not - but if I were, I'd be more pissed at your position that it's okay for me to compete because I won't win than I would be at Michael's position that the blades give me an unfair advantage, or at least I'm not running the same event as able bodied athletes. If I were Oscar, I'd think that your position is patronizing and condescending. But I'm not Oscar, am I.

I agree!

He doesn't want to compete to be an inspiration. He wants to compete because he thinks he can compete fairly and he wants to win.

I think it will become clear in the future that it is not a fair competition. For now, it is what it is and he'll be in London this year. But to say "let him compete because he's an inspiration and it doesn't matter whether it's fair competition because he won't win anyway" totally misses the point.

[Dstew]

I loved La's analogy about the flippers and Phelps. Give 100,000 double amputees those blades and have them run a marathon and given all of the other factors that goes into how fast and far, would any of these hypothetical marathoners actually come even close to competing at an elite level? So if we assume that the same percentage of amputees would even want to run a marathon, of that 100,000, about a 100 would even try to run a marathon. 10% of those even have the time and money to properly train, that leaves 10. Of those, how many have even remotely the amount of talent to come even close to an elite level and even be able to break 3 hours, maybe 1 or 2. Odds of that 1 or 2 breaking 2:30, 2:15, etc.

Add in that the amputee would have to be at a fairly young age in order to be able to properly train with the blades. Would a 25 year old who loses both legs have enough time to get up to the hypothetical speed that may be there?

When one really looks at this, the numbers are so incredibly small there would be a very significant question as of if there will ever be a "next" one. Aside from a very, very small percentage of people, almost no one can tell you who won the 400 meters four years ago. So if a guy with blades were to win, would it really matter to the sport? Is it really that bad to suggest someone can overcome significant disadvantages as opposed to working very hard to take advantage of genetic gifts?

One point though; if I were Oscar - and I'm obviously not - but if I were, I'd be more pissed at your position that it's okay for me to compete because I won't win than I would be at Michael's position that the blades give me an unfair advantage, or at least I'm not running the same event as able bodied athletes. If I were Oscar, I'd think that your position is patronizing and condescending. But I'm not Oscar, am I.

I thought I was being clear but obviously I was not. I could actually care less whether Oscar wins or not. If he wins, good for him and I do not see any harm in that as I attempted to point out that he is beating what are essentially nameless and faceless professional athletes who will be quite well off regardless of what Oscar does. To me, him overcoming his disadvantages would be as worthy a reason to cheer as someone working hard to take advantage of their genetic abilities. With regards to why I brought up the point he is likely not to win, Res ipsa loquitur in response to the assumption he has some great advantage. In addition, if you have read all of my responses, I did agree that from a pure logical perspective that whether he could or could not win may not be a valid argument and so I did state that I did not see a big problem were he to win. It was a way of saying mountain out of a mole hill in my opinion.

What I was attempting to address above was the "next" or hypothetical blade runner. Neither you nor Jennifer properly addressed the fact that from a statistical or probability analysis, the odds of another blade runner being able to compete in the Olympics is so small that this is hardly a topic worth debating. I happen to agree with the Court of Appeal that whatever advantages the blades give him, the disadvantages he has take that away.


To put this another way:

There are two basic lines of reasoning why Oscar should not be allowed to compete.

1) He has an advantage over the other competitors and that is unfair. The counter to that is this advantage has not turned into results. The counter to that is he would at longer distances but then response is he has not. Whether he has a net advantage is a matter of debate - some say yes, some say no and those who say yes argue that only because of political correctness has that evidence been rejected and who is to say what the true intentions of the ruling body are. The final piece of this puzzle is the subjective answer to the question of what if Oscar does win. Bad because he was "cheating" due to his blades or Good because of the inspirational value of the win.

2) What about the next "Oscar". Ban Oscar now so that future blade runners stay with the other Olympics and deal with the issue now. The simple argument is that statistics and probabilities would suggest that is not an issue that is ever likely to come up or may come up once or twice. And if it does, good for that person were they to win or bad because of are also "cheating".

[Mark.AU]

* speechless* Mark walks away mumbling incoherently something about "I tried, couldn't bring apples and oranges together..."

[Dstew]

* speechless* Mark walks away mumbling incoherently something about "I tried, couldn't bring apples and oranges together..."

I do have a much better appreciation for the thoughts and concerns of those opposed to Oscar running. My original thought was who really cares other than a hand full of running pursuits. Little mole hill, big mountain but I now see why it is important to some, however, still does not change my opinion. I suppose it shows that I am not a real runner in that I love to run but I am not a "Runner". I enjoy watching races such as the London marathon because I like to picture myself doing that course one day but could care less as to which Kenyan wins.

The next topic of debate is the need to increase the number of charity runners at the Boston marathon.

[HCcD]

Perhaps, we will see her in the Olympics 16 years from now ??

[Dstew]

Perhaps, we will see her in the Olympics 16 years from now ??

Not if Jwolf and others has anything to do with it. So which one of you gets to break the bad news to the little girl? My suggestion is whoever can run the fastest 400 meters.


On a serious note, this is who is being "protected" from the blade runner:

Also still pending for the IOC are doping cases involving U.S. sprinters Crystal Cox and the late Antonio Pettigrew.

Cox admitted in 2010 to using anabolic steroids and accepted a four-year suspension and disqualification of her results from 2001 to 2004.

At stake now is the U.S. women's 4x400-meter relay gold medal from Athens.

Cox ran in the preliminaries for the American team led by Sanya Richards, who ran the final along with Dee Dee Trotter, Monique Henderson and Monique Hennegan. Under international rules, an entire relay team can be disqualified because of the doping of one member, even an alternate.

If the U.S. is stripped of the victory, Russia would move from silver to gold and Jamaica from bronze to silver.

Pettigrew, who died in 2010 from an overdose of sleeping pills, was a member of the U.S. men's 4x400 relay team that won gold at the 2000 Sydney Olympics.

The IOC stripped the U.S. team of the medals in 2008 after Pettigrew's admission of doping but still not reassigned the medals.

[MichaelMc]

On a serious note, this is who is being "protected" from the blade runner:

Also still pending for the IOC are doping cases involving U.S. sprinters Crystal Cox and the late Antonio Pettigrew.

Cox admitted in 2010 to using anabolic steroids and accepted a four-year suspension and disqualification of her results from 2001 to 2004.

At stake now is the U.S. women's 4x400-meter relay gold medal from Athens.

Cox ran in the preliminaries for the American team led by Sanya Richards, who ran the final along with Dee Dee Trotter, Monique Henderson and Monique Hennegan. Under international rules, an entire relay team can be disqualified because of the doping of one member, even an alternate.

If the U.S. is stripped of the victory, Russia would move from silver to gold and Jamaica from bronze to silver.

Pettigrew, who died in 2010 from an overdose of sleeping pills, was a member of the U.S. men's 4x400 relay team that won gold at the 2000 Sydney Olympics.

The IOC stripped the U.S. team of the medals in 2008 after Pettigrew's admission of doping but still not reassigned the medals.

If we are going to throw all runners under an ethical bus because of the cheaters, must we throw Oscar under there too? Who says he doesn't use PEDs?

[jonovision_man]

If we are going to throw all runners under an ethical bus because of the cheaters, must we throw Oscar under there too? Who says he doesn't use PEDs?

PELs - Performance enhancing legs!


jono

[Dstew]

If we are going to throw all runners under an ethical bus because of the cheaters, must we throw Oscar under there too? Who says he doesn't use PEDs?

I was being naughty as I had just finished reading about the drug issues including a lack of testing on some samples from Athens when the image of Oscar and the little girl was posted and could not resist throwing both together given the story focused on a 400 meter runner of all things.

[MichaelMc]

And for the final irony, Oscar Pistorius loses in the 200m final of the Paralympics and cries "foul" over his competitor's blades...

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Pist ... to-3401170

[ian]

And for the final irony, Oscar Pistorius loses in the 200m final of the Paralympics and cries "foul" over his competitor's blades...

... and in the process, virtually guarantees that paralympic and able-bodied athletes will never mix again. Let's run through the arguments made earlier in the summer:
(1) There's no point in worrying about future precedents because Oscar is clearly a once-in-a-lifetime exception.
Evidently not.
(2) Artificial legs merely restore some of the utility of real ones; there's no technological advantage.
If a few extra inches can make such a huge (and apparently unexpected) difference in a race among similar athletes, how could anyone ever go back to determining a fair comparison between artificial and natural legs? At least within the Paralympics, an arbitrary standard can be set (and modified over time, if necessary) that puts the athletes on an equal footing.
(3) It's not about winning or losing, it's the inspirational value which matters most.
Except when it doesn't. It seems Oscar wasn't inspired much by that silver medal.

On the bright side, there seems to be a lot of coverage of these games this year and to me, that's the ultimate sign of fairness.