Should this guy be competing in the able-bodied Olympics?

[El Supremo]

I say no because he uses regular prosthetics except to race.

8 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	5 (63%)
	No
	3 (38%)
	I don't know
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[zbdent]

1. he qualified, right?

[El Supremo]

2. He is in the semis tomorrow. But...

Track and field's ruling body, the International Association of Athletics Federations, banned Pistorius from competing in able-bodied meets in 2008, taking the position that his prostheses gave him an unfair advantage. The Court of Arbitration for Sport reversed the decision, but he failed to make the Beijing Olympics because he had not achieved the Olympic time standard (45.3 seconds) in the event.

Pistorius achieved the standard last March, and Saturday he achieved his dream.

Read more: Double-amputee Oscar Pistorius makes history on the Olympic track - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/london2012/ci_21235919/oscar-pistorius-qualifies-semifinals-400-meters#ixzz22cNJvGJa
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse

[zbdent]

3. so, with the "unfair advantage" ... he didn't meet the standards in 2008, like everybody else did ..

(those who went to the Olympics).

Now, he's reached the standard that everybody else had to reach?

[JonLP24]

5. It seems the people "The Court of Arbitration" best qualified for these type of decisions

said he can run. I accept their decision.

[El Supremo]

6. You are way too "accepting".

You hardly ever offer your own opinions if they differ from an "official decision".

Did you think the Supreme Court was right in 2000 by ruling that the vote recount was a violation of Equal Protection?

[Auggie]

7. JonLP24 has a point though...

at face value I too would think the athlete would have an advantage. However I would have to have faith that "The Court of Arbitration" was able to consult with the proper physicians and other experts in order to arrive at the decision in which they did.

My answer is that I truly do not know.

[El Supremo]

8. I think it is a big controversy.

Pistorius changes from his regular prostheses to these springy things to compete. Is that like changing into track shoes? No. What if other runners put on some sort of fiber-carbon leg assists? When they invent and allow that kind of thing, then the field would be level.

Face it, these "blades" are better for running than having a tibia, fibula and foot. We can really say: "Gentlemen, we can rebuild him. We have the technology. We have the capability to build the world's first bionic man. Steve Austin will be that man. Better than he was before. Better, stronger, faster."

[frylock]

34. sprinters from across the globe are lining up to have their legs removed in order to replace them..

and receive an unfair advantage as well. oh wait, you mean they're not?

[JonLP24]

10. I'm not sure what you're referring to

I disagree w/ "official decisions" all the time though I pretty much only disagree when I'm well informed of the facts. To disagree w/ his legal victories, I'd be speaking from a position of ignorance as I have no clue how much if any advantage these legs give him. As to the poll question "Should this guy..." I say yes because he won a legal battle, the channels I want making these type of decisions made this decision.

[El Supremo]

11. Clueless

I'm glad that not everyone of your generation thinks like you. I come from a generation that learned from experience that you shouldn't trust authority and who question everything because they are often wrong.

[JonLP24]

12. Am I any more clueless than you?

I said I disagree w/ authority when I clearly know the facts which show that they are wrong. Do you know what facts were available to the arbitrators who used to make their decision? If so, can you dispute those facts?

Thinks like me? OK, so would it be better if I left the decisions of people's competitive career up to you? You should be given the power to overrule arbitrators. The reason why I said yes is because what system is better than the one used to determine if he can run or not?

[El Supremo]

13. Ooh! I got some emotion from you!

Congratulations!

As far as the topic is concerned, I think the arbitrators' feelings got in the way of proper reasoning for fairness to other athletes.

[JonLP24]

14. I found some links that detail their findings

Number #91 is where they really get into it.

http://web.archive.org/web/20080529024602/http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/document/1085/5048/0/Pistorius+award+%28scanned+published+on+CAS+website%29.pdf

and BBC

"On the basis of the evidence brought by the experts called by both parties, the panel was not persuaded that there was sufficient evidence of any metabolic advantage in favour of the double amputee using the Cheetah Flex-Foot," the statement said.

The panel emphasised that their verdict only applied to the individual case of the South African.

It was also stressed that any advancements in the prosthetic-limb technology used by Pistorius could be contested by the IAAF again.

"The panel does not exclude the possibility that, with future advances in scientific knowledge, and a testing regime designed and carried out to the satisfaction of both parties, the IAAF might in future be in a position to prove that the existing Cheetah Flex-Foot model provides Oscar Pistorius with an advantage over other athletes."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/olympics/athletics/7243481.stm

This post isn't meant to prove or disprove what I'm arguing, just info for readers of this thread.

[El Supremo]

15. As Upton (ugh!) said, where do you draw the line?

This is a huge can-of worms. Something for your generation to decide in the future.

[JonLP24]

16. Well they said

the IAAF is free to challenge any advancements made and they're also free to gather scientists that prove he currently has an unfair advantage.

[mathematic]

20. Yes, the CAS decision was flawed with respect to the facts.

Order of events & summary:

1) The original study by the IAAF made a specific physiological claim and the IAAF banned Pistorius from competition.
2) Pistorius appeals to the CAS and commissions a study by Hugh Herr and Peter Wyland to study the Pistorius' blade running.
3) CAS finds that the IAAF's specific physiological claim was not supported by the new research and the ban was overturned.
4) AFTER the hearing the research gets published.
5) Wyland, the main author of the research used to unban Pistorius, goes on the record saying Pistorius has a 12 second advantage. The research on the mechanical advantage (as opposed to the physiological advantage) of the blades was not presented.

So what went wrong?

The CAS decision was based on a purposely incomplete depiction of the research. There were some significant flaws in the research methods. The specific physiological claim the IAAF was refuted by measuring Pistorius' running at sub-sprinting speeds. When compared to other sprinters, he was 2.7 standard deviations better. The research then included sub-elite and elite distance runners from the literature to the comparisons. Since they were measuring running economy (how well a runner uses oxygen), it was a major flaw to include distance runners. Sprinters do not train this physiological system while distance runners do, so the average value in the comparison group dropped significantly and resulted in less of an advantage for Pistorius. Essentially, Pistorius was un-banned because his running economy (a measure of non-sprint running) wasn't that much better than distance runners. The research says that Pistorius, a sprinter, uses less oxygen than elite distance runners and then concludes he's no different than other runners! They do completely different training!

And that's just the PHYSIOLOGICAL differences. When Wyland considered the mechanical advantages of the blades he initially estimated a 12 second advantage (other scientists have later estimated it in the 6-7s range). Wyland was not at the hearing and none of this was presented to the CAS. Herr had no interest in presenting any data that would result in the ban remaining. After all, independent of this research, Herr is getting paid by Pistorius' blade company for blade design work. He has every incentive in the world to suppress pro-ban data.

You're interested in the facts and say you're willing to change your mind based on them. Well there are the facts.

[JonLP24]

22. I read the PDF

but now I'm waiting forever it to load to look into it again so I'll go from memory. I remember reading about the breathing, I'll have to wait for it to load to see specifically who he was measured against according to the report. I remember it had to be an overall net advantage, meaning disadvantages & advantages. The IAAF study failed to consider the disadvantages he has such as starting off the block. Basically the IAAF failed to prove there was an overall net advantage. I'll look into Wyland claims but at the conclusion of the report it made clear two things, that this decision only applied to him and any further advances can be challenged. #2, they can at anytime w/ scientific evidence prove he has an advantage so if Wyland made that claim why doesn't the IAAF take that claim. Again, it was up to IAAF to provide the proof he was at an overall advantage. Also they pointed out though this doesn't have hardly any scientific meaning is these blades have been around for over a decade and he isn't the only runner that uses them but he is the only one that was ever close to being Olympic qualified. Guessing, if it was significant I imagine it would be more commonplace.

To be clear on what I said regarding facts, I will disagree w/ official decisions when I'm aware of the facts that clearly show they're wrong. That doesn't imply I'm always interested in facts in any decision. When it comes to this, I don't care very much what it is the right decision(they're not curing cancer here). It strikes me as bizarre he is possibly at a competitive advantage for the able-bodied Olympics but perfectly qualified for the Paralympics. That said, I think I've been one of the very few in this thread that actually looked into as many facts into the case(also provided links) and willing to look for more - I haven't changed my mind only because this frustrating PDF is not loading (showing up "file is damaged and can't be repaired&quot and that is your summary of events. I have no reason to doubt you but I need to familiarize myself more w/ the facts to come to your conclusions. If there is no one that says he isn't at an advantage that is familiar w/ the facts I have no choice to change my mind. If not, I have to independently verify for my own conclusions.

[mathematic]

23. From the research that was used to unban him

"First, we found that the mean gross metabolic cost of transport of our amputee sprint subject (174.9 ml O(2)*kg(-1)*km(-1); speeds: 2.5-4.1 m/s) was only 3.8% lower than mean values for intact-limb elite distance runners and 6.7% lower than for subelite distance runners but 17% lower than for intact-limb 400-m specialists [210.6 (SD 13.2) ml O(2)*kg(-1)*km(-1)]."

"We conclude that running on modern, lower-limb sprinting prostheses appears to be physiologically similar but mechanically different from running with intact limbs."

Right there in the abstract. Comparing the gross metabolic cost of transport of Pistorius to distance runners make about as much sense as comparing the bicep strength of Pistorius to distance runners. The athletes are completely different Distance runners are small, thin, and have muscles predisposed to endurance. Sprinters are the complete opposite. They train completely different systems too. Distance training improves gross metabolic cost of transport, sprint training does not.

This research was published AFTER the CAS hearing. Why can't the IAAF use this? I'm no lawyer but this was a research conducted for "the defense". I don't think the IAAF can use it to re-raise the issue. Pistorius won't be submitting to any further IAAF testing.

The official CAS decision was that Pistorius did not have a significant physiological advantage. It did not address the mechanical advantage of the blades. The research used to support this claim clearly indicate Pistorius has a physiological advantage when he is compared only to other sprinters. So the IAAF research and the Wyland research show a physiological advantage compared to other sprinters. Therefore the facts clearly show that the decision was wrong.

Pistorius' disadvantage at the start can be estimated: he runs a 10.91 100m. So the disadvantage is around .6s. A lot of people ask something like "If they're such an advantage then why aren't there more double amputees running these times?" (The blade advantage does not extend to single amputees, since their blade limb is constrained by their natural limb). There just aren't many double amputees out there. Much less double amputees that have the talent to run 7 seconds off of Olympic finals 400m time. That's already much much faster than the average person.

[JonLP24]

26. Thanks for the info

I'm officially in "I don't know" territory. One thing though as far as I understand from reading the PDF is the IAAF is free to conduct their own research to show he has an overall net advantage.

[Eddie Haskell]

28. The researchers are biased and posing the wrong comparison.

The physiological advantage question that should be posed is,
Would an able bodied runner be allowed to wear the Pistorius?

[JonLP24]

29. If that should be the question

that is physically impossible so even if the answer is "yes" it would never happen.

Anyways, I finally got the PDF to load and according to the report there was no Wyland. The expert listed other than Herr is Dr. Rodger Kram. The PDF doesn't specify who was measured against, just that he used the oxygen amounts.

Though what is hilarious is calling Pistorious experts' research flawed and biased when reading the summary it is clear IAAF was flawed & biased themselves. Basically they failed to prove, it wasn't his job to prove he is not at an advantage but the IAAF's job to prove that he is. The IAAF is still free to make that case w/ improved scientific methods.

[Eddie Haskell]

31. Physically impossible?

The device could be attached to shoes and extend up to be attached at the calf. In fact, I've seen them used by able bodied runners. They run faster.

[JonLP24]

32. I imagine it would be like using stilts

As to what you've seen I can't say anything except for prove it(that they run faster--I'd probably fall on my face).

[Upton]

4. Probably not..

I mean, I feel good for the guy and all, but where does it end? This keeps up, next you'll be seeing amputees riding scooters and power chairs in the marathon..

They already have a disabled Olympics anyway..don't they?

[Posteritatis]

18. Vehicles aren't prosthetics, and I strongly doubt he considers himself "disabled." (nt)

[bluedigger]

9. I think situations such as this bear review on a case by case basis.

I'l be curious to see how he does.

[Posteritatis]

17. Several years of arguments in the track world about it point to "yes." (nt)

[madinmaryland]

19. Of course he should.

Barroid was allowed to play and keep his "records" *.

[Iggo]

21. That ain't an able body?

[rocktivity]

24. If running on blades is physically easier than running on legs

Last edited Sun Aug 5, 2012, 12:46 PM - Edit history (3)

then he probably does have an unfair advantage.

There's less of a body to pump lactic acid and blood through than a body with legs. But that might be offset if he has to expend extra energy to move the blades.


rocktivity

[KamaAina]

25. "The able-bodied Olympics"?

Ouch.

Oh, by the way, it's not just Oscar who's crashing the party. Polish table tennis player Natalia Partyka begs to differ with you, too:



Look, ma, no prosthetics!

I say no because he uses regular prosthetics except to race.

Do you seriously believe that the other athletes don't have shoes they wear just to race?!

[Eddie Haskell]

27. What's next an iron fisted boxer?

Given 6 months to train, any of the top 10 runners in his event could break the world record on those prosthetics. It's a definite mechanical advantage.

[chelsea0011]

30. He may have an advantage, but he is still damn fast.

His turnover is as good as the other runners. He does belong, but maybe, I would think differently if he were were blowing away the competition.

[-KittyKat-]

33. prosthetics are different

I don't think he should be competing with the others because his prosthetic leg is not the same as the others' regular legs. The playing field needs to be level amongst competitors.