Should Oscar Pistorius be allowed to compete in the Olympics

[jmverdugo]

Originally Posted by ninman

Yes, but I can still see without glasses, just not very well. I could in theory play a tennis match without them, it would just make it a lot harder.

He on the other hand cannot walk, let alone run without them. Which is precisely why he shouldn't be allowed to compete.

Let me put it this way, if he wins, how much of it is to do with his skill, and how much to do with his blades? If I won Wimbledon wearing glasses, that's 100% to do with my skill, the glasses only allow me to see the ball more clearly, they don't help me swing my racquet.

Well, as far as I could tell his legs are still the ones moving the blades and not the other way around. And for the record, HE CAN walk and run without the blades (just not very well!), google him, you will see videos of him doing it.

The good thing is now you have changed the "just because he is different" approach and move over to the real reason why he should not be allowed to run with normal runners: Blades may be an advantage for him, and I agree that if the blades are an advantage he should not be allowed - BUT, and once again, IT IS POSSIBLE to know for sure the contribution of the blades to the performance of the runner, IT IS POSSIBLE to design them to be as close as regular legs, more over, the human body can only take so much, if he would run with Super Duper legs his body could not handle it.

On another note, did somebody already call him the Blade Runner?

[ninman]

Originally Posted by Ramon

He is amputated, so obviously, it's just not possible for him to be able to run exactly the same as a person with normal legs. Those blades allow him to run as close to normal as possible without an outside source of energy.

It's really not accurate to call them artificial legs because his are basically just blades underneath his normal knees. It would be hard to imagine someone with fully amputated legs being able to run with an outside source of energy, so that kind of a handicapped person would never be able to compete in the same way.

If the question is whether he runs exactly the same as a normal person, then of course, the answer is "no". However, I think the Olympic Committee was more interested in knowing whether or not the blades under his knees gave him an advantage over a normal person. Obviously, no one was able to put up a serious argument that it was an advantage.

Yes, but that's not the point. It's about able-bodied people competing against other able-bodied people. That's why we don't let women compete against men in tennis.

[Bartelby]

So women are not able-bodied?

[Bartelby]

Wasn't there a female golfer who wanted to play with the men?

If they were good enough then why not, although I think they should make their switch definitive at some point, and if so I can't see that being an attractive option.

[813wilson]

Originally Posted by ninman

Yes, but that's not the point. It's about able-bodied people competing against other able-bodied people. That's why we don't let women compete against men in tennis.

Again, I'll ask you. Does the same apply to an archer or shooter who has an artificial limb, or part of one, that allows him or her to draw and release a bow or hold a gun or squeeze the trigger?

[jmverdugo]

Originally Posted by ninman

Yes, but that's not the point. It's about able-bodied people competing against other able-bodied people. That's why we don't let women compete against men in tennis.

Actually you got this wrong, they do not let MEN compete against women, if a women wants to compete against men she can do it.

[Hood_Man]

I'm not really that concerned by this either way, it was quite nice to see him there (in an admittedly slightly patronising "isn't he doing well?" kind of way).

Thing is, ignoring any potential benefits he does or doesn't get when he's competing for a moment, the guy can't suffer from blisters on his feet, roll an ankle, or develop shin splints (a very painful condition that can get much worse without rest), or other lower leg difficulties that might normally impact an athletes training schedule.

In short, he can't get certain injuries that a regular athlete could.

Without knowing how his blades are attached, I still assume they would cause him discomfort when he pushes himself at Olympic level, but discomfort, soreness and pain are hardly exclusive to an athlete requiring prosthetics.

Its an uneven playing field, but not because of genetics, upbringing or training, but because of technology and circumstances which in this instance are unique to him. Were not comparing trainers which give one runner more bounce in their stride than their opponents (which I'm not sure are legal, but then I haven't looked).

[hollywood9826]

But you have to look at the other side as well. Is he able to train in the weight room at the same level to develop stronger legs? Just looking at the blades and other legs. I dont know how he can do leg extions or hamstring curls at a heavy weight. His starts are usallu pretty slow because he does not have the power in the take off phase. He might have been that way with legs as well. There is really no way to tell.

The fact that there are thousands of people with these blades and he is the only guy should prove they dont have a positive impact on the reuslts.

[Hood_Man]

Originally Posted by hollywood9826

But you have to look at the other side as well. Is he able to train in the weight room at the same level to develop stronger legs? Just looking at the blades and other legs. I dont know how he can do leg extions or hamstring curls at a heavy weight. His starts are usallu pretty slow because he does not have the power in the take off phase. He might have been that way with legs as well. There is really no way to tell.

The fact that there are thousands of people with these blades and he is the only guy should prove they dont have a positive impact on the reuslts.

That's the problem.

Also there are a lot of "What if's" surrounding this, whereas my points above stand. He can't injure what he doesn't have (which sounds awful, but I can't think of any other way of saying it right now).

How many athletes with prosthetics have tried to compete with able bodied athletes in professional competitions? A sample size of 1 doesn't prove anything.

[pinky42]

Would an able-bodied runner be allowed to use blades in competition? If yes, let Pistorius compete. If no, then he would be allowed to use equipment that other competitors can't and should not compete.

[Djoker]

Admirable guy, but shouldn't be running in the Olympics.

Where is the searing pain of the lactic acid in the calf muscles for him as he enters the last 100m?
Where is the ache of the achilles and hamstring stretched to near breaking point?
Where is the blood going that in other athletes would be supplying the muscles from the knee down? So less work for the heart to do in supplying blood to an area of the body that for him just isn't there.

Level playing field my a**

[Bartelby]

This is a reasonable argument, but his body is still under incredible stress and I think most still would find the lack of lower legs to be a significant disadvantage no matter what stress the lower legs are put under.

Originally Posted by Djoker

Admirable guy, but shouldn't be running in the Olympics.

Where is the searing pain of the lactic acid in the calf muscles for him as he enters the last 100m?
Where is the ache of the achilles and hamstring stretched to near breaking point?
Where is the blood going that in other athletes would be supplying the muscles from the knee down? So less work for the heart to do in supplying blood to an area of the body that for him just isn't there.

Level playing field my a**

[El Diablo]

In a feature story done on Mr. Pistorius he was puttering around his home wearing conventional lower extremity prostheses, so his blades are apparently only used (and specifically engineered) for running. This seems patently unfair. Were he to run in his usual prosthetic legs, I think there would be little basis for contention, but the blades are specifically engineered, the designer stated in this feature, to have a spring action. Really! If Mr. Pistorius opted to compete in swimming, might he strap on a prosthesis modeled after the tail of a mako shark?

[hollywood9826]

Originally Posted by Hood_Man

That's the problem.

Also there are a lot of "What if's" surrounding this, whereas my points above stand. He can't injure what he doesn't have (which sounds awful, but I can't think of any other way of saying it right now).

How many athletes with prosthetics have tried to compete with able bodied athletes in professional competitions? A sample size of 1 doesn't prove anything.

I understand the injury argument, but what else does he have to do to compensate for it that someone else does not have to do?

But there are thousands that try to qualify for the paralympics. No one has come close to WR time. Oscar basically dominates the Paralympics, he can barely make the time reqired to even be allowed to compete. They dont try to compete becuase most cant. Maybe Oscar changes that, but I doubt it. Oscar is an anomaly and I think he desvered to be there competing.

Originally Posted by El Diablo

In a feature story done on Mr. Pistorius he was puttering around his home wearing conventional lower extremity prostheses, so his blades are apparently only used (and specifically engineered) for running. This seems patently unfair. Were he to run in his usual prosthetic legs, I think there would be little basis for contention, but the blades are specifically engineered, the designer stated in this feature, to have a spring action. Really! If Mr. Pistorius opted to compete in swimming, might he strap on a prosthesis modeled after the tail of a mako shark?

To have a spring action to emulate a foot push off. Im sure there would be ab acceptable prosthesis for swimming. Flippers would no be. They tested the things and determined they were not unfair. Thats good enough for me.

[El Diablo]

^^ You're too gullible. How were they tested? How exactly COULD they be tested to determine such a thing as fairness? Did they amputate a runner's legs and see if his performance was the same with both his own legs and the blades? Not to be glib about this, but that's pretty much what you'd have to do to make such a determination.

[jmverdugo]

Originally Posted by Djoker

Admirable guy, but shouldn't be running in the Olympics.

Where is the searing pain of the lactic acid in the calf muscles for him as he enters the last 100m?
Where is the ache of the achilles and hamstring stretched to near breaking point?
Where is the blood going that in other athletes would be supplying the muscles from the knee down? So less work for the heart to do in supplying blood to an area of the body that for him just isn't there.

Level playing field my a**

It is not less work overall, his muscles from the knee up must generate the energy generated by the below knee muscles of a regular runner, hence his upper knee muscles work much more than the ones of a regular runner. The blades do not generate energy.

Originally Posted by El Diablo

In a feature story done on Mr. Pistorius he was puttering around his home wearing conventional lower extremity prostheses, so his blades are apparently only used (and specifically engineered) for running. This seems patently unfair. Were he to run in his usual prosthetic legs, I think there would be little basis for contention, but the blades are specifically engineered, the designer stated in this feature, to have a spring action. Really! If Mr. Pistorius opted to compete in swimming, might he strap on a prosthesis modeled after the tail of a mako shark?

Yes they spring as much as a human foot + calf would.

If there is and obvious advantage how come he doesn't win?

[jmverdugo]

Originally Posted by El Diablo

^^ You're too gullible. How were they tested? How exactly COULD they be tested to determine such a thing as fairness? Did they amputate a runner's legs and see if his performance was the same with both his own legs and the blades? Not to be glib about this, but that's pretty much what you'd have to do to make such a determination.

they measure it, they simulate and then measure it again, it is called engineering. The same way the determined they are good for human use.

[Ash_Smith]

So, for those who think Oscar Pistorius shouldn't be allowed to compete (even though he made the qualification time) should a wheelchair tennis player not be allowed to compete on the ATP or WTA tour?

[Ramon]

Originally Posted by pinky42

Would an able-bodied runner be allowed to use blades in competition? If yes, let Pistorius compete. If no, then he would be allowed to use equipment that other competitors can't and should not compete.

Get an able-bodied runner to put blades under his feet. Then if he exceeds his personal best, that would prove the blades are an advantage. I doubt that would happen.

[ollinger]

Human calf and foot do not spring. In fact, joints tend to collapse a bit on impact and do not recoil back unless work is done on them by muscles. The question "if there is an obvious advantage how come he doesn't win" is surprising. Ummm, perhaps he doesn't win because he's not as good an athlete as the best competitors? If I install something on your arm that enables you to shoot baskets at a 40% rate whereas before you could only shoot 20%, would you say the device gave you no advantage because you didn't win when you had a shooting competition with Kobe Bryant, who shot 45%? So the fact that he didn't win does not mean he isn't given an advantage.