I say let the boy compete, but put an asterisk next to his name if he winds up winning a medal or setting any records.
That's fair - let him reap all the trappings of "normal" able-bodied competition, but you can not ignore the notion that there may be an advantage in those prosthetic legs. What if they return a ridiculous amount of energy compared to a normal leg?
Johann Gambleputty wrote:
I say let the boy compete, but put an asterisk next to his name if he winds up winning a medal or setting any records.
That's fair - let him reap all the trappings of "normal" able-bodied competition, but you can not ignore the notion that there may be an advantage in those prosthetic legs. What if they return a ridiculous amount of energy compared to a normal leg?
It does not matter!! He never had legs to run with (after they were amputated) so he had these "new legs" fashioned out of metal. He has a right to run, whether or not there is even a miniscule advantage in the new legs.
Does Kenenisa Bekele have legs that return more energy than mine, OF COURSE!!!
Jason
My thought. wrote:
My thought is that although the prosthetics probably don't give him a mechanical advantage they could give him a physical advantage in that he has a replacement for a whole muscle group. Muscles will fatigue over the race but the prosthetic will not. This seems unfair to me.
I have pointed this out earlier. Yes he doesn't have calves or achilles tendons, so he cannot rupture an achilles. I've have 3 achilles surgeries myself, so this is unfair to me!
The greater unfairness is not letting him compete with the legs that he has to run with. He did not choose to be born without fibulas.
Jason
mg wrote:
the tradition in sports has been to set all sorts of limits and requirements (i listed several above). as i asked earlier, if you are going to let carbon fibre legs into a track race, then it is a slippery slope and i don't see how you leave out wheelchairs or bikes. certain shoes already are expressly banned. i don't see how you can tell an able-bodied runner that he can't wear a certain pair of shoes but then you let in someone with carbon fibre legs.
The issue regarding the shoes is obvious: He's not using Spira shoes, which I think are now allowed in races anyway. He's using some rather high-tech sticks of carbon-fiber.
Regarding wheelchairs, obviously there is a distinction between running, which is lifting one's legs and feet to propel the body around the track, and just rolling around the track on wheels. These are two very different actions. Again I think that the Paralympics and the Olympics should be combined. It's interesting to note that the 1500 Wheelchair final is faster than the able-bodied running 1500 final.
What makes the Oscar Pistorius case quite remarkable is that he is running so fast on his artificial legs.
What would definitely make it quite hard for the IAAF to keep him away is if he made the IAAF Olympic Qualifying Time in the 400 and the South African Federation named him to the team.
The Problem ------ The prosthetic spring can be enhanced through technology.
No able bodied person has that same technological ability.
If it was golf or tennis, fine. Everyone has the ability to change their equipment through technology. Able bodied track athletes do not have the same ability.
why not add the special olympics, deaflympics, senior games, etc. too?
I think the issue is whether you can say he is running on his legs or not and whether it constitutes an external aid that benefits him alone. he is not lifting his legs and feet but carbon fiber blades in place of his legs and feet.
shoes are NOT obvious. the governing body has decided that certain shoes help runners too much so they are banned. it doesn't matter that everyone could use them but what does matter is that they give too much of an advantage. the same thing goes for certain bats in baseball, balls and clubs in golf and sticks in hockey. now if certain shoes give too much of an advantage, then entire legs can too. it's a slippery slope.
wheelchairs are not obvious either. it doesn't help that in purely running races they are allowed in (eg, every road race). if running is defined as "lifting one's legs and feet to propel the body around the track," then OP clearly is not running because he doesn't have any foot and only has half his legs! the fact that you made such an obvious contradictary statement in and of itself indicates that this is anything but "obvious."
if he runs 46.3, then the iaaf is going to have a big big issue on its hands that certainly is going to piss a lot of people off no matter how they resolve it.
one thing that nobody has addressed (at least i have not seen it) is what kind of aerobic engine OP has. does he have the cardio and aerobic capacities or your typical world class 400 meter runner or is he really a 50 second guy with bionic legs?
i guess i disagree with MAYEROFF..... my view has always been that he doesn't have an advantage, but, if he did have one, I would say he shouldn't be competing
The fact that this is even an argument is ridiculous. I always viewed track as the most pure form of sport. You put some people on a track and see who can cover the distance the fastest without any mechanical aid. We have cycling to see who can be the fastest using a machine. This guy obviously has the artificial advantages of lighter limbs that will not tire through the race. Whether or not this "cancels out" the disadvantage of not having legs is irrelevant. Bekele's or anyone elses advantages over the competition come from hard work combined with genetics (and maybe drugs, however, drugs provide the same type of artificial advantage and are rightly illegal).
Competing in elite level and professional sports is not a civil right. By the logic that claims it is you could argue that short people should be allowed to play in the NBA using trampolines to compensate.
This guy is obviously a great athlete and seems to be a good role model for everyone but allowing him to compete with able bodied athletes despite the obvious advantages he may be afforded would violate both the spirit and the letter of the rules of track.
I've been studying the biomechanics of running for more than 20 years and Oscar Pastorius raises some of the most fascinating questions I have heard in long time.
The IAAF seem to want scientific data on whether his prosthetic legs provide an advantage. For the last few weeks, I have been trying to think of the definitive experiments.
here is what I have come up with:
1. have elite non-amputee runners perform several 400m time trials, then surgically amputate both of their legs at teh same level as Oscar. Allow time to rehab, fit them with the best prostheses and repeat time trials. Problem: Obviously not ethical.
2. Wait to see if Oscar or any prosthetic user substantially breaks a non-amputee world record. If they do, then we can safely conclude that his prosthetics do provide an unfair advantage. Problem: takes a long time
3. Screen returning soldiers from Iraq who have amputations. Find guys who ran competitively in high school/college. Allow time to rehab, fit them with the best prostheses and run repeated time trials. If they can run substantially faster than pre-amputation, conclude that they have an advantage. Problem: not trivial to do. but I see no insurmountable obstacle. would require significant investment of funds.
Can anybody design any more definitive experiments?
Hello everybody
I'm the author of the articles on Pistorius that were referenced in page 1 of this thread:
http://scienceofsport.blogspot.com/2007/07/oscar-pistorius-debut-scientific-facts_17.html
http://scienceofsport.blogspot.com/2007/07/oscar-pistorius-science-and-engineering.html
If I might add a voice to this argument. It's important to realise that the human/emotional issue is distinct from the issue that the IAAF must consider. For to them, the valid points that have been raised on this site cannot be factored into the decision. Yes, he is a great role model. Yes, he has shown tremendous strength of character and determination. Yes, he is inspirational. But they need to consider whether the TECHNOLOGY in any way gives an advantage.
And so as difficult as it may be, one needs to separate the technology from the person. And the technology certainly has the potential to improve performance. There is of course a counter-point to every single point I have raised, but the IAAF collected some interesting data during his debut race in Rome, and that is highly suggestive that many of the arguments that I made and that you have also commented on are valid.
Primary among them is the non-fatiguability of the limbs, as they continue to return energy and aid forward movement, regardless of how far he has run. This is why you will see such a rapid second half of the race compared to able-bodied runners. Note that this is physiologically impossible, no runner in history has run a decent 400m time speeding up. So this really does suggest some sort of advantage.
As for the research that needs to be done, the first thing you have to realise is that for a double amputee to even have a chance of running, they have to learn to walk on prosthetics. My opinion is that if someone loses the limbs having already learned to walk, then they will have little chance of relearning the motor skills for sprinting. Of course, they can learn to walk again, but sprinting will prove near impossible. So soldiers from Iraq are probably not the best candidates. In fact, it's almost an impossible study to do.
My thought is to return again to the key question for the IAAF - does the technology improve the performance? And to do this, let Pistorius run in prosthetics from 1996, and let Jeremy Wariner run in spikes from 1996, and see which has a larger effect on performance. I realise this is a flawed study too, but what it would show is the impact of technology of a carbon-fiber prosthetic compared to a normal running shoe.
And the issue - if Pistorius goes away and comes back in 2008, runs a time of 44.5 seconds, how do you guarantee that this improvement is not due to technology and engineering? Perhaps they changed the aerodynamics, maybe they used a slightly different material, or the method of attachment was improved, adding up to 2secs improvement. This is not a situation athletics can live with - improvements in human performance must be based on physiology (and yes, I hear you about drugs, but remember, those are banned too), not on engineering and technology.
Thanks for the discussion, very interesting!
Ross
My problem is what if the legs are slightly advantageous? If the guy is allowed to compete in races, and busts out with a 41-second 400m in the olympics or world championships? They'd be banned immediately, we'd all feel silly about it, and worst of all, it is very very difficult to figure out if it's likely to happen. I have nothing against allowing amputees compete in 400m races, as long as the competition is fair. I wouldn't want success in the sport to be predicated on a catastrophic loss of limbs.
"Primary among them is the non-fatiguability of the limbs, as they continue to return energy and aid forward movement, regardless of how far he has run. This is why you will see such a rapid second half of the race compared to able-bodied runners. Note that this is physiologically impossible, no runner in history has run a decent 400m time speeding up. So this really does suggest some sort of advantage."
Ross, thanks for your words. Thought-provoking stuff in a fascinating debate; must say am still undecided on the whole issue. However, I do have concerns with statements such as the above. Certain issues arise:
- how can you be certain that his second half speed is directly due to non-fatiguability in his limbs. This statement is impossible to prove in my mind. Indeed, could his acceleration in the home straight be due more to having to slow on the bend before it?
- Phrases like "physiologically impossible" do not help athletic debates. Especially as Pistorious is so much faster than other double amputees (non of whom have broken 50s I think) (see also sub 4 min mile, sub 60 Half, sub 27 10k, and other "barriers" from the past).
- Finally, your phrase "no other runner in history has run a decent 400m time speeding up" is problematic. Firstly, what is a "decent" 400m? And secondly, do you have the data to make such a statement? Perhaps some of the letsrun stattos can help out here - there must surely have been some other international class athletes who started slowly and finished faster? Regardless, to link such a stategy to some kind of physiological advantage is weak in my view.
That all said, let us continue the discussion. Best regards.
AC
actually, i think paralympics has its roots in the prefix para, which means special, like paramedic and paratrooper.
Hi AC
Thank you for your comments. They are certainly well thought out and worthy of discussion, so just to respond:
1) You can of course never be CERTAIN about anything, but as I've said, it's highly suggestive that there is something different about the energetics of running. I'll elaborate on this a little more in response to your third question, but the point is that the ability to speed up defies normal physiological theory. And this suggests that there is an advantage. The whole argument revolves around two theories - one is that running on Cheetahs costs more energy, the other is that it is energy-saving. And the ability to speed up is without doubt in favour of energy saving. It's not my place to say this and discuss it, but I can assure that he does NOT have to slow down around the bend - in fact, it's the fastest part of his race. I realise that this is hollow without proof, but I assure you it's true. I hope to be able to publish or explain this on that Science of Sport website soon, but until then, I must just stress that he's not only accelerating in the straight. It's that he never slows down once he reaches his top speed.
2) I am a big believer in the phrase "physiologically imposslbe", without of course wishing to be too dogmatic or narrow-minded about it!!! In fact, I think that athletics debates revolve around these truths. At the very least, they are stimulating, and I'd concede that science has been wrong in the past. But I'm not talking about barriers to overall performance, I'm talking about the distribution of effort and energy withing a bout.
Because science reveals what the body is capable of and that's why we have all these research papers on what the ultimate limit to human performance will be. So while I realise that this is a controversial statement, I honestly do believe (with data to support this), that it's not possible to speed up at the end of a fast 400m race. Now, your third question is good, and I should have clarified this, and will do so below. But we're not talking about barriers here - the 60 minute half was always going to happen, so was the 4-minute mile. Because they are physiologically possible. But pacing strategy, that's different. And it's just not possible to speed up at the end of a decent 400m race - I'll get to this in a moment. But by analysing the world records, the stats, and the history of the event, you start to see a pattern emerge, but more on this below.
3) When you look at every single world record for the 100m, 200m, 400m, 400 m Hurdles, and the 800m, the only consistent finding is that the second half is slower than the first. Only twice in history has the second lap of the 800m event been run faster than the first. There are data to prove this. In fact, my PhD thesis was on the physiology of fatigue and performance, and I used all the world records to prove a point that for short duration exercise, lasting less than 2 minutes, the best pacing strategy was one where you slow down in the second half of the race.
So to answer your question, there is an abundance of data - cycling studies, running studies, rowing studies - all show that the best performances come from a faster first half. For example, here's a radical stat - the fastest second lap in the history of the 800m event was run in 1972, 35 years ago. Since then, the world record has come down by 3.2 seconds without improving the second lap - it all comes from the first lap. Now I realise that this is a relatively unexplained argument, I don't have the space to go into it fully, but I am 100% sure that it is not possible to run the second lap of a "decent" 800m race faster than about 51 seconds.
next question, what is decent? That's a good one, and difficult to explain. Perhaps the best is to say that of course, if Jeremy Wariner loped out and ran the first 200m of a 400 in 25 seconds, he could probably blast a 21.5 and finish in 46.5. But that would not be decent - it's 5% slower than his best. So in my research, I found that as long as the athlete is running within about 3 to 5% of their best, they have to slow down. If they don't, it's not an optimal performance. So in the case of the 400m event, if the athlete is able to speed up in the second half, they are either underperforming relative to their best, or they are gaining some sort of unnatural advantage, which I believe is the case here. Again, it's not proven, but it's consistent with the theoretical models proposed BEFORE the data were collected. And so having come up with two options, the data very clearly push the argument towards the advantage side.
I'm sorry if I haven't addressed the issues clearly. Your questions are very thought-provoking and I think what I would like to do is a full and comprehensive article on my blog to explain it better. But the point for the argument is that if the runner is doing anything like a reasonable time (within about 3% of their best), they just will not be able to speed up at the end. Until you reach the 1500m races and upwards, because here, optimal pacing actually should allow you to run even pace.
Thanks for the questions, i hope it's kind of clearer!
Ross
Better eliminate age groups at road races to be on the safe side of this inane argument..
Ross Tucker wrote:
3) When you look at every single world record for the 100m, 200m, 400m, 400 m Hurdles, and the 800m, the only consistent finding is that the second half is slower than the first. Only twice in history has the second lap of the 800m event been run faster than the first.
It was my understanding that, due to the time required for acceleration, the second half of the 100 and 200 were almost always run faster than the first.
Ross, I've read your articles and appreciate the work and thought you've put into them.
Along the same lines as SC Slim's comment, one could use your data to come to the conclusion that Pistorius's acknowledged disadvantage in acceleration is merely balanced by his apparent advantage over the second half. You've shown, with greater precision than most, that he's clearly different, but not that he has a net advantage (or disadvantage for that matter). I'm not sure that will ever be clear unless one day amputees start crushing world records.
Quite right - I should have clarified that a little more clearly - it's true if you take into account the slow start. The absolute speeds are lower in the second half - the standing start is obviously a factor, so a simplistic breaking it up into first and second half in the 100m doesn't work - I should have specified this, apologies for taking the short-cut. But from between 50m and 70m, athletes begin to slow down, and then get progressively slower - a peak effort means crossing the line slowing down.
In the 200m, the splits (first/second) are approximately equal, which means that the speed is declining. So the only way to analyse this is to look at 10m intervals, which has been done (IAAF New Studies in Athletics, 2001, vol 16), and that shows that the 200m athlete is getting slower and slower as the race progresses. No one speeds up in the home straight and runs close to an optimal performance. At 400m, the increased time means that the second half is quite a bit longer than the first - 48% of the race TIME is the first 200m, while the second 200m is usually 52% of total time. That's about 2 seconds difference. So a 400m runner with a 44sec performance will typically run about 21secs for the first 200m, 23 for the second. The race won by LaShawn Merrit the other day in Rome was a 21.2 first 200m, 23.3 second 200m for a time of 44.5secs. Michael Johnson's WR of 43.18 is a 21.22/21.96, which is the fastest 2nd half and also the closest to an even split.
Yes, one of the primary issues is the non-fatigubility of the artificial limbs of Mr. Pistorius, but then again it is impossible, as far as I know, to give him real working leg muscles given the current state of technology!
Any form of metal, wood or carbon-fiber structure that you give this athlete is going to be abnormal. Possibly the only "failure prone" substance would be natural wood, since he could break it if he put too much stress on it.
Like I said before, he cannot have any of the "normal injuries" that a normal runner would have, such as calve strains, ankle sprains, achilles problems or tibia stress fractures.
The most important concern here is the ethical one. Mr. Pistorius has a right to compete in the able-bodied events if he makes the qualifying standard.
Jason