He's the only one whose first half is slower than his second, which proves that he's at a *disadvantage*, right?
No. But it does prove that it's asinine logic to say that running different splits from other runners proves an advantage.
He's the only one whose first half is slower than his second, which proves that he's at a *disadvantage*, right?
No. But it does prove that it's asinine logic to say that running different splits from other runners proves an advantage.
without knowing his splits, i'd wager they'd have to be at least 1s different in order for people to emphasise the -ve nature of them
hence, if he's a 46s guy, then splits are 23.5 / 22.5
thus assuming 22.5s terminal split, compare that to able-bodied who at best run with a +ve split differential of 1s
hence, able-bodied guy with 2nd split of 22.5 woud be a 21.5 / 22.5 = 44.0
seeing as only 1 white boy in history has run 44-flat, i think the odds of oscar's 2nd 200m of 22.5 with the skis being the same as being able-bodied are close to 0 & thus they are significantly aiding him in 2nd half
webby wrote:
He's the only one whose first half is slower than his second, which proves that he's at a *disadvantage*, right?
No. But it does prove that it's asinine logic to say that running different splits from other runners proves an advantage.
it's also asinine logic to build a strawman and then say it proves something.
Yeah, okay. As long as we both agree that it's asinine logic to say that running the second part of a 400 faster than the first is evidence of an advantage.
I can think of many reasons why a guy with half legs would have a slower start than finish, and "metal legs don't fatigue" is way, way down on my list.
it's not really any kind of "logic" to say that running the second part of a 400 faster than the first is evidence of an advantage. it's more of an assertion or a hypothesis. and it would constitute evidence of an advantage. whether his legs actually are an advantage is an open question.
He runs mid22s for 200m. What 46sec 400m do you know that is that slow over 200m? You'd think that he should run about 49s with that speed but he runs 46s with an unheard of negative split. I say it's an unfair advantage.
but that's poor logic again. everyone can probably agree about why he's slower over the shorter distances: his legs cause him to be unable to come out of the blocks "low" and forces him to generate his start almost solely from his hips and not his upper and lower bodies like other sprinters. the question is more appropriately whether the (possible) advantage he gets over the final, say, 200m outweighs the disadvantage from such a start. and, unfortunately, there is a lot more conjecture than provable science surrounding that one.
this is not about advantage or disadvantage. This is a different event!
I will say that Oscar "fastest man on no legs" P. is a bad-ass athlete, but sorry, not an olympic 400m RUNNER.
Pencil Neck wrote:
this is not about advantage or disadvantage. This is a different event!
I will say that Oscar "fastest man on no legs" P. is a bad-ass athlete, but sorry, not an olympic 400m RUNNER.
That's fine. But there still needs to be a rule like "amputees are banned from competition," or "no prosthetic devices are permitted." And they'll probably be vulnerable to anti-discrimination suits if they can't show an advantage.
Personally, I think any advantage he might have pales in comparison to the much larger advantage enjoyed by two-legged dopers who are awarded gold medals every year -- so all the attention this is getting seems misplaced.
the real mobile9 wrote:
He runs mid22s for 200m. What 46sec 400m do you know that is that slow over 200m? You'd think that he should run about 49s with that speed but he runs 46s with an unheard of negative split. I say it's an unfair advantage.
He's the only 46 400 runner that I have heard of that only runs mid 22s for 200. Anyone else?
chuck d wrote:
but that's poor logic again. ... the question is more appropriately whether the (possible) advantage he gets over the final, say, 200m outweighs the disadvantage from such a start. and, unfortunately, there is a lot more conjecture than provable science surrounding that one.
Chuck d, your logic is good mostly. However, there isn't much conjecture on anyones part to make a determination of advantage. His prosthetics are only 2.3 pound each. clearly 8-10 pounds EACH less than the weight of the lower leg for a "normal" runner in his competitive class. Fatigue is therefore two-fold. not only does the lower leg not tire, but the work (in terms of physics) required from the upper leg is not being performed in like kind. As such, his upper legs are not tiring as fast as they otherwise would. It is therefore reasonable to say the advantage over the final 200 meters DOES outweigh the disadvantage at the start. In addition, do we really KNOW what his "natural" body's spring was like. I mean, does he have more pushoff with the prosthetic than he did or would have with his 'Natural" legs. That is an unknown. so, again, it is an advantage because it is entirely possible that he could never have run as well naturally as he does on the prosthetics.
splits don't mean that much. I've seen some pretty talented 400m guys negative split a 400m.
It's not about advantage vs. disadvantage. If it were, then we'd be in the business of constantly weighing both variables to determine the certain configurations don't screw up our zero net calculations.
That's like saying, imagine that I got a major lung infection, and my lung capacity were reduced by 40% permanently. Would we then calculate the proper dosage of EPO to return me to normal?
All that matters is that there is any advantage at all, when compared to non-amputee athletes. If there is, then they shouldn't be permitted.
800 dude wrote:
It's not about advantage vs. disadvantage...
...That's like saying, imagine that I got a major lung infection, and my lung capacity were reduced by 40% permanently. Would we then calculate the proper dosage of EPO to return me to normal?
All that matters is that there is any advantage at all
Your comparison is not good, but your point is well taken. I am in total agreement. is there any advantage?!! Even if it is only "possible" then they should not run.
The key wrote:Even if it is only "possible" then they should not run.
You run into legal trouble if you exclude disabled people from sports for "possible" advantages.
The key wrote:it is an advantage because it is entirely possible that he could never have run as well naturally
Doesn't this make it just "entirely possible" that he has an advantage? And isn't it also possible that his upper leg tires more quickly because it has to drag along 2.3 pounds of dead weight, rather than gain the benefit of a finely-tuned, efficient lower leg filled with live muscles, joints, tendons, etc. Maybe that's why he can't run a blazing fast 800.
Clearly this is how the Court of Arbitration for Sport sees it, and I'm inclined to go along with them rather than piss and moan about the unfair advantages of a double-amputee.
Here is my view, his splits are slower in the first half due to a lack of explosive power. When he reaches his top speeds he simply has more glycogen stores still in reserve due to this lack of explosive start hence he runs a quicker second half.
Pretty sure glycogen is not much of a limiting factor in the 400.
I just spent a bit of time over on the NYTimes web site and there are a lot of great comments there. The one that seems to cut to the heart of it is 25th- the guy says "just look at the last 100 meters" Clearly he has an advantage, and I thought they already proved these are "springs" which are banned.
Another common theme in the comments is that the Olympics is allowing this for its value as a publicity stunt.
That might be true if the average sprinter's lower leg only weighed 2.3 pounds, which is far from the truth. He probably has an advantage in turnover and leg lift because his leg is so light.