Pistorious slower 1st half proves a DISADVANTAGE!

The points made pro and con here are good thinking imo. One of the most rational and even-tempered discussions I have seen.

Problematic for me are the "hidden variables," the subtle elements that can only be known by the athlete--all else, however intelligent and valid as far as it goes, can include only a "guesswork" idea. There's too much speculation backed up by too little science or personal knowledge.

Define legs.

“Would I want my legs back?” Pistorius once said. “I’d have to sit down and think about it.”

I think his first half being slower is not a sign of a disadvantage. I think his second half is faster because he's running into it at almost full speed. The fact that he then maintains that speed would indicate an advantage in that he's not tiring. Others also hit the 200m at near full speed, but end up slowing slightly in the final 100-150m because of fatigue. Everyone would have a faster 2nd 200m if they didn't experience any fatigue in their lower legs, or significantly less fatigue in their upper legs.

There is no way his blades are an advantage or you would see a wealth of disabled runners winning gold every 4 years. The fact of the matter is that he is a great athlete who happens to have no legs, penalizing him for that is wrong. if the blades really do make you a better runner lets see some guys man up and get amputated so they can wear the blade instead of juicing like a chump.

this is f*****g ridicules

No, you wouldn't, because there aren't that many disabled runners.

Anyway, the point isn't that he negative splits; the point is that he closes faster than any 400 runner, ever.

And I do think that a lot of runners would consider getting their legs amputated to win gold. The problem is that it could never happen, because they'd be prevented from competing if they were faster post-op than before.

800 dude wrote:

And I do think that a lot of runners would consider getting their legs amputated to win gold. The problem is that it could never happen, because they'd be prevented from competing if they were faster post-op than before.

that argument won't work

what happens if an elite ( ~45-flat ) guy loses his legs in an auto-accident, has prosthetics & a few years later comes back to run 44-flat with them

you coudn't stop him running in able-bodied olympics based on oscar's case & therefore you are going to have a hard time preventing someone who returns after voluntary amputation who returns running quicker

Great discussion going on here:

http://scienceofsport.blogspot.com/2008/01/topical-sports-science-and-analysis.html

The top heading gives a list of articles that have looked at pretty much everything you have been discussing on this thread - the mass, the energy return, the pacing strategy, the very fast finish etc.

And then the latest article mentions it as well (not in that list yet):

http://scienceofsport.blogspot.com/2008/05/pistorius-cleared-part-2.html

I think his fast finish is very, very suspicious, and I do think that his slow start CANNOT explain away that very, very (never seen before) negative split. So Webby, I have to disagree, the argument is not asinine, it seems rather crucial to me. And as someone has said, it's simply the result of the hypothesis. All the physiological theories for why he has an advantage predict that he'll finish very fast, and sure enough, he does.

Now that's not proof, sure, but it's good science - hypothesis, research, result, confirmation.

TG

Why not have the company build him a pair of prostetics for other events. He should have no problem setting the WR for the high jump with the right equipment.

Sorry for his disadvantage in life but the olympics are supposed to showcase what the human body is capable of doing. Its bad enough people get away with useing undetectable aids to performance.

Actually there is really not even a disadvantage in life exept his shoes may take a little longer to put on.

crazy legs wrote:

There is no way his blades are an advantage or you would see a wealth of disabled runners winning gold every 4 years. The fact of the matter is that he is a great athlete who happens to have no legs, penalizing him for that is wrong. if the blades really do make you a better runner lets see some guys man up and get amputated so they can wear the blade instead of juicing like a chump.

this is f*****g ridicules

Well, this is probably the single dumbest post on this issue.

He is not a great athlete. He is a decent athlete, probably with the physiology and training to do sub-50 for 400.

These blades are clearly a manufactured aid, which allow him to maintain a peak/plateau velocity longer than normal, with very little slowing. We look like idiots for allowing him to compete for a spot in Beijing.

ventolin wrote:

800 dude wrote:

And I do think that a lot of runners would consider getting their legs amputated to win gold. The problem is that it could never happen, because they'd be prevented from competing if they were faster post-op than before.

that argument won't work

what happens if an elite ( ~45-flat ) guy loses his legs in an auto-accident, has prosthetics & a few years later comes back to run 44-flat with them

you coudn't stop him running in able-bodied olympics based on oscar's case & therefore you are going to have a hard time preventing someone who returns after voluntary amputation who returns running quicker

You're assuming that this judgment is final. My point is that the improved performance of the formerly able-bodied athlete would be fairly convincing evidence that the prosthetics confer an advantage. I didn't mean to imply that it would occur on a case by case basis. Obviously you couldn't get away with that. I meant that, in this hypothetical scenario, the issue would be reexamined as a whole.

10.91

21.58

46.56

His PRs

those aren't all that ridiculous. 10.91 is pretty slow but I'd guess there's probably some other 46.xx guys with not much 100 speed?

the judgement in oscar's case is final - the buck stops with court of arbitration ( like supreme court )

that means any amputee ( however they became that way - accident or voluntarily ) is cleared to run with those particular skis - the court can't declare them legal & then change their mind

however, if he starts using even better ones, that woud be a new case, starting from scratch

ventolin wrote:

the judgement in oscar's case is final - the buck stops with court of arbitration ( like supreme court )

that means any amputee ( however they became that way - accident or voluntarily ) is cleared to run with those particular skis - the court can't declare them legal & then change their mind

however, if he starts using even better ones, that woud be a new case, starting from scratch

It is worthwhile reading the Court of Arbitration for Sport decision, as there are some important clauses that means what you are suggesting can not happen... at least not without clearance from the IAAF on each specific case.

Link to the Court of Arbitration for Sport PDF document can be found on the Wikipedia page:

The ruling states... the athlete is currently eligible to compete in IAAF sanctioned events while wearing the Ossur Cheetah Flex-Foot prosthesis model as used in the Cologne tests...

...the scope of application of this Ruling is limited to the eligibility of Mr Pistorious only...

It follows that this Ruling has no other application to the eligibility of any other amputee athletes, or to any other model of prosthetic limb...

So any other amputee is not cleared to run... he or she must also apply to the IAAF for their case to be considered.

While I'd rather not see this precedent set, the ruling does not apply to anyone else or any other prosthesis model and there is also a statement in the CAS document that might allow the IAAF to revisit the situation with new scientific evidence.

Just to clear up the mythical glycogen-store defense of Pistorius: it's wrong. Any argument based on energy conservation is wrong.

The two relevant energy systems here are the phosphate-creatine system, and the anaerobic glycolytic system.

The phosphate-creatine system is limited by creatine stores, which are admittedly very limited in the body. But even in well-trained athletes those run out after 8-10 seconds!

After that you are relying on anaerobic glycolysis. That system isn't limited by substrates (we all have enough glycogen to run for 90-120 minutes) but rather by efficiency. It can't produce ATP as fast as the body uses it.

So the only thing that gets conserved by a runner who starts slowly is creatine, but either way that stuff is gone 10 seconds into the race. From 10 seconds until the finish, we are talking about anaerobic glycolysis. And that system is not affected by how fast the runner started.

This is why most athletes have figured out that they do better when they start faster; they have nothing to lose by doing so because they are just using creatine stores that will be gone within 10 seconds anyway.

The qualifying window for Beijing closes July 23 for individual events. Pistorius has run 46.56 but the A standard is 45.55 and the B standard is 45.95. I think it is highly unlikely that he improves his best time by an entire second. (If he does then it would be clear to me that the prosthetics provide an advantage). If he only has the B standard he would have to be the fastest in South Africa and he is not (descending order list provided below). He could be considered for a relay but, again, there are faster people in his country. He does not have a time this year fast enough to make this list but he best would only place him 6th.

400m

OQS(A) 45.55 (B) 45.95

46.06 Ofentse Mogawane 22-Feb

46.22 Pieter Smith 16-Feb

46.36 Sibusiso Sishi 8-Feb

46.49 Alwyn Myburgh 8-Feb

46.55 Ernst Hattingh 16-Feb

46.60 Alvin Samuels 22-Feb

46.64 Ter de Villiers 16-Feb

46.71 Sidwell Mithi 1-Feb

46.79 LJ van Zyl 1-Feb

46.93 Morne Nagel 1-Feb

Dudes -

This entire debate is starting to sound like a Southpark episode.

Besides, they let Lance Armstrong compete, didn't they?

Let the boy run and quit whining.

tick tock you show me a 400 runner with an a 10.8 time at the olympic level and i'll show you a fat lady running running 415. ya it is crap, i say let him run, let him get his rear waxed. he is not the issue it is if a legit runner comes in with an accident run FAST times then what do you do. i say don't let them run they do have an advantage, he doesn't have to deal with the o2 use in the lower legs that everyone else has to deal with. and he has the consistant spring in the lower legs that we have to fight when when we are finishing a race