Pistorius to try for Olympic spot...

Removable Pen!s wrote:

I have no pen!s. This landmark case gives me hope that I can get a prosthetic pen!s and become a p0rn star. Woo hoo, roll over John Holmes, I'm going to buy a LOOONG prosthetic pen!s.

Are you afraid to type the word "penis" for some reason?

webby wrote:

How hard would it be to attach similar blades to a non-amputee? Wouldn't that give us a pretty good answer about whether they offer an advantage?

You'd think it would be pretty easy to find pay some sub elite 400m runners to test a modified pair out for a few months. Aren't there guys running the paralympics with one real leg and one prosthetic? Do these guys have the same prosthetic? Couldn't they tell us which one was better?

I think it's a little early to give it too much thought. After all, he hasn't even come anywhere close to meeting the B standard for the olympics. There are probably 10+ 400 runners in the US alone who are much faster (granted our 400 field has been pretty deep). So, until he gets close to meeting the qualifying standards for the olympics, I think it's a bit premature to talk about world records.

Him qualifying in the open is not likely but him getting a position on the relay is what makes me the most curious. It has been noted he has a disadvantage at the start. My questions is, how much of an advantage would he have running the 2, 3, 4 legs of a relay given the fact he would have a running start?[quote]webby wrote:

Only if he doesn't slice up his teammates in the transition. From the Nytimes blog:

31. May 16th, 2008 12:37 pm

According to the rulings, Pistorius can compete because the blades don’t give him an advantage over shins/ankles. But what if he ran the 800m race instead of the 400m? As a former runner of both the 400m and 800m races, I can say tha they’re not all that disimilar in exertion. The big difference is that the 800m (and all longer races) are not run in lanes, so there will be contact between runners. I would not want to be running alongside Pistorius and get clipped in the calf by a composite blade and I’m sure the blades are much less responsive to side contacts by a leg than a human ankle is. Also, I watched the linked IAAF video, and his race strategy is curious. At the end of the back stretch, he looked to be about 20 meters back from the leader and in the final stretch he started about 15 meters back yet nearly caught up to the leader at the finish line. The stretch is about 80 meters (done by the winner in 10 seconds), yet Pistorius did 90-some meters in almost the same time (that’s almost able-bodied 100m race time). What I can see is that the blades are horrible at turning curves but are great in straights, so they are _not_ equivalent to human legs.

— Posted by Hanspeter

http://olympics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/arbitration-court-rules-in-favor-of-blade-runner/#comments

If Rosie Ruiz had appealed to CAS, she'd still be a Boston winner. This is America, and we all want to believe in the Big Dream. If a gawky kid from Illinois can become Abe Lincoln, if a poor black girl from the south can become Oprah, if a boy born from the union of a white Kansas girl and a black Kenyan man can become president (maybe), then how can we not believe in a Boston runner who doesn't know what "intervals" are just because a few of the video cameras failed to pick her up? C'mon, that's SOOOO unfair. And how can we keep a handicapped dude out of the Olympics? So unfair again.

The problem occurs when someone fails to distinguish between freedom of civil rights and freedom to play on a level athletic field. Sports are different from academics and politics and similar arenas.

For example, there are no rules against politicians using steroids and epo. They'd probably be an asset, in fact, in those long, grueling campaigns. If we found out that Hillary was on epo, many would cheer when she said, "I'm a fighter, and epo helps me fight longer and harder for the causes you and I both believe in--fair wages, health care, social security, etc."

But if Oscar Pistorius were on epo, he'd get tossed out quickly. And he'd be labeled a cheat rather than an inspiration.

Of course, he's not on epo. He's on two super high tech titanium legs. Which seem to give him a far bigger advantage than epo ever gave any runner. There are questions still to be answered. More research is needed. But Ross Tucker is right in saying that the IAAF studies were carried out in a relatively open and scientific manner, and reported a similar manner. I don't think the same can be said of the MIT studies presented to CAS.

CAS ruled more on the civil rights question. Sure Pistorius has the right to run in appropriate competitions. But he doesn't have the right to run at the highest levels, in the Olympics, etc, if his legs tilt the athletic playing field and give him an unfair advantage.

There seems to be a great deal of fear in this thread; fear that a disabled person - and that's what he is, not one of you would wish to lose your legs - might actually beat you or your favourite runner in a race, or take media coverage away from 'more deserving' runners.

Why don't we look at the positive and consider what the story of Pistorius means for Paralympians and the physically disabled? It could very well mean less discrimination, greater reconition of the abilities (rather than disabilities) of the disabled, and greater sporting participation by physically disabled people. Wouldn't that be more consistent with the "spirit of sport" than any attempt to restrict a successful Paralympian's opportunities for competition?

Or perhaps I'm wishing for too much by hoping that sport might mean something outside a stadium.

Greg in Toronto wrote:

There seems to be a great deal of fear in this thread; fear that a disabled person - and that's what he is, not one of you would wish to lose your legs - might actually beat you or your favourite runner in a race, or take media coverage away from 'more deserving' runners.

Why don't we look at the positive and consider what the story of Pistorius means for Paralympians and the physically disabled? It could very well mean less discrimination, greater reconition of the abilities (rather than disabilities) of the disabled, and greater sporting participation by physically disabled people.

How about fear that someone I don't even know (or personally care) about is denied a spot in an OG or WC quarter-final, or semi, or final, because this guy is allowed to compete? How about justice?

Wheelchair racers have awakened many (me included) to recognition of the abilities of the disabled. But they aren't (or, rather, shouldn't be) in the same *competitions* as the ablebodied. Why? Because they're doing a different event, one in which their aiding devices permit a higher speed (in longer distances) than any ablebodied runner can maintain.

I'm sure (most) wheelchair racers would like to have use of their legs. I wouldn't want to trade places with them. I'm glad that I can walk. But I can't run, and I can't (elbow/shoulder injuries) use a wheelchair--so tell you what, lemme use a bike, I think my disabilities can manage that. Oh--that wouldn't be fair? But I *can't* run, and I *can't* wheel a chair. So don't I "deserve" to get to use the bike? Wouldn't that be doing just a bit to promote "greater reconition of the abilities (rather than disabilities) of the disabled, and greater sporting participation by physically disabled people"?

Sure. But in a bike race, not a running race on the track.

Excellent points. Now it's time for someone to develop blades that allow a person to leap 17 feet in the air, then apply this same kind of decision to the Olympic basketball tournament. Watch a bunch of double amputees school USA's NBA guys and you'll see this decision reversed before you can blink your eyes. But, honestly, I see no comparable reason why they shouldn't be allowed to hoop on springy blades if they can run on them too.... This decision must somehow be overturned. No offense intended to Pistorius, but this is such a bad decision.

the IAAF spent 80 000 euros on the testing!! oscar was allowed any independent parties there to influence the testing, why did he not take the prof. from MIT to the IAAF testing????? instead they do it in secret with no independant person there!!!! how can that hold up in court??? one possible answer is the 7 lawyers pistorius took with him!!! people are ignorant of the science, and allow emotion to cloud there judgement!!!

here is my only thing...

Somehow he makes it to the Olympic final and coming down the home stretch the abled body that is in front of him catches a calf cramp or something happens in the other 40 odd body parts that he does not have and Pistorius wins the gold or makes it to the next round or whatever the case may be. All mecanical advantage aside nothing is going to go wrong with his "legs" like could go wrong with someone elses. Thats all it should take to not allow him in.

nookie wrote:

the IAAF spent 80 000 euros on the testing!! oscar was allowed any independent parties there to influence the testing, why did he not take the prof. from MIT to the IAAF testing????? instead they do it in secret with no independant person there!!!! how can that hold up in court??? one possible answer is the 7 lawyers pistorius took with him!!! people are ignorant of the science, and allow emotion to cloud there judgement!!!

I agree with your post, but I propose that only one exclamation point or question mark is needed to successfully conclude your sentences. Cutting out the redundancy will then provide you with the extra time and energy needed to capitalize the first word in each sentence.

I would like to see if in fact the blades were a disadvantage at the start. I would imagine that is likely the reason he runs the last half faster than the first. I don't know this for sure but I would imagine his start is pretty slow. The gastrocnemius and soleus would really come into play at the start.

Personally, I hope he never even comes close to qualifying for the Games. The fact that he took it to court sickens me to my stomach. Say he runs on the Olympic 1600m Relay this summer. Say the USA wins. First of all, the other three guys would get credit only from us, but the general population would be thrilled and inspired by this moron. Secondly, let's say the UK gets pissed about this. So they get someone just like him on their relay for 2012. Then after their success, five more countries have cripples in their 4x4. By 2028 it turns into just the race to see who can get the most guys with blades. The 1500/800 guys are allowed to do it, and suddenly Guerrouj's times look like a joke, and so does he for running with actual legs. The Olympics will turn into NASCAR with torsos. The 1600 relay winners will be around 2:35-2:40. It will be a terrible time for track & field.

Greg in Toronto wrote:

'more deserving' runners.

There's the answer to your question.

Greg in Toronto wrote:

There seems to be a great deal of fear in this thread; fear that a disabled person - and that's what he is, not one of you would wish to lose your legs - might actually beat you or your favourite runner in a race, or take media coverage away from 'more deserving' runners.

Why don't we look at the positive and consider what the story of Pistorius means for Paralympians and the physically disabled? It could very well mean less discrimination, greater reconition of the abilities (rather than disabilities) of the disabled, and greater sporting participation by physically disabled people. Wouldn't that be more consistent with the "spirit of sport" than any attempt to restrict a successful Paralympian's opportunities for competition?

Or perhaps I'm wishing for too much by hoping that sport might mean something outside a stadium.

I don't think anyone has a problem with a disabled person winning an event as long as the use of an artificial aid does not offer an unfair advantage.

Take Alex Zanardi for example...

Motor racing driver has both legs amputated after a crash and makes a successful return to motor racing driving a BMW touring car fitted with hand controls.

In motor racing the car itself is an artificial aid to the human body, so as long as he don't gain an unfair advantage, no one would object. If however, in addition to hand controls, the modifications to the car included a V8 engine, then plenty of people would have objected, and it would have had nothing to do with fear of being beaten by a disabled person.

Alex Zanardi also competed in the 2007 New York Marathon, placing 4th in the wheelchair/handcycle division. Maybe some think he should have been allowed to have competed against runners in the running division?

Running is meant to be man against man (or woman against woman), not man against devices made of carbon fibre and titanium. If you want to compete using devices made of titanium and carbon fibre, there are plenty of sports that allow these technologies, including Cycling, Yachting and Motorsport.

Hugh Herr received NO compensation for his study. The research is also being submitted for peer review, now that the ruling has been made public. They were unable to submit for peer review prior to the ruling, due to the rules of the court.

Perhaps the science of sport guys should get their facts straight.

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS157079+01-Apr-2008+PRN20080401

Read. Note there was no compensation. Also note that there were 6 Universities and many scientists involved in the appeal, not just Herr at MIT.

If he is a professor doesn't he get paid to do research. Most likely didn't do it in his spare time.

Ross Tucker wrote:

I'll be brief on this particular post,

Brief?!!