Oscar Pistorius gets his A

hannsen wrote:

Btw why doesnt he just run the 800 and run 1:36 and get it over with?

What do you think he could run for an 800? He must have ran one at some point in his career, even if in training right? Do they have the 800 at the Paralympics?

wejo wrote:

Really?..it's Italy wrote:

If you need a result bad enough Lignano is the place. That's a huge drop all of sudden isn't it?

I'm assuming the result is legit but the same thought did cross my mind.

My question is has an able bodied athlete had such a similar breakthrough in the middle of a season?

Oscar had never run under 45.61. 2 days ago he ran 46.65. Boom now he's running 45.07.

The IAAF botched the inquiry against Oscar P but the science I have read points to him having an unfair advantage so I don't think he should be running Worlds.

At this rate of improvement, he'll win Worlds easily.

What able bodied athlete has been stuck in Lane ONE all year?

After all the world wide controversy, it will quite an irony if neither of them can win a medal...and that's the way the standings look right now.

I really wouldn't call it ironic at all, especially for Pistorius. He's never even had a goal of winning a medal nor has anyone ever mentioned him as a medal possibility. It took a huge PR for him just to make the time. There are plenty of interviews where he says he just wanted to make it to the big dance. Although after such a huge improvement his goals could change.

Ah, here we go again! I am "dumb" because I simply offer up an alternative viewpoint. Right.

The basis of my argument is simply that the lack of legs should not disqualify a man (or a woman) from RUNNING in the Olympics.

Oscar's case presents a very worthwhile Human Rights case, not a "Human Interest" story as the Founder of this website makes it out to be.

MAYEROFF wrote:

Ah, here we go again! I am "dumb" because I simply offer up an alternative viewpoint. Right.

The basis of my argument is simply that the lack of legs should not disqualify a man (or a woman) from RUNNING in the Olympics.

Oscar's case presents a very worthwhile Human Rights case, not a "Human Interest" story as the Founder of this website makes it out to be.

Yes you are completely missing the point. Should we put springs on people with crippled legs to jump 9 feet or to triple jump 20 meters. It is great for all people to have a chance to compete, but most of us have no chance to medal in the Olympics no matter what we do. It seems that the best chance I have to do this would be to lose my legs.

Scientific reports also were used to show the inferiority of black people.

So that means all science from now until the end of time is worthless? Strange argument.

I, like Oscar, have no chance to compete in the World Champs. Get over it and enjoy, as I do, watching these naturally talented athletes perform.

Thank you for the link to the articles, Simple Runner. Just one person - Ross Tucker, but I thought I'd post one or two thoughts on the debate.

First, the issue of human interest and even human rights is completely distinct to that of eligibility to perform. Athletes, it can be argued, have a human right to use certain doping products outside of the sport (anti-aging clinics give growth hormone and testosterone all the time - it may have some shaky ethics, but it's not illegal there and people have the right to use it). But in sport, we disallow it because it affects the competition. That is, it disadvantages some by giving others an advantage.

For carbon fibre limbs, the evidence is clear. It was initially theoretical, because no testing had ever been done. But the mass of the limbs, the stiffness of the limbs and the fact that carbon fibre never fatigues was teh reason for the advantage. Then, when the IAAF tested Pistorius in 2007, they confirmed this - he ran with this significantly lower oxygen cost of running. His running was described by one of the world's leading biomechanists as a "bouncing locomotion" unlike any running ever seen. These energetic factors would predict an advantage.

Scientifically, however, it is very difficult to join those dots - the physiological differences imply advantage, they don't prove it. In fact, proving advantage is basically impossible. This is what Pistorius' clever lawyers took to the CAS. He went away and got his own testing done, and presented it to a panel of three judges (not scientists) who made a ruling that there was insufficient scientific evidence.

Not a scientific decision, but a legal one, and one which had absolutely zero peer-review, zero external/independent verification of the science. And so we all waited with baited breath to see the research when it was finally published. It came out in spurts. The first one was so poor that it was an embarrassment that the CAS had allowed it to be presented unchallenged. There were so many method flaws than any scientist, within 10 minutes of looking through it and evaluating it, would have picked up the problems. Some of them are discussed here:

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2009/06/pistorius-research-implications.html

One example - one of the key questions about Pistorius is whether his carbon fiber limbs make him more efficient. So this is tested easily enough by comparing his oxygen use to able-bodied runners. They did this, but when they compared him to other sprinters, his oxygen use was significantly lower. So they went out and find long-distance runners. he was still lower. Then they added the data from studies of world-class long distance runners. It got better - suddenly now he was different, but if you used a statistical definition for different, then it was passable. And hey presto, he's the same! It was an abomination of scientific testing. Not to mention that he was tested in a completely different state of training.

But that wasn't the last of it. In November 2009, more than one year AFTER the CAS had cleared him, one of HIS OWN SCIENTISTS published a paper saying that all their evidence taken together showed that he had a 10 second advantage. So that's his own guy, the world's leading biomechanist, peter Weyand, who took the data they collected, analyzed it ONE YEAR LATE, and then presented that he believed there was a 10 second advantage.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2009/11/oscar-pistorius-gets-10-second.html

It's an extra-ordinary sequence of events, because that research had been done BEFORE the CAS hearing, but was only finally made public more than a year after the decision. How can a decision be past, how can the science suggest one thing but only part of it be presented to portray the case in a different light?

It was a gross miscarriage of scientific integrity. Scientific fraud comes to mind, because those scientists who went before the CAS presented evidence that was a) flawed, and b) incomplete. It was methodologically poor, and it didn't cover all the necessary questions. CAS defined that question far too narrowly, and for that, Pistorius' lawyers hopefully got themselves some good exposure.

Bottom line, the theory predicts an advantage. It establishes a number of hypothesis that can be tested - those were tested, by Bruggemann, and confirmed. However, he didn't measure actual advantage. Neither did Pistorius' scientists, but the legal process allowed flawed science to be the basis for a decision.

The issue of blades is also interesting. I'm currently conducting research on athletes with cerebral palsy, so I have some involvement with our Paralympic team. Recently, a visiting German double amputee and our local single-leg amputee received a visit from a rep showing them different versions of carbon fibre limbs. They got to "test-drive" these limbs, doing a few 200m time-trials on the track to see how they went. The range in times, even taking into account fatigue, was close to 2 seconds. That is, the limbs can influence performance by 2 seconds, and that is purely because of the differences in stiffness. It doesn't even take into account the set up and attachment issues.

What I hope is that Pistorius continues at his current rate of improvement. I hope he breaks 44 by London, I hope that he gets to the World Record soon too. Then I'd like to see how this debate is different for those who argue that there is no advantage.

Anyway, hopefully there is more to come.

Ross

Oh and just to add - the problem in the process is not that the scientists who did Pistorius' testing were 'cheating' (though some of them were - Weyand at least came out with the real finding, albeit a year late), but rather that CAS defined this exceptionally narrow question, then allowed science to be conducted without allowing it to be peer-reviewed and evaluated from outside. That process would have completed the circle, allowing proper evaluation of the results.

mjm wrote:

Scientific reports also were used to show the inferiority of black people.

So that means all science from now until the end of time is worthless? Strange argument.

No, it isn't worthless - it is of great use! - but it is always rhetorical and contextual. What counts as "official knowledge" depends on who has the power in any given situation. If you think I'm speaking bull, then you are most likely aligned with the current winning team. Congratulations, you get to continue oppressing the rest of us - in this case, the rest of us are a very small and overlooked minority (people with disabilities). And think about what was considered scientific knowledge 100 years ago - 50 years ago - 20 years ago - even 10 or 5 years ago - and you'll find that many accepted theories change or are modified. On top of this, the "scientific research" that gets done is dependent on what the winners decide (government or private individuals or corporations with money).

Hypocresy wrote:

Any list of "magical tracks" without Hayward Field is blatantly biased.

Sadly, only the fans at Hayward are magical; there track is 6 ways to Sunday legit.

The only tracks that are as checked out and as legit, are Olympic tracks every 4 years.

whirledpeas wrote:

if he's allowed to race, at the very least, his fake legs should weigh the same as natural legs.

these carbon fiber legs weigh so much less, and transfer energy so well, that it's not fair.

doubters listen: it is not a disadvantage to be running with these fake legs. any normal 47 sec 400m runner, who ended up losing his lower legs, would run much faster once fitted with carbon fiber legs and given training with the new set-up.

what's happening is not fair play.

Okay, so exactly how much extra energy is spent by him COMPENSATING for not having the bio-mechanic control of natural lower legs?

When's the last time you ran on prosthetic legs?

DING! DING! DING! DING! DING!

Science will never prove this, one way or another, Unless he shatters the world record in the 400m.

I am a big fan of Oscar P.

I think he is doing an amazing thing and is very hard working individual.

I am very interested to see him run at worlds but do realize he has an advantage.

The selection pool for "double amputee's" in the world has to be so small that if we looked at averages you could probably place Oscar at around 48-52s range with legs. As it happens his natural talent level + the advantage of the legs puts him perfectly into the mix of about the top 5-15 400m runners in the world. This coincidence makes this case all the more controversial.

I have no doubt that if you took someone of Jeremy Wariner's abilities with this advantage they could go low to sub 40's.

Those of you who argue that he does not have an unfair advantage are going to feel silly when he runs 39:xx at worlds. Don't be surprised if he fires up the rocket boots in the last 100 and finally catches Speedy Gonzales.

Like a lot of other people at this point I just pray that he smashes the world record so everyone realizes how much of an advantage he has. We've know he has an advantage over able bodied athletes for at least 4 years now, I can't believe that some of you are still trying to act like its a level playing field.

Also, hey now I'm sorry that becoming disabled has apparently turned you into such a bitter and cynical person. This has nothing to do with rights for disabled people and I'm sorry you can't see that.

I will worry about his "unfair advantage" when a recreational double amputee clydesdale appears and can hang with OP.

If there is a 10 second advantage then why wait until his last chance in a decent lane to achieve the A standard? With an advantage that great he should be able to smash the A standard out of lane 1.

Has anyone watched a video of the race yet?

Not a great deal. Studies have shown the contribution for example of the muscle groups and joints in the leg at different speeds. During walking, 22% of propulsion comes from the calf muscle. During sprinting, down to 6%. There's little lost. And the same for stability - at high speeds, the movement provides the stability. Try riding a bicycle at 1 mph compared to 20 mph and you'll see the difference.

And don't forget, Pistorius was born without fibulas, so he learned to walk on prosthetic limbs. There's no relearning required. You'll find extremely strong glutes and core, which are an adaptation, but this doesn't cost anything. It's just there.

It's a lot like riding a bicycle - a guy doesn't spend extra energy balancing once he's moving.

Ross