Not sure if this has been posted or not, but an interesting article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/sports/othersports/15runner.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1
I'd be interested to hear everyone's thoughts on this. He's not in a qualifying position for the Olympics in an individual event, but he could be selected to run on the South African 4x400m team.
fletch
His 400 time (46.34) would be at the top of the Div. III performance list.
How fast would he be with just shoes attached to his stubs?
And he runs 46sec in spite of a clumbsy start. If he could accelerate better from the gun for the first 30m he might run sub 45. However in a relay with a flying start he would be an asset to a 4 X 400 squad.
He is very much at a disadvantage. While prosthetic limbs allow amputees to do remarkable things, they are still crude compared to natrual legs. The human foot is an incredible artifact of biomachinery that technology will NEVER compete with. Anyone who says that prosthetic legs give someone an advantage is simply and utterly ignorant.
I don't think it's ignorant. Advancing technology has been bringing the paralympic records closer to the actual records very steadily. Someday an amputee might break the WR.
Short right leg wrote:
Advancing technology has been bringing the paralympic records closer to the actual records very steadily.
The prosthetic "technology" isn't that impressive and really hasn't advanced at all in a long time. Certainly no more so than pole vault poles have, anyway.
Someday an amputee might break the WR
Not a chance.
Think about this: if prosthetic legs are advantageous, then why are above-knee amputees so much slower than below-knee amputees? Surely the more prosthetic parts you have, the bigger your advantage, right?
marijuologist wrote:
Think about this: if prosthetic legs are advantageous, then why are above-knee amputees so much slower than below-knee amputees? Surely the more prosthetic parts you have, the bigger your advantage, right?
You aren't really that dense, are you?
i wasn't literally asking. the point was to ridicule the notion
Set his baseline at these times.
"Since March, Pistorius has delivered startling record performances for disabled athletes at 100 meters (10.91 seconds), 200 meters (21.58 seconds) and 400 meters (46.34 seconds). Those times do not meet Olympic qualifying standards for men, but the Beijing Games are still 15 months away. Already, Pistorius is fast enough that his marks would have won gold medals in equivalent women’s races at the 2004 Athens Olympics."
If he continues to get faster using these prothesis, and he qualifies let him go, but if he keeps bringing out new upgraded prothesis to produce better times, then tell him he's an inspiration but don't let him compete against the able bodied guys.
marijuologist you have no idea what you are talking about. the prosthetics function literally as SPRINGS that natrual runners don't have. they bend under the weight of his body and spring back to their normal shape to give him unfair propulsion. there is no way he should be able to compete when he runs a new pr every time he gets a new set of legs
maybe Spira should endorse him.
this controversy wouldn't be so retarded if the answer wasn't so clear-cut and obvious. you have people who know nothing about mechanics or prosthetic "technology" arbitrarily deciding that amputees have an advantage just because ONE RUNNER puts up times that beat most able-bodied athletes. never mind that there are thousands of other amputee athletes with the same prosthetics and that most of them couldn't entertain qualifying for the junior olympics. never mind that the second best amputee quartermiler is 6-7 seconds behind Pistorius. he just has an advantage because his prosthetics function as springs.
News flash: a natrual leg also functions as a spring, "deforming" by virtue of JOINT MOTION (analguous to the deformation of the carbon-fiber prosthetic), AND has the added befefit of MUSCLES to contribute additional energy to propulsion.
A stiff prosthetic leg returns 90-95% of the energy imparted at impact. A natural leg can return over 200%. So who has the advantage?
When they develop prosthetic legs which add energy to propulsion by virtue of some mortor system, THEN you can whine about amputees having an advantage. as long as the prosthetics are completely passive, amputees will always be at a large disadvantage
marijuologist wrote:
A natural leg can return over 200%.
It's not possible to "return" over 100% of the energy imparted at impact. A natural leg may contribute additional energy, but it isn't coming from a spring-like return of the impact energy.
The answer is far from clear-cut and obvious. I don't know whether his particular prosthetics confer an advantage. It's a tall order assign the IAAF with the task of evaluating every prosthetic that comes along, so I can see the rational of banning them in able-bodied competition. I feel for the guy, and I'd love to see him run fast, but despite my discomfort with the idea, I'd hesitate allowing him in open competition.
Techno Doping is right. You get these guys who've never won anything in their lives, they get drunk in college and try to outrun a train, lose both legs, rehab for six months, somebody comes to their hospital bed and recruits them for the "national team" and offers them new legs. Suddenly a 5' 10" guy ends up being 6'4 and a sub 50 second 400 guy. With a year of training and three more sets of legs, he's a 47 guy. That's the story I've heard the before.
Bottom line, the prosthetics are definitely an advantage. They are designed and engineered to be that way.
It is techno-doping, and the way things are going it will be legal in the Olympic Games sometime in the future.
They are already letting wheelchair racers race against standing kids in some states in H.S.
SuperSkeptic wrote:
Techno Doping is right. You get these guys who've never won anything in their lives, they get drunk in college and try to outrun a train, lose both legs, rehab for six months, somebody comes to their hospital bed and recruits them for the "national team" and offers them new legs. Suddenly a 5' 10" guy ends up being 6'4 and a sub 50 second 400 guy. With a year of training and three more sets of legs, he's a 47 guy. That's the story I've heard the before.
You have no idea what the hell you're talking about. Pistorius is the only amputee 400m runner in history who has broken 52 seconds. The majority are not even close to that.
Brian Fraisure, the previous amputee 100m and 200m record holder, was a D1 collegiate sprinter before he lost his leg under a train. He is now significantly slower than he was before he lost his leg. So much prosthetics giving him an advantage.
Citizen Runner wrote:
It's not possible to "return" over 100% of the energy imparted at impact. A natural leg may contribute additional energy, but it isn't coming from a spring-like return of the impact energy.
Excuse my error. The point is that a natrual leg produces ground support forces equal to more than twice the force of impact, while prosthetic legs are limited to returning impact forces. The prosthetics are NOT advantageous.
marijuolgist wrote:
Excuse my error. The point is that a natrual leg produces ground support forces equal to more than twice the force of impact, while prosthetic legs are limited to returning impact forces. The prosthetics are NOT advantageous.
My point was that energy return or energy provided by the lower leg muscles is not the only difference, hence it isn't obvious that that a prosthetic might not be an advantage. There are a number of experts quoted in the article BME linked above who concede that.
That Pistorius is approaching elite level performances is amazing. If he starts to exceed them, then it would be extremely suspicious that the best in the world come from the relatively small pool of disabled athletes. Still not impossible, but certainly unlikely.
There probably was a time when it would have seemed laughable that someone in a wheelchair could put in elite level performances, but they've long since surpassed the times of the best runners.