Oscar Pistorius: My Views......

I don't really care one way or the other whether he is allowed to compete, but I can see how other athletes might find it unfair. Say, hypothetically, that his prosthetics were an advantage. Although this would probably never happen, say an athlete had his legs amputated and was fitted for prosthetics to make him faster. Should he be allowed to compete?

Excellent points in a balanced article, Jason! Thanks for writing & posting it.

justintherunner wrote:

I don't really care one way or the other whether he is allowed to compete, but I can see how other athletes might find it unfair. Say, hypothetically, that his prosthetics were an advantage. Although this would probably never happen, say an athlete had his legs amputated and was fitted for prosthetics to make him faster. Should he be allowed to compete?

But you see it was not Oscar's choice. His legs were taken away from him, partly by God and partly by his doctor when he was an infant. That, my fellow runner, is VERY UNFAIR.

Jason

"hypothetically", say the athlete was fitted with super long stilt like prosthetics, should they be allowed to compete?

Didn't a Russian woman compete with a man's achilles, sewn onto her from a cadaver, and win a medal?

It seems that many runners have advantages that are un-natural...be it asthma meds, special shoe inserts, etc. Somehow we decided these things are ok, but this guys legs aren't?

I don't know about this whole thing...you certainly remember Lee Majors as Steve Austin - the friggin bionic man.

Where will it end? Jeezuz, the bionic woman would be smoking all the men and that would really screw things up.

The Japanese would kill us with their electronics and engineering technology - they'd be entering totally life like androids and we wouldn't be able to tell that they were bionic - it would make the blood doping controversy pale in comparison.

Yes, I agree that it is unfair to Oscar, and like I say, I have no problem with him compteting, but I also have to believe that some people he would compete against, if he were to beat them in a race, that all their hard work was negated by an unfair advantage on Oscar's part. Say they developed a new type of prosthetic that allowed him to run even faster, even world record pace. It is true that it is unfair that he has no legs, but that doesn't mean that the other athletes should have a disadvantage. Just trying to play devil's advocate.

I see the danger inherent because it may be possible with the advancements in prosthetics that an athlete may have a real advantage over an athlete who doesn't have them.

But I agree with you in his case.

It will be very difficult to determine what is/is not an advantage. But it is a shame that he is unable to run in the real track events.

Perhaps allow them to compete, on the understanding that there will be a different set of records kept, in the event that one of them runs a world record.

As for Olympic/World Champs Gold: Give it to whomever crosses the line first.

After all, there will only ever be a handful of para-athletes who can keep up with world class events, regardless of advance prosthetics.

Something that's on the market for athletes with legs.

I can see some pretty clear advantages using these...high jump anyone?

Pistorious's gear looks fine, but if that's allowed, then it opens it up to other stuff.

My view;- they need to decide a certain classification of "leg" and make them legal and make sure they're the proper sort and don't give an unfair advantage. Pretty similiar to poles for pole vault or any other athletes shoes.

This is the best analysis of technical advantages/disadvantages that I've seen and is worth a read if you're interested in this issue: http://scienceofsport.blogspot.com/2007/07/oscar-pistorius-science-and-engineering.html

I can't believe this is even an argument. The guy doesn't have legs! There's no way he has an advantage.

Human legs aren't the most efficient objects around. Wheelchair racers don't have legs, do they ever beat the top marathoners? An apparatus doesn't have to have a motor in it to be advantageous over legs. I don't know in this particular case if they help or hinder, but you can see the potential.

real proof wrote:

I can't believe this is even an argument. The guy doesn't have legs! There's no way he has an advantage.

Yes, but he MIGHT have something even better.

This might be one of the rare cases in which man has made something better than God.

Still, I say, let him run!

I think that he should first make the World Championship/Olympic qualifying standard, and then the "Court of Opinion" will be far more on his side.

Jason

the rejection of "separate but equal" by the supreme court in brown v bd of ed only applies to the government. private actors can do whatever they want as long as it doesn't violate a protected class. moreover, there is a long list of telling people in sports that they cannot play as they naturally exist. a minimum height in baseball, a minimum weight for a jockey, weight classes in boxing, separate men's and women's sports or maximum weights in peewee football are just a few that i can think of off the top of my head.

running requires legs and using fake legs isn't running. as mentioned earlier, why not let someone with no legs in on a wheelchair? why not let bikes in as well? he belongs in the special olympics.

mg wrote:

the rejection of "separate but equal" by the supreme court in brown v bd of ed only applies to the government. private actors can do whatever they want as long as it doesn't violate a protected class. moreover, there is a long list of telling people in sports that they cannot play as they naturally exist. a minimum height in baseball, a minimum weight for a jockey, weight classes in boxing, separate men's and women's sports or maximum weights in peewee football are just a few that i can think of off the top of my head.

running requires legs and using fake legs isn't running. as mentioned earlier, why not let someone with no legs in on a wheelchair? why not let bikes in as well? he belongs in the special olympics.

I could be !00% wrong here, and am just throwing this out there, but isn't Oscar disabled? Or wouldn't he be considered such in the US, and isnt that a protected class?

real proof wrote:

I can't believe this is even an argument. The guy doesn't have legs! There's no way he has an advantage.

Are you retarded? If so, then I won't make fun of you. If not, well, you're just a retard.

mg wrote:

the rejection of "separate but equal" by the supreme court in brown v bd of ed only applies to the government. private actors can do whatever they want as long as it doesn't violate a protected class. moreover, there is a long list of telling people in sports that they cannot play as they naturally exist. a minimum height in baseball, a minimum weight for a jockey, weight classes in boxing, separate men's and women's sports or maximum weights in peewee football are just a few that i can think of off the top of my head.

running requires legs and using fake legs isn't running. as mentioned earlier, why not let someone with no legs in on a wheelchair? why not let bikes in as well? he belongs in the special olympics.

I never said that the IAAF has to follow the LEGAL ruling of Brown Vs. Board of Education. My argument is based on the TRADITION of equal protection that it establishes in democratic societies such as the USA.

Should there be a Paralympics at all? Maybe we should we have able-bodied and "specially-abled" athletes competing in the same OLYMPICS!

It's quite obvious that this existing system of OLYMPICS and PARALYMPICS is very much Separate But Unequal.

Jason

My thought is that although the prosthetics probably don't give him a mechanical advantage they could give him a physical advantage in that he has a replacement for a whole muscle group. Muscles will fatigue over the race but the prosthetic will not. This seems unfair to me.

the tradition in sports has been to set all sorts of limits and requirements (i listed several above). as i asked earlier, if you are going to let carbon fibre legs into a track race, then it is a slippery slope and i don't see how you leave out wheelchairs or bikes. certain shoes already are expressly banned. i don't see how you can tell an able-bodied runner that he can't wear a certain pair of shoes but then you let in someone with carbon fibre legs.