Pistorius to try for Olympic spot...

Sure, he has no feet to hurt, but he does have massive impact on comparatively smaller nubs every time he steps.

seems to me the advantage would be in the fact that you do not build up lactic acid due to the fact you dont have legs.. i mean, the blades arent gonna tie up like a normal guys legs would.

Interesting..The IAAF based its January decision on studies by German professor Gert-Peter Brueggemann, who said the J-shaped "Cheetah" blades were energy efficient.

Pistorius' lawyers countered with independent tests conducted by a team led by MIT professor Hugh M. Herr that claimed to show he doesn't gain any advantage over able-bodied runners.

Interesting...That MIT professor Hugh M. Herr happens to be a below the knee double amputee.

http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_development/previous_issues/articles/2450/hugh_herr_back_on_top

I think we all agree that wheelchair athletes shouldn't be competing alongside Ryan Hall for the marathon gold...why? because the wheel offers a huge advantage in the marathon. How huge? after only 30 years of competitive wheel chair racing (and only a few thousand wheelchair athletes have ever competed ) the record is more than 30minutes faster than Geb's World best...Geb being the most successful so far of perhaps 100+ million runners over more than 100 years to have competed)

These blades most certainly lighter and return more energy than normal calves do, they are nearly perfect springs. Of course they don't offer intrinsic thrust or control either so it muddies the water some, but nearly enough in my mind. I do think that Mr. Pretorius is a commendable athlete but almost certainly not Olympic quality. I see the ability to compete in the olympics as a privilege, not a right. And certainly if it is a right then it comes with restrictions which mechanical assistance violate. Fair? probably not, unjust? No.

Rock on Oscar, I'd love to shake your hand, whether or not you ever compete at the Olympics.

Nobody thinks about all the disadvantages he has, they only know about wat the IAA will tell them. Besides if the able bodied athletes really wanted the "advantage" they could cut off their legs too...

open minded wrote:

Nobody thinks about all the disadvantages he has, they only know about wat the IAA will tell them. Besides if the able bodied athletes really wanted the "advantage" they could cut off their legs too...

Probably the most ignorant post of the year.

rabb wrote:

seems to me the advantage would be in the fact that you do not build up lactic acid due to the fact you dont have legs.. i mean, the blades arent gonna tie up like a normal guys legs would.

bingo... this is exactly why he has an advantage.

Correct Answer wrote:

rabb wrote:

seems to me the advantage would be in the fact that you do not build up lactic acid due to the fact you dont have legs.. i mean, the blades arent gonna tie up like a normal guys legs would.

bingo... this is exactly why he has an advantage.

not to mention this guy can train his balls off day in to day out 7 days a week w/o the muscle soreness a normal runner would feel bleow the knees..{that is the key}

It's not just the fact blades don't tie up like normal legs. It's also physics - the blade springs in a manner that is better than normal feet/lower legs. Like a cheetah's.

Its alright for him to run if he runs a 45.xx, but if he runs 42, the governing body would need to have a good hard look at their decision

Good post by PJ_3200.

I tend to agree with most posters that Pistorius probably has an unfair advantage with the blades. I think the guy is an inspirational athlete, but it does seem to defy logic that the IAAF would rule in his favor. Does anyone have any idea how many studies have actually been conducted about the ultimate effects of high quality blades such as his? It sounds like the ruling was based on an MIT study that countered the evidence of an earlier study. Surely there have to be more studies. If the IAAF made a ruling based solely on one study, that does not give me much confidence in the organization (not that I really had a lot of confidence in them to begin with). Also, if the MIT scientist is indeed a double amputee is it possible that we have some bias here?

Also, I remember a similar thread from last year where posters were theorizing about the race distance where blades stop being an advantage. Anyone have any data about that? Certainly we can conclude that Oscar would not fare very well in a marathon compared to elites. The wear and tear seems like it would be too great. What, then, is the distance where blades stop being an advantage? Is it the 800? 400?

The difference can be summed up in one word: fatigue.

Check out this article. It's hard to argue with their analysis:

http://scienceofsport.blogspot.com/2007/07/oscar-pistorius-debut-scientific-facts_17.html

just had to say that didn't you.....damn those pesky puns!

whatthe wrote:

I see no reason why a 50-second runner couldn't cut off 5-6 more seconds. Just wondering...

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.

Even if you trust the study and the blades don't make him faster, the most important part of the training is consistency and, as cynical as it is, he isn't going to get injured (anymore I guess) below his knees.

This has been mentioned before, but how many runners have been sidelined due to Achilles tendon injuries or shin splints. It is also just easier to train when you only need to improve your quads, hamstrings etc and not worry about other parts of your body.

Given the IAAF's criteria he should be allowed to compete, but I think the criteria is flawed since it is almost akin to limiting drug test to directly after competition.

has anyone brought up the fact that he would be considerably lighter running in "blades" than having his normal legs to carry?

the IAAF ruled against him, the CAS ruled for him

Hello everyone

I'll be brief on this particular post, partly because I've now written so much on this in the past and partly because it doesn't seem to find much audience, other than the "converted", which you already are!

It was interesting to me that the poll on this site has almost 75% say "No, he should not run", because if you spend some time on other sites (general sports), where the knowledge and the insight about running does not exist as you have it, the tendency is the other way around. 75% of people actually say he SHOULD run!

Now, that in itself is, to me an indicator of where the problem develops - people make the emotive response, by default, and tend not to be able to filter that out in favour of the science.

The Pistorius camp will argue that this latest CAS decision is based on "science". The story, to summarize, is that after the IAAF did their study and banned him, he went to MIT and found a scientist who would do similar studies.

Those studies disproved the IAAF result (so the story goes) and now we have this situation where the technology is open for use in the sport. A couple of key things, from a scientific point of view.

First, the IAAF testing was independent, in that the IAAF contracted a scientist (Bruggemann) to do the study and then allowed Pistorius to invite his own team of experts to it. So every single test was first approved by Pistorius - the testing was joint and neutral. It found huge advantages.

The testing done by Pistorius, and a professor named Hugh Herr, was completely secretive. The IAAF, or any other independent body, were not invited to the testing, and the first time anyone even knew that the testing was being performed was when the "result" was announced.

Now, I have spent time on this forum, and there are some very sharp people here. I imagine that you, like I, would be able to "make up" those results if we had enough time. To do this kind of testing without ANY independent verification is a scientifically abhorrent act. It violates the entire principle behind science, which is that it must be peer-reviewed. So that the evidence was even admissible in court is, to me, a disgrace.

Now, the second thing you need to know is that the person who did the testing, Prof Hugh Herr, is himself a double amputee, and he was quoted in an ESPN article about one month ago. That quote:

A bilateral amputee professor named Hugh Herr works here (at MIT). If anyone can predict what sports will look like in 2050, it's Herr, who lost his legs 26 years ago in a climbing accident. Herr wears robotic limbs with motorized ankles and insists he doesn't want his human legs back because soon they'll be archaic. "People have always though the human body is ideal", he says. "It's not".

Now, when the "expert" comes out and says that soon, human legs will be archaic, then it's time for athletics to be afraid, very afraid.

This decision is historical, it will one day be looked back upon as the day that the sport began a journey down a slippery slope and changed forever. It's a disaster for the sport, and sadly, sanity has not prevailed.

The moral of the story is that if you throw enough money at something, you can make it happen - 7 lawyers from a New York law firm, plus scientific experts from MIT, funded by Ossur and perhaps Nike (I'd love to see the flow of money), and scientific opinion, and freedom, can be yours!

Sad day...

Ross

Herr wears robotic limbs with motorized ankles and insists he doesn't want his human legs back because soon they'll be archaic. "People have always thought the human body is the ideal," he says. "It's not."

From the science of sport blog...

Science for sale...

Pistorius wins appeal, and Pandora's box is now open...