OSCAR BOYCOTT!

i agree, the guy is more than one sec off of qualifying. it'd be pretty obvious that if he got the time his "legs" are an unfair advantage.

Boycott the NYC Marathon. Any race with confirmed Phamacist Mates (Lance Armstrong) should banned.

This is obvious and open cheating, if lance were to ride with syringes bulging out of his arms during his races...I'd hope people would boycott.

First of all, although I have my suspicions about Lance, they are pretty worthless without any positive analysis of his blood or urine.

Although the so-called "experts" have said that Oscar's legs provide an advantage, this is an interesting case that combines science with morality and one's "right-to-compete."

As a policy, I believe that our sport should be one of inclusion rather than exclusion. Obviously Oscar did not choose to have a lack of lower legs, and he has no positive drug test. Let him compete!

Jason

Then why not allow wheelchair competitors to compete against able bodied runners in marathons?

Can I compete with rollerblades?

MAYEROFF wrote:

As a policy, I believe that our sport should be one of inclusion rather than exclusion. Obviously Oscar did not choose to have a lack of lower legs, and he has no positive drug test. Let him compete!

Jason

I understand your point, but I respectfully disagree.

First thing, I think oscar is a great athlete and I applaud his accomplishments. He's given a great deal of hope and become a wonderfull role model for disabled athletes around the world. I don't look at oscar as being a cheater by using these legs or that it is somehow un-ethical for him to be in able bodied competitions, but I do feel that combining the two types of athletes, able bodied and para, opens up a monsterous debate about technology and it's effect on performance rather than staying true to the purest form of the sport.

What happens when the makers of the Cheetah legs come out with updated models with better spring and better grip? How much more complex and how arbitrary can the IAAF be trying to govern the sport where technological advances are not measurable and cannot determine the added benifit?

Synthetic tracks and spikes have all had their technological overhauls, but those are benifits that all athletes can take advantage of. Oscar running with blades has an advantage that no one else in the field can use.

I guess my point is that I don't think we're discluding him. Para athletes have an entire olympics for themselves and I don't look at the para olympics as being the special olympics, i just look at it as having a different set of criterium for the athletes. He has his olympics, and able bodied people have theirs... and in the end, they're both golds at the olympic games.

Your argument fails in a number of ways.

First of all, if you can somehow equate the 400 in the Olympics with the 400 in the Paralympics, then I have a deed to the Brooklyn Bridge to sell you, cheap! You believe in a standard of "separate but equal" that really doesn't exist in this world.

Second, technological advances in training, nutrition, shoes and clothing have greatly benefited our beloved sport. Mr. Pistorius's "shoes" are just a little bit advanced, as I see it. YES, this is inherently a debate about technology.

I also believe that the IAAF has hurt their own arguments (in banning Oscar's prostheses) by not suggesting ways in which these prostheses could be changed to make them "legal."

Jason

How long till they make the legs like that for able bodied runners? It's only gonna be a matter of time...

Would it be any different if an able-bodied athlete chose to wear Spira-brand shoes?

And on down the chain...why are spikes legal? It's an artificial enhancement of the human body.

Just look at his physique! The guy is not a world class 400m runner. No way he is naturally that fast. Very few white guys are...especially not South Africans. Boo on the Cheetahs.

I am going to grant that cheetah has managed to make a prosthetic that gives him precisely the same mechanical return as a human leg (which is impossible or arbitrary or both). Doesn't he not feel fatigue in those legs? They don't get less springy as the race goes on and they aren't sore the next day. His calves and achilles don't feel like jello after going through heets and qualifying rounds. Isn't this an advantage in itself?

I am going to give way more credit to the legless swimmer who has no benifit of a powerful kicking stroke and has still qualified for the olympics - no mechanical devices needed.

Can I wear Oscar's blades? Do you really want to have an olympics where everyone is wearing these things?

pgiddy wrote:

What happens when the makers of the Cheetah legs come out with updated models with better spring and better grip? How much more complex and how arbitrary can the IAAF be trying to govern the sport where technological advances are not measurable and cannot determine the added benifit?

This is the question that needs to be answered... if he can wear them, does he need to seek permission each time he wants to use an improved model?

Should we say no when he...

a) finishes in the top 10 at world championship level,

b) finishes in the top 6 at world championship level,

c) wins a world championship or Olympic medal,

d) wins the world championship or Olympic gold by a convincing margin, setting a new world record,

e) Or maybe none of the above... perhaps we should tell all the others to use some sort of mechanical aid too, if they want to win?

No improvement in clothing or shoes will give you that level of advantage at the end of the 400 metres.

The great thing about running is that anyone from a poor country or otherwise disadvantaged background, that has good genetics, trains hard (and smart) can succeed... no need for high tech appliances used by those that compete in Sailing, Cycling, Triathlon and some other Olympic sports.

A factor not mentioned so far is that our own governing body, the IAAF actually banned Pistorius from competing against able-bodied at the Games.

He took his case to this Court of Arbitration in Lausanne.

Looking at the set-up of this ’court’, one wonders just what qualifications these people have to judge the rights and wrongs of a purely athletic controversy.

http://www.tas-cas.org/icas-members

Great discussion going on here:

http://scienceofsport.blogspot.com/2008/01/topical-sports-science-and-analysis.html

The top heading gives a list of articles that have looked at pretty much everything you have been discussing on this thread - the mass, the energy return, the pacing strategy, the very fast finish etc.

And then the latest article mentions it as well (not in that list yet):

http://scienceofsport.blogspot.com/2008/05/pistorius-cleared-part-2.html

I think his fast finish is very, very suspicious, and I do think that his slow start CANNOT explain away that very, very (never seen before) negative split. So Webby, I have to disagree, the argument is not asinine, it seems rather crucial to me. And as someone has said, it's simply the result of the hypothesis. All the physiological theories for why he has an advantage predict that he'll finish very fast, and sure enough, he does.

Now that's not proof, sure, but it's good science - hypothesis, research, result, confirmation.

TG

No to 2012 wrote:

He took his case to this Court of Arbitration in Lausanne.

Looking at the set-up of this ’court’, one wonders just what qualifications these people have to judge the rights and wrongs of a purely athletic controversy.

http://www.tas-cas.org/icas-members

In fairness to the Court of Arbitration, some of the members are well known, such as Dick Pound, ex Olympic athlete and President of the World Anti-Doping Agency. Quite a few other ex Olympians there too, so not really fair to suggest they have no qualifications to judge the rights and wrongs of an athletic issue.