I can't believe nobody posted this yet (profanity alert):
I can't believe nobody posted this yet (profanity alert):
He shouldn't be able to run. He never would have run this fast without the blades, let's be real. We can't let pity for one individual screw with the entire sport.
Everyone's argument is: "he has no legs, come onn." That is just plain stupid. It's obvious the blades give him an advantage, and as heartwarming as it is to see an amputee succeed like this, it just can't be allowed. Think about if he set the world record or something - no way it would hold up.
Dr. Tucker,
Thanks for taking time out of your busy schedule to post a lengthy response on this topic. Even though I tend never to be surprised any more at what happens on the the LRC message board, I was in fact amazed that not one single person responded to your post. Sad.
In walks a reputable scientist who has thought long and hard about this, who has studied the scientific reports first-hand, and who actually has something to say, and all the LRC dunderheads can do is just keep babbling away, pooling their ignorance, and throwing mud at each other.
I invite Ross Tucker to attend law school, and then to investigate the CAS's rules of procedure and evidence--or at least to speak with a lawyer to find out exactly what transpired, how, and why, before he pronounces on the legitimacy of the CAS decision.
the man without a doubt is an inspiration for people all over the world but the legs give him a GREAT mechanical advantage amongst other things , so no he should not be able to compete in any type of championship setting against people who don't have his like advantage. eg. world championships/olympics
I invite Ross Tucker to attend law school, and then to investigate the CAS's rules of procedure and evidence--or at least to speak with a lawyer to find out exactly what transpired, how, and why, before he pronounces on the legitimacy of the CAS decision.
I'd love to, but the law is not my concern, the science is. And the issue with the CAS process is not the legalities and the way the arrive at verdicts, it's the way that the SCIENCE was manipulated within a system/structure. Whether that system or structure is in need of an overhaul, I'll let the legal eagles decide.
But here's what happened there. The IAAF did testing, which was published and made available to Pistorius and his scientists five months before the CAS hearing. Pistorius and his team did testing which was seen FOR THE FIRST TIME at the CAS hearing. In other words, they rolled into the hearing and presented their evidence, and there was no peer-review, no discussion, no opportunity to interrogate the methods. And for example, take the finding in the study (which you can read in the abstract):
mean gross metabolic cost of transport of our amputee sprint subject was only 3.8% lower than mean values for intact-limb elite distance runners and 6.7% lower than for subelite distance runners but 17% lower than for intact-limb 400-m specialists
Ok, so read that again. What they are saying is that they compared Pistorius to able-bodied runners, but not only sprinters, but distance runners. Elite distance runners and his oxygen cost was LOWER than against elite distance runners. Now, as a runner (I assume), you can appreciate that a sprinter who has the same metabolic efficiency as an elite distance runner, and 17% slower than a sprinter, must have an advantage!
Yet this was not picked up at that hearing. Why not? Because due scientific process was not followed. There are five or six other things in that research that are questionable, at best, and that's why I'm saying the process needs to be reviewed.
If I've trodden on your legal toes, then I apologize, but my concern is with how the science was entered through the back door without the chance to discuss. Oh, and in case you think I'm making all this up, I know people from within the system who have confirmed how this went down.
Ross Tucker
'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.'
If it rains he won't!
How exact is this 'scientific' evidence. The only way to really tell would be time a regular runner before and after losing their legs. Like I said in different conditions like wind or rain he is at a massive disadvantage and I bet he gets bad problems with his legs where the blades fit affecting training as well
Does anyone know what the 2nd best guy with these blades is running. Is the really going to flood of runners coming up if they let him run. There isn't is there. You can't compare it to wheelchairs which are also faster - he is not on wheels. I don't see too many people hacking off their legs to get to the worlds either
Seen as runners who competed at the last worlds failed test and then are now competing at this WC's I think we should focus on that. It may be a separate issue but I think it is extremely mean spirited not to allow Oscar to pursue their dream
I think he will give a huge boost to all less able bodied people around the world. There is a hell of lot more to life than running.
It's simply too different an event to race with legs than without regardless of advantage/disadvantage. If we put a guy on a bike but made him drag a dumbbell, then declared that it was the same effort as running, would we allow that in a track race? No. Just because two things may be the same effort level does not make them the same sport.
Plus it's obvious that they are an advantage and the IAAF just doesn't want to get sued or crucified by the media. Dude's got springs for legs...
ukathleticscoach wrote:
I don't see too many people hacking off their legs to get to the worlds either
If he medals I guarantee that the top 20 guys in the world will at least have the thought go through their minds. Whether they can find a doctor to do it or not is another matter. Studies have shown that most olympic level athletes would take years off their lives to win a medal - why not hack off some legs? especially if technology allows you to function at least as well if not better?
We would never allow people in wheelchairs to compete against able-bodied marathoners. Maybe it's easier to visualize the advantage with a wheel chair vs. blades - but it doesn't mean it's not there.
'I don't see too many people hacking off their legs to get to the worlds either'
'If he medals I guarantee that the top 20 guys in the world will at least have the thought go through their minds' 'why not hack off some legs?'
Well done. You are now the biggest moron this site has ever had and that takes some doing!
Some of you make me sick. Swallow your good for nothing pride and you might see a little more clearly. If these "cheetah legs" gave such an advantage, then why is he the only one running world class times in them?
NO TWO ATHLETES ARE IDENTICAL.
You could say Usain Bolt has an advantage because he has longer legs.
You could say Kenenisa Bekele has an advantage because he is a light weight.
Every single part of every great athlete makes them who they are.
Pistorius is no different, he just has different types of legs, just like everyone.
I agree.
Also, if it's so OBVIOUS he has an advantage, where was all the proof this whole time? And how many studies have concluded that he had an advantage. One?
This line from the featured story today, btw, is a JOKE:
"...many scientists believed Pistorius held an advantage but they were too scared to speak out because it was a contentious issue." If scientists are too scared to present their findings, then maybe the findings are shaky. Or not. But that's the worst explanation for lack of evidence EVER.
Anyway, no one should fault Pistorius in all this. He just wants to run against the toughest competition he can find.
Also... isn't his advantage significantly eroded at the start by having no legs and therefore no nerve endings touching the blocks? Just sayin'...
Ross,
Thanks for playing over here.
You mentioned current involvement with amputees "test driving" new equipment, and suggested that Pistorius will eventually benefit simply switching to newer, lighter, springier, models.
Maybe my recollection is faulty, and I haven't seen anyone else mention it yet, but wasn't the CAS ruling qualified only for the model of "Cheetahs" that were tested?
Do we know if Pistorius is competing with the same model, or if he is now competing with newer models?
Oscar Pistorius is not eliminated because of his lack of legs, but rather the addition of artificial legs. As others have suggested, he is free to compete without the Cheetahs. He is also free to compete in spikes, but without the Cheetahs.The danger of oversimplifying the issue is removing all of the relevant factors.You are free to call "blades" shoes or spikes, and view them the same, but first, as a simple matter of fact, they are simply not the same, and second, even the IAAF rules do not allow just any kind of shoe (e.g. Spira shoes).Both the USATF and IAAF disallow shoes (and technical devices) that give the wearer an unfair advantage. The IAAF also requires that all types of shoes be approved by the IAAF.So even simply viewing the blades as shoes doesn't eliminate the obligation of not providing an unfair advantage for the wearer, or seeking IAAF approval.A question of eligibility is not a human rights issue.
MAYEROFF wrote:
I look at Mr. Pistorius' "blades" as simply his shoes, not his legs. He's just wearing some very interesting shoes.
However, there is a more important human rights issue to this controversy.
Does the lack of legs eliminate a human being from running in the top level meets? I say that it shouldn't.
the man has his medals in the environment in which other athletes are given the same advantage, he should take them and be happy. to act as some sort of martyr or larger than life inspiration is a complete wash to me. go on youtube; stories like his are a dime a dozen. i give credit and respect to those who don't let their circumstances control their lives but at the same time i have a limit and certain capacity for empathy and inspirational gain from these stories and i feel as though he's pushing well beyond what i can stand to give him credence for.
A Normal Human Being wrote:
Some of you make me sick. Swallow your good for nothing pride and you might see a little more clearly. If these "cheetah legs" gave such an advantage, then why is he the only one running world class times in them?
Because, as has been pointed out already in this thread, he's the only high-level athlete wearing TWO of them.
"Single-leggers" are limited by their real leg. If the prosthesis is vastly superior to the real leg, then a considerable asymmetry can occur, potentially leading to injury.
This is sports. We do it to prove who's better AND we do it under the assumption that people shouldn't have unfair external advantages, which it's clear he has.
Bottom line: he just can't be eligible to race normal people. AND THEY BETTER NOT WAIT FOR HIM TO WIN MORE AND CREATE ANOTHER SEMENYA
dafastestogre wrote:
the man has his medals in the environment in which other athletes are given the same advantage, he should take them and be happy. to act as some sort of martyr or larger than life inspiration is a complete wash to me. go on youtube; stories like his are a dime a dozen. i give credit and respect to those who don't let their circumstances control their lives but at the same time i have a limit and certain capacity for empathy and inspirational gain from these stories and i feel as though he's pushing well beyond what i can stand to give him credence for.
You know what man? F you. I'm sure he doesn't want to be d*mned inspiration. Who wants to be an inspiration? Self-important a holes. If you find some stories inspiring, that's cool - but the people in those stories don't do this stuff to inspire you. Maybe they're happy to inspire others, but don't think that is why they do it.
Another imprecise statement about the law from a non-lawyer.
"The rules of eligibility", as you call them, are subject to constitutional protections in the USA, and similar protections elsewhere, and a question of eligibility can most certainly have a human rights dimension.
It all still boils down to what's been said earlier in this thread: He runs on two "legs" and his times are in the able-bodied neighborhood. People are advocating for him simply because he *looks* more like someone able-bodied (as compared to, say, those very-different-looking wheelchair folks).
Sorry, but *looks* do not determine fairness in this case. I don't notice anyone pushing to have wheelchair folks in IAAF events--why not? Seriously, if you're talking about "human rights," WHY NOT? Surely a wheelie has the same rights as the Cheetah-legged?