Oscar Pistorius, a South African sprinter, is billed as “the fastest thing on no legs.” Pistorious was born without fibulae in his legs, and runs with the aid of prosthetic devices – carbon fibre transtibial artificial limbs.
He is not permitted to complete in the Olympics presently, because his prosthetics are said to give him advantages over ordinary flesh-and-blood legs:
[ul]
[li]They are longer than necessary, letting him him to cover more ground per step[/li][li]They never get tired; the body doesn’t expend energy on them[/li][li]They are not subject to metabolite or lactic acid build-up [/li][li]They are thinner and more aerodynamic than flesh legs[/li][/ul]
This is a tough call. Obviously, physical competition is not about equality – otherwise I could play in the NBA and demand that the other players wear blindfolds to even out the skills involved. It’s fine when your have a body that allows you to perform at a higher level than that of your competitors.
But when the body is a result of technology… not so sure.
On the other hand, he didn’tlop off his legs to get this pair. He was born with them. If technology can make him whole, why not?
For one thing, what counts as “legs”? If he can get some pistons, can someone else get skates? What about wheels? Secondly, if they can’t even account for what differences might be present in this case, how are they going to account for other cases?
FInally, what Piscatorius does is like, but not quite, running. He’s more like hopping one leg to the next. It’s a little weird, and it’s definitely not a normal run.
He didn’t, but someone else surely would. As evidenced by the problems baseball has had with steroids, people will do all sorts of crazy things to their bodies to compete in athletics. As Jim Bouton wrote nearly 40 years ago, if there was a pill you could take that would give a pitcher a 20-win season, but would take 10 years off his life, a lot of guys would take it.
Where would it end? Would you object to Robo Cop winning a weight lifting competition? The mans achievements are great and he deserves respect, but I can’t support the use of prosthetics in such a competition.
I don’t think we need to go down the slippery slope here. There’s an obvious and logical demarcation point, and that is whether or not the prosthetics give an advantage over the natural body. We don’t boot people out of sports for surgically repaired knees, pins holding joints together, pacemakers etc. We shouldn’t either for replacement limbs.
The line is obvious, but it is difficult to determine where a prosthetic falls. I don’t see people lining up to have their legs lopped off and replaced with these, so I’d say that they aren’t an advantage.
Exactly. Bricker’s link in the OP has an interactive feature that shows that what Mr. Pistorius does simply isn’t the same as what other runners do. And it isn’t simply a matter of technique – like how the Fosbury flop changed the high jump. Pistorius and other sprinters really wouldn’t be competing in the same sport.
They are clearly an unfair advantage. He has none of the leg stress, strain, muscles burning, etc that the other runners would have in a race, that would limit their speed. No cramps, flat out no leg problems of any kind. It’s not his fault of course, but I don’t see where that’s an issue. I have heard people talk about the Olympics are all about feel good stories who have no chance of winning, but this guy has a real chance of winning, of beating someone whose been training their entire lives, with an unfair advantage. We’ll never know of course, but I’ll bet if this guy had been born with legs he wouldn’t be “running” anywhere near the speed he is now.
And its only an issue becasue technology for the prosthetics is currently at the state where it can have you at or near the speed of able bodied runners. If the technology were such that he could do 100m in six seconds, would anybody think he should be allowed to compete?
I still think he should be allowed to run, although I admit there were some reasonable arguments the other way in the last thread we did on this topic.
The notion that anybody - particularly athletes, who tend to be very body-conscious and proud of their physical attributes - is going to start having his limbs hacked off on the off chance he’ll be able to compete in the Olympics or Paralympics is just silly.
That’s the key to me…it doesn’t really matter in my mind, if he is helped or hurt by the prosthetics. The question is, do the prosthetics make his performance different enough from everyone else’s, so as not to be able to judge one peformance against another? Like, if I’m in a NASCAR race, and everyone else is using a regular internal-combustion engine, and mine is, I don’t know, electric or nuclear or something? In these two examples, one would most likely give me an advantage and one a disadvantage, but either way, it would not be a regular NASCAR car. It becomes different enough where my prowess as a driver would not be adequately or appropriately measured against everyone else’s.
Because somebody wouldn’t have their legs cut off that means prosthetics aren’t an advantage? Where’s the logic in that? This article says that he uses a quarter less energy than a legged person would to run at a given speed. That sounds like an advantage to me.
His times don’t seem to be very good though. His world record 100m time is 10.91s, there are not a small amount of high school kids that run faster than that.
If anyone is making that argument, please point it out. How is this different from a high jumper wearing springs on his feet in place of shoes? If the devices give him a competitive advantage not available to the other athletes, then he should not be able to use them. I don’t see how this is a tough call at all.
P.S. The atlete in question hasn’t been banned from the Olympics, his prosthetic limbs have.
No-one’s stopping the dude from running on his stumps… no way he should be allowed to compete, otherwise there’s no saying where the line will move to.
I can walk without my shoes on. I’m pretty sure Pistorius is unable to walk without prosthetic legs, since that’s what they are for.
Further, if Pistorius is getting an unfair competitive advantage, why is his time not at world record levels? Could it be that having artificial limbs is actually a disadvantage?
Maybe he’d run the 100 in 15 seconds without them- who knows? I don’t see many other blonde haired white guys running the 100 in the Olympics…
The bottom line is the physical pain and stress on the legs running at that speed is a huge factor, and one that he doesn’t face. I’d also like to see how his times have improved as the prosthetic technology improved, as compared to the progression of other runners.