But maybe the springiness of the blade matches the springiness/power of the natural leg/ankle, leaving him even with the able bodied. Or they may exceed the natural leg. That’s the controversy. Do the blades bring him to parity or give an advantage? Until it’s known, no one can really propose how to deal with it so as to be fair to all.
Yes, because you are admiring him for doing something you just said he shouldn’t have done. You can’t say that something shouldn’t have happened, but not say that the people who caused it to happen should not have done so. Well, you can, but it means you’re just saying meaningless drivel.
As for people asking for someone who held the opinion stated in the OP, there you go.
The funny thing is that the actual science shows he has a disadvantage, which is pretty freaking obvious, so people acting like he has an advantage are either misinformed or bigoted against someone different.
Is anyone seriously claiming he has an advantage, or are they more concerned with precedent with an assumption that prosthetic technology is advancing faster than training methods are improving?
There’s a difference between saying it shouldn’t have been allowed and saying he shouldn’t have done it. I don’t think he himself did anything wrong - he didn’t cheat or lie or attempt to misrepresent himself at all as far as I can see. I don’t think that he should have been allowed to compete though - whether he has an advantage or a disadvantage, he’s using equipment that is unavailable to the other runners, and that seems to set a slippery precedent.
I don’t see what’s so hard about admiring him as an athlete and as a person while still thinking that the Olympics are not the correct venue for him to compete in. And I haven’t heard anyone say anything ‘bigoted’ about him at all. Nobody seems to be questioning his character or athleticism.
Some are, and some are saying that we just don’t know if the blades confer an advantage.
I’m concerned with precedent. I don’t know or much care if this particular instance offered an actually advantage. It would be damn hard gauge if a prosthesis provides an advantage unless it allows a non-elite athlete to break records. Trying to make rules about what kind of shoes or swimming suits are allowed in Olympic events is complicated enough, without expanding the issue to what prostheses are allowed. The interaction between the organic and inorganic is a much more complex issue in the case of prostheses than in the case of deciding what kind of bicycles or archery bows competitors can use.
If a prosthesis can theoretically allow someone to compete equally with an unaugmented human, then there’s no reason that a prosthesis can’t provide an advantage over an unaugmented human.
It’s cold to tell an amputee that they can’t participate no matter how long they’ve trained and dreamed, but sometimes you’ve got to be cold to someone in order to be fair to other people. I can’t say for sure, but probably there wouldn’t be much outcry if the guy had decided to concentrate on archery rather than running.