http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3298669/
I personally AGREE with the IAAA. While I do not think that a lot of sprinters would go out and hack off their legs to get a little more spring in their step, it would appear that it COULD give Oscar an unfair advantage if his new lower legs are engineered to be superior to the ones people have at birth.
We already test for drugs that give an edge, it seems that banning artificial limbs is appropriate.
Answer to title of OP: No, they should not.
Just to be clear, it’s not the Olympics that makes the decision, it’s the governing body for each specific sport. In this case, the IAAA controls Track and Field.
And there are plenty of rules governing what is fair equipment. I would think the rules could easily be written to exclude these type of prosthetics.
The New York Times did a more detailed story on Pistorius last week(http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/sports/othersports/15runner.html?ex=1181275200&en=7402ef1d4232de14&ei=5070). If I may summarize: the IAAF is completely full of shit, and his prosthetics are not as efficient as the human foot. I guess he’s not at risk for blisters, but other than that he has zero advantages. The federation is protecting athletes who are afraid of losing to a cripple.
The Olympics include a lot of sports that use equipment outside of the athlete’s own body–cycling, skiing, snowboarding, and archery to name a few, as well as equestrian events. In all of these events, an athlete with better equipment is going to have an advantage (unless they’re all using standard-issue equipment–is this the case?) One could consider the prosthetic limbs to be just another piece of equipment that may or may not be better than the legs of any other athlete.
On the other hand, he would be the only athlete using the equipment. So I understand completely why they might disqualify him from the event. There are other sporting events where everyone is on prosthetic limbs. They’re not so well publicized, but they are there.
So, I just don’t know. I can see the arguments both ways.
That is NOT the summary of the NYT article at all. There are TWO key quotes:
So Gailey, who is a professor, says that A prosthetic leg only returns 80 percent. However, each prosthetic leg is different. However, he obviously has his own bias given that he works in disabled sports. Earlier in the article we have this:
So we do NOT know how much of an edge our runner gets from his prosthetics vs. just using the legs he MIGHT have had. I do not know how that could be accurately measured when designing a study.
Would it be possible to permit him to compete, but to require that he do so with prosthetics that a neutral expert panel of engineers, scientists and doctors certified were not any more “springy” or advantageous than human flesh would be?
The story is a profile and a summary of the issue. That’s a summary of my opinion, which is based in part on the efficiency data and in part on IAAF comments like “It affects the purity of sport. Next will be another device where people can fly with something on their back.”
We don’t really know how different that quality is in each prosthetic leg. I presume it would appear in the story if Pistorius’ legs were three times as efficient as a standard one.
He has served as an official, the article says, but he’s also studied them. I’m not especially worried about his biases.
I don’t think it could, but I don’t see why it matters. It seems very unlikely that his leg is more efficient than whatever leg he would have had. My question is ‘would have have any advantage relative to his competitors in an Olympic event?’ So far I think the answer is a resounding no.
Obviously, it’s a thing which depends on the prosthetic and the sport. For example, there should be no problem with a person in a wheel chair competing in the archery, because it has no effect on the sport, but you wouldn’t want a person in a wheelchair to compete in the marathon! As far as this case goes, I’d want to hear from independent experts on biophysics as to whether the artificial legs give an advantage.
Just out of curiosity- what are his times in the event? Are they comparable to the those of other runners? Is he “running” a 7.0 100 meters?
The reason I would say it is a reasonable rule is because it is not something that is availbale to everyone as an option.
The NYT has him running the 100 meters in 10.91 seconds; the record is 9.77 seconds (with the Olympic record as 9.87). His times in the 100 meters, 200 meters and 400 meters are not currently good enough to qualify for the Olympics, but are faster than the 2004 Olympic women’s gold medalists in each race.
How can you claim that? Where is the research that shows the performance difference? How is the performance of an artifical leg measured against that of a “normal” leg? How does the sport need to define the capability of a prosthetic to keep from giving ANYONE an advantage?
capybaras ate my post. There was an article on Wired about this. Might repost with details later if nobody has. Summary: he has less muscle mass to do the work of running.
It’s my opinion (informed by the one piece of data we have at the moment). If there was a study, I’d be looking at the study instead of telling you what I suspect.
I think the whole question of whether the prosthetics are more or less efficient is obscuring a larger issue: running with the prosthetics appears to be simply a biomechanically different act than running with legs. If you click on the multimedia link in the NY Times story, it shows that a runner with legs has to use his calf muscles to both absorb and produce energy. The numbers about the efficiency of legs vs. prosthetics isn’t really a useful comparison, because the energy is being generated and stored differently. I’m no physicist, but how else can someone explain that the human foot is “three times more efficient” and yet someone with prosthetics can run nearly as fast – because the energy is being used differently.
This isn’t a question of technique, like some people complained about the Fosbury flop in high jumping when it was invented – that’s using the same muscles that everyone else has in a different way to achieve better results, just like how American football kickers changed their style to one more common to soccer during the 1970s and 80s. In such cases, it is conceivable that an athlete can retrain to use a new technique to jump high, kick a football, or swing a golf club.
It is simply impossible for someone with legs to run in the same way as the gentleman with the prosthetics, and vice versa. Just like it wouldn’t be fair for Carl Lewis to enter a race of people with prosthetics, it isn’t fair the other way around, either. It has nothing to do with being fair to disabled people – it’s just that, so far as I can tell, the superficial similarities of running belie what appear to be very different biomechanical actions.
Does other sport allow competitors to use such vastly different ways of propelling themselves (or a ball or whatever)? Gymnasts all flip and tumble in roughly the same way, the variations on how a baseball bat or a golf club is swung are real but pretty small, I’m not aware of anyone who plays football, volleyball, or soccer in a fundamentally different way, and so on. But this guy is quite simply running differently than everyone else, which leads me to believe that what the disabled athlete is doing is really a sport unto itself.
Even if this particular prosthetic would not give him a demonstrable advantage, there is absolutely no doubt that technology will improve some day to the point where other prosthetics would. Letting him run would set a dangerous precedent that would create a myriad of additional complications and situational dilemmas in the future. I’m glad he’s been able to compete under the circumstances, but this is more than a better running shoe or a more streamlined bathing suit. It’s different enough so as to not really be considered comparable, regardless of whether it’s an advantage or not.
I say no.
But then I enjoy it when Paralympians easily outclass an equivalent Olympian.
If he were at a massive disadvantage, then how did he qualify for the Olympic team in the first place?
The IAAF needs to keep precedent in mind. Just because it’s currently less efficient doesn’t mean it will always be the case, how is the IAAF going to ban prosthetic legs if they start to be better than human legs? Where would they draw the line?
If this guy ever wins a race, everyone is just going to attribute it to his legs and not his talent/determination or anything. If he wants to race, let him race in the special olympics.