In the 100m it isn’t an issue, but what if he was in a marathon, and didn’t have the leg muscles burning every step near then end like the others? That would be a definite advantage, the fact that he’s not feeling it the way others are.
The Special Olympics is for people with mental disabilities. He’s a champion in the Paralympics.
I think you’re aching pretty much all over at that point, quite frankly.
IIRC, Pistorius caused a little kerfluffle a while back when he supposedly started using longer prosthetics. The longer prosthetics increased the length of his stride, making him faster. The single amputees pretty roundly criticized him as having an unfair advantage, because the length of their prosthetic is dictated by the size of their remaining limb, whereas Pistorius (as a double amputee) can pretty much lengthen his prosthetics as much as he can handle.
Not prosthetics, but in a related matter.
There have been a few “disabled” atheletes that have competed in the Olympics in the past.
The one that prompted me to post here is Neroli Fairhall (Neroli Fairhall - Wikipedia) she placed 35th in the 1984 Olympics Archery Competition, after winning gold in Archery in the 1982 Olympics.
Right now I can’t find archives of any actual stories, but at the time there was a lot of controversy over the “advantage” that she had as she sat down to compete.
Basically there were some that were claiming she had an unfair advantage as she was sitting in a chair, giving her a “more stable platform” than the other athletes.
I agree with this:
He’s playing a different game.
I also agree with this:
Together, these two points pretty much clinch the NO answer on this question.
Plus, if he were allowed to compete, and he won, imagine the furor. How many people would accept it? It would make the whole baseball-players-on-steroids issue look minuscule by comparison.
Personally, I don’t care. I don’t give a rat’s fart who can run a certain distance a few seconds faster than whom. But I can see why people who care about Olympics-type running in the first place wouldn’t want to open it up to this.
Hmmm, yeah, this is a little too close to the Six Million Dollar Man territory for my taste. I’d think losing a leg would definitely end a runner’s career, pretty much. I’m talking Olympic and professional, of course. If he still wants to run for fun and exercise, great – but not in competition.
I don’t think you can directly compare the energy return of a prosthetic with that of a real leg. The real leg returns more than 100% of the impact because additional energy is exerted. The prosthetic returns 80% solely because it’s, effectively, a big spring. That means that more energy has to be exerted by the upper legs to compensate, but those muscles are more efficient. But, then, the prosthetics weigh less, too.
I think that on general principle, it would be very difficult to determine which of the factors would dominate. You certainly can’t do it by comparing one part of the leg in isolation with the prosthesis in isolation.
This makes me wonder if the “returns only 80%” is a valid comparison.
The IOC would approve certain prosthetics for the Olympics. The medical community would then ask potential amputees or family members if they would ever consider competeing in the Olympics. So I think with these two conditions there would be no problem.
I’d really like to see the Transolympics or something where biomedical augmentation is allowed and encouraged. “No non-biological power sources.”
Why should they? Why should the IOC have to rule that the OCP Cyberleg 3.0 is acceptable, but the 3.2 model is not. It’s another level of bureaucracy, corruption, and controversy to peel through. It’s easier, cheaper, and ultimately more fair to not try and make the fine distinctions and simply ban all prosthetics outright.
They’d probably give out two medals - one for the athlete, one for the engineer.
I’d have to say that he shouldn’t be allowed to compete simply because he is using equipment that isn’t available for use by other competitors. Its not like using better running shoes or a better bike. Any runner can switch shoes and any cyclist can switch bikes. I suppose we could allow runners to amputate their legs or start wearing spring legs like stilts, but then that changes the sport to something else, using technological devices to move faster. Eventually you end up with Formula One, which is definitely an entirely different sport than running.
It is inconsistent to draw the line at performance-enhancing chemicals but allow performance-enhancing prosthetics. One man’s disability is low natural production of muscle mass; another’s is loss of extremities.
It does not champion the disabled to let them compete with the prosthetically-challenged. Prosthetics are not the biologic equivalent of what has been lost due to external circumstance. To date they have been considered less efficient but as this circumstance shows there is no a priori guarantee that a prosthesis will be less efficient, particularly for specialized use. A disabled individual who wins a race on prosthetic legs or in a wheelchair is competing in a fundamentally different environment of conditions.
If one argues that a “disability” of some type creates a situation that makes a prosthesis simply an equalizer for what circumstances beyond the athlete’s control took away, the door is opened going forward for an infinite progression of rapidly improving external aids.
The cause for competing only as ‘natural-born’ athletes is probably lost anyway. We are not so far from the day when genetic choices can be directed prior to conception, and not even that far from being able to alter them post-conception. As sports provides an increasingly lucrative return to its participants, uber-athletes whose raw potential was carefully screened for in the conception laboratory will have distinct advantages and a similar controversy will surface.
Perhaps at that point we’ll stop trying to screen for anything and let athletes just have at it with whatever chemicals or prosthetic choices they want to use in the name of entertaining the rest of us.
In the interim, a ‘disabled’ individual who wins using prosthetics will be not be lauded for a ‘standard-sport’ accomplishment in any but the most politically correct circles. The rest will see him only as individual who accomplished something remarkable. It just wasn’t accomplished in the same competition everyone else was in.
I do not see why he should be banned from the Olympics, the person who is taller and has longer legs has an advantage over a short person, It seems that in Marathons it is the tallest person with the longest legs that win; the fact that he is not sitting around expecting other people to feel sorry for him he should be allowed to run.
A more muscular weight lifter has an advantage over others etc.
Monavis
What marathons are you watching?
I have watched the Boston Marathon and many from Wisconsin as my son and some of my nephews are marathon runners. Most(not all) of the winners are tall with long legs.
I think it’s telling that the person with prosthetics can choose to have longer or shorter legs, legs optimized for short distance vs. long distance or jumping height vs. economy of stride. Most of your top marathoners can’t make a telephone call and get better legs for a particular race.
I doubt if any marathon runner would want to change places with the person with a prosthetic. I doubt that the handicapped person has an advantage, at least no more advantage than some one who has more stamina,or leg length.
Monavis