Actually, wheelchair basketball( and cycling and I presume other sports) have classifications based on the disability. Able-bodied competitors would compete with athletes who have minimal disabilities like a double lower leg amputee as they have full use of arm/torso/abdominal muscles.
For one thing it would artificially lengthen their stride, making their legs disproportionate to the rest of their bodies. Pistorius’ prosthetics restores those proportions, it doesn’t distort them.
But, for the sake of argument, let’s say they did that - first thing that would happen is that Bolt, James, and Rudisha would have to retrain to regain their previous times because of starting and balance issues. It would be an interesting exercise, and might actually put some of this “controversy” to rest. Say, give everyone blades that lengthened their legs six inches for consistency’s sake and watch 'em run. Or fall over, as the case may be.
Recognizing that society treats the Paralympics as lesser is NOT the same thing as saying I think they are lesser. My stance is that if a disabled person can compete on the same field as the able-bodied they should not be excluded due to their disability. We don’t divide the equestrian events into men’s and women’s events because in those areas men and women can compete on the same field, and I say if the disabled and able-bodied can do likewise we do not have a reason to divide in that manner, either.
There actually are able-bodied people in the paralympics. Sighted guides and the visually impaired athletes they assist are considered members of a team, so if a medal is won both win the medal. The guides are just as much athletes as the visually impaired person.
Other areas where the able-bodied could, in theory, participate might include something like goal ball where blindfolds can be used to limit participants vision, or various “sit ski” type activities where an able-bodied person could be strapped in and be at neither an advantage nor disadvantage vs. the disabled. For archery, as mentioned, you could have everyone required to shoot from a seated position. And, in fact, there are areas where the able-bodied would be at a disadvantage, such as powerlifting, where weight classification of athletes would be considerably affected by whether or not one had legs.
Really, I don’t think parity between the able-bodied and disabled athletes will be reached until we get some overlap between them, with not only disabled athletes in the Olympics but able-bodied participating in traditionally “disabled” sports. Better yet, we’ll achieve parity and equality when as much excitement is generated by the women’s wheelchair marathon in the Olympics as by men’s able-bodied marathon in the Olympics but I don’t expect to see that in my lifetime. In other words, merge the two and just have more categories of competitors. Then you can have “400m women’s”, 400m men’s", and “400m open” running competitions.
Pistorius has never had “those” proportions. There is nothing restorative about it, even if we accept the idea (as I do not) that mechanically restoring an athletically-defective body is admissible in the first place.
No, Pistorius’ prostheses constitute the building of a competitor where none otherwise exists.
I agree. But this is not such a case.
Oh, please - by that reasoning amputee races should take place on bare stumps instead of a prosthesis.
To be fair, your reasoning is that somehow his prosthesis are exactly as good as flesh and blood legs, because magic.
No, in fact, the Cheetah blades used are inferior to flesh and blood.
That is a statement of faith, not fact.
That link says that able-bodied athletes are not allowed to compete internationally.
Broomstick, sighted guides are a terrible example of able-bodied people in the paralympics - they’re there* because of *their lack of a specific disability.
If someone else had posted what you wrote about this dude being pigeonholed with the cripples, you’d be accusing them of being a bigot dismissing the skills of paralympians.
The only reason the athletes and everyone else are cool with Pistorius running is because they don’t believe he’s a threat to win. But if he had won gold, you can bet there would have been an outcry from many quarters.
I’m with Lobohan on this - whatever Pistorius is doing, it’s not the same as what the other athletes are doing. If he ever wins an Olympic medal, it would have a giant asterisk after it.
If you really want to level the playing field between the abled and the disabled, you need to come up with a common activity that isn’t affected by the disability. If you put everyone in a wheelchair regardless of whether they can walk or not, and you weight the chairs of the people missing legs so that they weigh the same as those of people who have legs, then they can all compete on an even playing field. In fact, I think some non-handicapped basketball players have demanded to play in the special olympics in a wheelchair, on the grounds that the wheelchair is an equalizer and the status of the legs doesn’t matter. Would that be okay with you? And if so, would it still be okay if it turned out the guys with legs started winning the majority of games?
I also think the disabled archer in the wheelchair should not have been allowed to compete - he’s essentially shooting while sitting while everyone else has to stand, and anyone who has done any shooting with bow or rifle will tell you that that’s a pretty damned big advantage. Now, his lack of legs may bring other disadvantages, but that just means that he’s competing in a fundamentally different way than the others.
Also, there was a controversy about a golfer with a handicap being allowed to ride a golf cart in competition while everyone else walks. I wouldn’t have allowed that either, because part of the ‘sport’ aspect of golfing is being able to maintain your fine motor control after 18 holes of walking. This golfer may have other handicaps that are worse than the 18 holes of walking, but again that just means he’s competing on a fundamentally different level.
The attempt to make sports ‘egalitarian’ is misguided from the start. Is it fair that I can never be the world’s best basketball player because I’m not 7’ tall? Or that I can never be a great jockey because I weigh 200 lbs? The Olympic women’s high jumpers are freakishly tall, long-legged, and thin. Is it fair that short dumpy people could never hope to compete at their level no matter how hard they try? Maybe we should allow them springy leg extenders to erase their natural handicap?
Life is full of inequality. The Olympics are all about finding what you can do well within the limitations of your natural gifts and liabilities, and competing on that level. If a person with a handicap can compete as well as one without (say, if a runner were missing a hand), then more power to him/her. If not, well, that’s what the special Olympics are for. Or, you can admit that life dealt you a lemon and give up your ‘dream’ like almost everyone else has to in some form or another when they run up against the limits of their own ability in whatever they do in life.
One more point about running - there are two classes of sport today - those with serious technical/engineering aspects, and those that are supposed to be a ‘pure’ test of human ability. The America’s Cup is an example of a sport that is as much about the engineering prowess of the teams as it is about sailing skill. Unlimited Air Racing and Auto Racing are other examples.
Most Olympic sports are supposed to be a test of human ability, not engineering skill. Sailing in the Olympics is tightly controlled to make sure everyone is using exactly the same boats. Rowing is the same. Archery has strict rules about the type of bow, sights, etc. Same with pistol shooting. But if you start allowing mechanical legs in racing, the contest fundamentally changes into a test not just of the runner’s skill, but of the engineering of the equipment. You can’t even standardize it, because every runner’s disability is slightly different. The 100m dash is supposed to be a determination of the fastest man alive - the guy who could outrun anyone else over that distance, period. It’s not about the guy who can use spring-powered legs the most efficiently.
Even if you think he shouldn’t be in the “regular” Olympics, he would be in the Paralympics - that’s where athletes with a disability can train and compete at the highest level, and compete once every four years (the same as the Olympics). The Special Olympics are different - they’re for people with a *cognitive *disability and they have about 50,000 events per year under that title (with the Special Olympics World Games held every two years).
Generally, athletes participate in the Paralympics for the same reason people participate in the Olympics - elite athletes train to compete to be the best in the world. The Special Olympics is different - they participate to have fun, boost self-esteem, gain physical health, “everybody wins” mentality. It’s a valuable life experience and has many benefits for the participants, but it’s light years away from the Paralympics. And the Paralympics does have a category for competitors who are cognitively disabled - but there they compete at a much higher level than the Special Olympics.
So saying that Pistorius should be in the “special olympics” is either ignorant, or insinuating that since he was born with a disability he should just settle for an event where “everyone gets a ribbon.”
It was really just a brain fart. I knew the difference between them. No slander of either was intended.
Fair enough. 
I just wanted to point it out because I have come across a lot of people who don’t know there is a difference, and/or who speak of the Paralympics in a derogatory manner because they assume it’s like the Special Olympics in terms of the quality level of the competitors.