Bicycles don’t have muscles in them either, and a track cyclist’s 400m standing start time trial is going to be over a lot faster than a 400m footrace.
Okay, maybe not the best example as wheels are fundamentally different, but at least theoretically the prosthetics could be storing and releasing energy in such a way that running with them is vastly more efficient. Where an able-bodied runner needs to expend energy and rely on calf strength to push off with the toe, the prosthetic leg stores the energy of the foot striking the ground and then releases it. One could probably devise an elaborate boot using similar carbon fibre springs that could be worn by an able-bodied runner and would provide some level of advantage with the same energy store & release characteristics. Such boots would almost certainly be outlawed.
As I said in my first post, I have no strong opinion on this. I’m not sure at all how accurate my previous paragraph is. There is however at least a coherent argument that can be made. Of course, the appropriate adjudicating body considered all these things and ruled in favour of Pistorius competing, which is good enough for me.
He competes differently from natural runners. That in and of itself should be enough to disqualify him from current olympic competition. The race is no longer being run by competitors with what (basically) nature and hard work gave them. Pistorius would be better served running a race that allowed PED’s or other overt augmentation.
He does have several advantages. First he does not have the added weight of legs. Secondly as he comes down the weight of his body loads the springs that will propel his next step. Muscles are not loading these springs, gravity is. He still has to supply enough energy to keep this motion going but mechanicaly it is designed to favor the act of running.
The rules for the events are completely arbitrary to begin with. They set distances, the track, footwear allowed, time of day etc. If they want to set the rules to exclude double amputees or running on all fours I’m ok with that.
Personally I’m all up for events that impose far less restrictions on the technology allowed. Want to drug up and use cybernetic enhancements to push the envelope, lets see what mankind can do.
Not to my mind, but the rules are arbitrary. Currently it seems the big deal is about ensuring that competitors are only using what nature gave them. Of course we can quibble about footwear and training regimens, but basically, they all are competing using the same set of muscles tendons and bones to generate their performance. In that regard, I’ve no issue with someone who wanted to compete on all fours. If it was that effective, then no doubt the style would be quickly adapted by others. That’s why PEDs are out, they are an unnatural chemical supplement that can confer an unfair advantage to the user. Their performance is augmented if you don’t like the word different. In a competition where augmentation is allowed, we could design the rules differently to ensure fair play. Pistorious isn’t using the same set of “equipment” as the current crop of runners under olympic rules. I’d be happy to watch a second category where augmented performers push the limits.
The thing is, until Oscar Pistorius no one ever would have called a man using prosthetics instead of feet “augmented”. That’s quite a significant change.
1.) Contact lenses are supposed to correct your vision to within the normal range. Eyes are a part of a much bigger package in basketball. We’re talking about a guy who has a documented advantage with prosthetic legs in a sport where your legs are everything.
2.) Again, I refer you to the now-banned NASA technology swimsuit that helped Phelps win in Beijing.
The page here claims the cheetah prosthetic has not changed significantly since 1997.
If that’s true and it really gave the runner an advantage over real feet then shouldn’t we have expected to see a prosthetic gold medallist long some time ago?
When you consider how few runners have the genetics to perform at that level and how few double amputees there are, the overlap between the two groups would be very small. Then those few would actually have to get involved in athletics and discover their potential.
Well, I’d suggest that “significant updates” could be in the eye of the beholder.
That said, assume that they are exactly the same. The amount of use has gone up with time. In 1997 far fewer people would use them as to now, because more people have seen them now.
As for why someone hasn’t been able to compete in the Olympics until now, I’d suggest that if one in a million people is capable of being an Olympian and one in a thousand people lose both legs, you’re not going to see someone even close in ability every day. It might just be that the overlap of professional quality runner, double amputee and having springy cheetah legs hasn’t come around until now.
Edit: In other words, what Runner Pat said way better [shakes fist].
Having just one would give you a disadvantage. But two is different.
Here’s an [old link](“The Cheetah may be more advantageous than the human foot,” Phillips said. “Carbon graphite may be more energy efficient.” But he said he believed Pistorius should be allowed to compete.) to an NY Times article.
It doesn’t make sense that the Cheetah hasn’t changed much since 1997. That’s not what technology is about.
edit: also from their website:
Did you read the Sports Illustrated article linked upthread?
It doesn’t matter whether it is an advantage, or how much of one. He’s not “running” in the same sense as anyone else there. Running means self-propulsion through the use of a system of hips and legs and knees and ankles and feet. You might as well strap his stumps to bicycle pedals as let him use these springs.
Frankly, the obvious solution would be to have swimmers compete in the nude. And yes, I’m completely serious even though I know that most people’s prudishness will prevent that.