Fair enough. I’d disagree though.
True. But it’s impossible to know if they are “equal” to natural limbs, because he does things natural limbs can’t.
That doesn’t change my answer since the blades substitute for his lower legs, feet, and shoes. You can say his blades give him an advantage over legs or say they give him an advantage over shoes- the evidence doesn’t support either claim. If the blades are better than shoes, we can sit back and watch the able-bodied sprinters start using blades instead of shoes. I’ll wait.
Taking a moment to call bullshit on this term.
Back to the show:
I said that if artificial limbs continue to advance to the point that biological legs and feet can’t compete with them, then those devices should be banned. There’s no reason to ban Pistorius’ prosthetics based on that possible outcome. As noted, he’s already using older prosthetic technology precisely so he can compete at the Olympic level.
No matter how many times people troy out this false dichotomy, it will remain a false dichotomy. In any case I’ve already responded to this issue a couple of times, and adding loaded terms and scare quotes does not strengthen your argument.
That is completely unfair. You are castigating people who disagree with you as if this were the Pit just because they disagree with you.
No one else has suggested that the paralympians are just a bunch of “cripples”.
Actually, it’s his length of stride that’s an advantage. His greater size, and thus greater mass, is actually a disadvantage. Because of it, he starts slower than the other runners. His stride length makes up for it. This may, however, be a reason why he is best at the shortest sprints, as greater distance works against him.
There are formulas for determining the proper length of a amputee’s prosthetics, even for amputees that have never had legs. This was worked out a long time ago. The human body typically adheres to certain proportions that can be used to make such determinations. Obviously, you could give an amputee longer or shorter limbs than are natural but that is very seldom done, and in the case of an athlete like Pistorius you could simply mandate that anything he use not exceed the proportions of the rest of his body.
His gait isn’t that far off normal. He’s not doing a kangaroo hop down the track or anything that bizarre. The fact he has organic hips and knees constrains just how far off normal he can go.
Enormous advantage? He barely made the semi-finals, somehow that’s not a convincing argument.
Or it might be that if he had natural legs he’d be winning gold instead of being eliminated in the semi-finals. It’s not like we can run a controlled experiment on the situation. He might be an Olympic-gold athlete still held back by his disability even if he’s got great artificial feet.
So few? There are millions, if not tens of millions, of lower limb amputees in the world. You seriously think that number couldn’t produce a single world-class athlete?
No, hon, I disagreed with a particular person who worded a post in a manner I found offensive. Unless you were that person don’t take it personally.
A one-legged athlete can’t leverage his advantage to waggle his feet faster, since they have one heavier leg. So you’d need to specifically look at double amputees.
If there are one million amputees in the US you’re looking at 1 in 300 for the US population. If one in ten of those are double, you’re looking at 1 in 3000. If 1 in 10 are young and healthy enough to train that’s 1 in 30,000. This doesn’t even consider being wealthy or lucky enough to have the correct artificial legs, being able to live an Olympian lifestyle of super-heavy training.
The US sends around 600 athletes, so two for every million people. If the 30k above is correct, the numbers aren’t looking great for a double amputee also being the 2 in a million physical, mental and training paragon to make it to the games.
Doesn’t that make sense?
EVERY Olympic athlete has beaten the odds in order to get to the games.
Another factor you left out is that you don’t have to be independently wealthy to get the gear and training, you just have to be sufficiently talented to attract a sponsor.
Finally, just because the odds are low doesn’t make something impossible. It just helps explain why there are so few double-amputees in the games despite the blade technology being widespread.
Right. Considering the relatively smaller talent pool for the Paralympics, their shorter history, and more recent advances in prosethetic technology, it wouldn’t surprise me if Pistorius were either the first sprinter able to compete with able-bodied athletes or just the first one who really wanted to give it a shot.
For those who are interested in watching, Pistorius and South Africa have one more race after all. They will be competing in the 4 by 400 meter relay final after a successful appeal, and Pistorius will be running.
Not looking to hijack the thread but thinking back on an earlier thread involving Caster Semenya, a female long distance runners who’s sex was questioned because she may be genetically male. That would give her a genetic advantage over natural female athletes.
On that issue I came down on the side of if the plumbings female that’s good enough for me. If it came to be that men were having sex changes to dominate in women’s sports I’d want to reexamine the issue.
Applying similar logic to Pistorius, I’d say he can compete fairly as is but if double amputee’s came to dominate we’d have to reexamine as well. Though it feels less right.
I just don’t picture anyone cutting off there legs to gain an advantage especially because the advantage hasn’t even been demonstrated.
Not necessarily.
I don’t, personally, know what’s up with Semenya and her medical issues are (largely) her business, but there are syndromes where people with a Y chromosome develop as female (with some internal anomalies) and the have no advantage over XX females as their bodies simply do not react to testosterone - that’s why they develop as they do. You could pump them full of testosterone and it would have zero effect because their cells simply can’t utilize it. They are, in a sense, cheat-proof.
Semenya isn’t one of those gals - XY females tend to look very feminine, much more so than Semenya. There have been a couple of XY female athletes in the Olympics who competed in the women’s events. As far as I know, none have ever earned a medal of any sort. They’re actually at a disadvantage compared to a normal XX female who will, in fact, react to her own normal testosterone levels in a way XY females never will.
The point being that having a Y chromosome doesn’t always make you a male, or give you an athletic advantage if you’re female. Intersex conditions are more complex than many people would like. The proper way to handle that is to have medical professionals evaluate not just her hormone levels but also how they affect her.
I don’t believe there is enough data and analysis available at this time to accurately judge whether Cheetah prosthetics give an unfair advantage to a runner or not, so I opt on the side of barring prosthetic wearing athletes from strictly Olympic events, in the same manner that able-bodied athletes are barred from strictly Paralympic events.
However, for events that, at least on paper, look like there is a high degree of parity between Olympic and Paralympic athletes, like Pistorius in the 400-meter, they should create additional medal events for them to compete (e.g. the mixed 400-meter). This shouldn’t be difficult logistically, since the Paralympics follow the Olympics in the same venue; they could simply set aside a day or two in between for the mixed (able-bodied/disabled) Olympic events. I can’t imagine any athlete from either side complaining about additional events, since this would give all the potential for additional medals. And, the medals given should be authentic Olympic, not Paralympic medals, since, perhaps unjustly, those are perceived to be the greater prize.
An advantage to having events that include both able-bodied and prosthetic-wearing athletes, is that over time, with more data points and analysis by biomechanical engineers and statisticians, the development of accurate standards of biological vs prosthetic parity will occur. At that point we should be able to say, for example, the following prosthetics and modifications offer equal ability to normal bi-pedal human legs: double b-k Model A, with W-modification; single b-k Model B, with X-modification; double a-k Model-C, with Y-modification; single a-k Model-D, with Z-modification. If that does come to fruition some day, only then should the mixed events be eliminated and the prosthetic wearing athletes be allow to compete in the original non-mixed Olympic events.
Equalizing and including both single and double amputees, and below-knee and above knee prosthetics also significantly increases the pool of potential Olympic class prosthetic-wearing athletes relative to those that are able-bodied. And my guess is that, in the same manner that countries, in their quest for national pride, put resources into developing world-class able-bodied athletes to win Olympic medals; many of those countries would put similar resources into developing world-class athletes with disabilities, if they had the potential to win authentic Olympic medals on a level playing field with able-bodied athletes. The resultant R&D from that type of initiative would benefit people with disabilities world-wide, and also further society’s perception toward people with disabilities as being able to compete with anyone, at the highest level.
American 400 meter runner Manteo Mitchell had a complete break of his fibula halfway through a qualifying heat of the 4x400 m relay, but still managed to finish the last 200m of his run, allowing the US team to qualify for the finals. However, he was unable to participate in the finals. He couldn’t just strap on a spare lower leg. His place in the finals was taken by Bryshon Nellum who spent 4 years recovering from shotgun blasts to the legs.
And if Pistorius had broken one of his blades during the race he wouldn’t have the option of strapping on a replacement mid-stride either, and would probably be less able to complete the race on a broken blade than on a broken fibula.
So… what’s your point? Either athlete could be knocked out of the race by a breakdown.
The fibula has smaller cross-sectional area than the tibia (and happens to be what Pistorius was born without, leading to his amputations). Had Pistorius damaged a comparable fraction of one of his composite blades, I am sure he would have also finished, but without the pain. Perhaps Pistorius does not have spares, but Mitchell definitely could not run in the finals.
The point is that painful lower leg injuries, such as fibula fracture, cramping, and ankle sprains are a disadvantage of having flesh and bone lower legs. Pistorius has the same size heart and lungs as others but does not have to pump blood to his lower extremities. There are advantages and disadvantages of running on composite blades instead of legs, but like many others have pointed out, it isn’t the same sport. Just because he can travel 400 meters in 45 seconds doesn’t make it the same thing.
Are Spira Wavespring shoes still banned from competition? It has been a few years since I have heard any news about them.
No. He’s competing in a different sport.
Yeah - I do find it strange that people are saying his prosthetics obviously don’t give him an advantage because he’s not winning.
The blind and death athletes weren’t using prosthetics that might give them an advantage - unlike with leg prostheses, with eye glasses it’s ludicrously simple to check whether they give an advantage or not. And the archers not in wheelchairs could just have sat down.
Talking about him being ‘pigeonholed with the rest of the cripples’ is a bit insulting to paralympians, really - makes it sound as though their achievements are lesser.
I don’t think his prosthetics are giving him an advantage because he is so far and away better/faster than other amputees using the exact same technology. If it really was just the technology then why aren’t other double-amputees on cheetah blades showing comparable times? If it were all of them I’d consider that argument but it’s just him and him alone among amputees using cheetahs who can run in the same league as the top tier able-bodied runners. Thus, I conclude it’s him, not his feet.
Society does treat the paralympics as lesser - it does not get nearly the same promotion, air time, or any other form of coverage as the Olympics. You don’t see able-bodied athletes training for wheelchair baseketball or the wheelchair division of a marathon although there’s no physical reason an able-bodied person couldn’t do so if they were willing to adhere to remaining seated and not using their legs while competing. But no one does, do they?
That’s not a sound conclusion. As I said upthread, he can only be compared with double amputees. And there are so few of them, that it isn’t a longshot to assume that only one would have the physical attributes necessary to be anywhere near world class.
Remember, Olympic runners are chosen from a pool of exceptional runners. Amputees are chosen randomly from society (perhaps weighted slightly to active duty service people). As I conjectured upthread, if one in 30k people is a double amputee (who is both young and healthy enough to train for the Olympics), and two in a million are Olympic caliber, then you’re looking at one person in tens of billions to be both Olympic caliber and a double amputee, right?
He’s effectively competing against a handful of other double amputees. It is totally reasonable to assume that he is an excellent athlete and thus leaves them in the dust, but still isn’t one of the fastest men on Earth.
Able-bodied athletes generally haven’t dared to try competing with obvious mechanical assistance because it’s clear that they’d be condemned and ridiculed from all quarters. And rightly so. The whole point of Olympic and similar competitions is to essentially test people against people. You and Broomstick, et al., are the ones who want to change that. What would you say if Usain Bolt or Kirani James or David Rudisha want to strap on flexi-blades? What would be the basis, now, in your mind, for telling them they should not?
“Machine”? The term is absolutely and rigorously correct for Pistorius’ devices.
You’re clearly approaching the whole issue from a completely different place than any sports fan I know; I contend that Pistorius’ devices are inappropriate even if it were somehow possible to conclusively prove that they were inferior to the best-possible natural human legs.
But taking the issue on your terms–do you believe that the body of Pistorius himself, apart from the missing bits, is the best, most athletic runners’ body possible? I assume not; this would be an entirely new level of assumption. But if you grant that greater ability is possible, then there’s no basis to think that some other (thus far theoretical) competitor could not beat the field using machines only as good as Pistorius’. Would you then ban that competitor, or his prosthetics, then? It seems that neither answer holds up as consistent with your statements thus far.
I never said it was just the technology - that, appropriately for this thread, is a strawman. But it’s impossible for you to say that his times prove his feet don’t give him an advantage - it’s also impossible for anyone to say they don’t give him a disadvantage. If he had regular feet, he could be either a mediocre runner or the best in the world, and there is no way of knowing. That’s why it’s inappropriate for him to race people who are using their feet - it will never be possible to know if he really ‘won.’
And I know the paralympics is treated as lesser. Doesn’t mean you have to perpetuate that, use offensive language to describe the competitors and, by saying he shouldn’t have to be in the paralympics, indicate that you, personally, think that competition is lesser.
Would able-bodied athletes really be allowed to play things like wheelchair basketball in the paralympics?