7 ms·

Double amputee cleared to race in the Olympics

77 points by casemorton 14y ago

Someone 14y ago
In some sense, all athletes use prosthetics. Humans aren't born with spikes, and definitely not with asymmetrical ones optimized for making left turns (especially important in the 200m, where one accelerates throughout the curve of the track) Amputees can take this to a new level. They can optimize the length of their legs on the distance to run and their fitness. For now, we see that as something that enables people, but I think this guy would not have been allowed to take part in a 'regular' event if he had a real chance to win (the wheelchair marathon is a separate event from the regular marathon for the same reason)
- simondlr 14y ago
  In regards to already accepted 'prosthetics' such as spikes and suits in swimming, perhaps it should go back to the way the olympics started? I'm not being facetious, but it is going to start cropping up more and more. They don't have to be completely naked, but just covered up so that nothing a person wears affects their performance.
AUmrysh 14y ago
This is the sort of thing Deus Ex touches on. I think we should allow people with prosthetics to perform in the olympics, but they should be judged against other people with the same or similar prostheses. There's no reason we can't accept the accomplishments of humans who have modified or artificial body parts, but they should not be compared to the 'natural' human body. I imagine if they had a separate set of events for cyborgs or humans with modified bodies, people would enjoy those events as celebrations of technology. In a way, all competitors in the olympics use prosthetics. The shoes that runners use modify the function and behavior of the foot, the suits (banned or unbanned) that swimmers wear modify the drag on the body, and even sports like archery use the highest quality technologies for bows and arrows to provide the highest competitive advantage. These body part replacements aren't much different, and one day the prosthetics will be better than our natural body parts (in some ways they already are).
timmaxw 14y ago
Prosthetics that improve performance should be banned from the Olympics. If prosthetics become good enough that completely-natural athletes can't win medals, then athletes who haven't lost limbs (and aren't willing to have an "accident") will effectively be excluded from the sport. Of course, this doesn't apply to prosthetics that don't actually improve performance or are completely irrelevant to the sport in question. It doesn't matter if a soccer player has a prosthetic arm as long as it weighs as much as his other one. Prosthetics are fundamentally different from other sports equipment in that any athlete can use a given piece of equipment, but most athletes can't use prosthetics at all.
mjor 14y ago
Good for him, I guess, but does those springs not give him an advantage? How would you even go about measuring that?
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
stupandaus 14y ago
There were studies done that showed that he gains some advantages from springs in long, straight sections, but also has disadvantages in starting and turning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Pistorius#Dispute_over_prosthetics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Pistorius#Dispute_over_pr...
mayneack 14y ago
More detail in the full article: http://www.nbcolympics.com/news-blogs/track-and-field/pistorius-among-those-added-to-south-african-team.html http://www.nbcolympics.com/news-blogs/track-and-field/pistor...
jessriedel 14y ago
Although I admire the guy, it doesn't make much sense to include him in the Olympics. If he were actually good enough to compete for medals, then everything would boil down to the results of the studies gauging the size of his advantage/disadvantage (as linked by stupandaus below). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Pistorius#Dispute_over_prosthetics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Pistorius#Dispute_over_pr... Track runners compete on tenths or even hundredths of a second, and it's silly to think you could have a reasonable, objective decision on the type of equipment he was allowed to use based off of the nebulous concept of an "advantage".
- brildum 14y ago
  Although less obvious, there are other areas in sport where these issues currently exist. One of the more recent controversies resulted in the ban of LZR Racer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LZR_Racer#FINA_rule_changes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LZR_Racer#FINA_rule_changes), a swimsuit which resulted in an abnormally high number of world records during the years it was available. Whats to say that track shoes can't have similar performance aiding effects? It may be time for sporting officials to limit the equipment athletes can use. NASCAR does this successfully -- they have stringent specifications regarding the cars/parts that can be used to keep the races competitive.
  - roguecoder 14y ago
    And steroid after steroid has gone through similar processes; there is a reason there are still world records from the 80s East Germany and the Soviet Union. In less obvious advantages we have dietary supplements, training at altitude or in altitude chambers, biomechanical analysis and direct muscle stimulation. Every athletic competition is a balance between what technology gets through and which doesn't. Most olympic athletes are already genetic outliers; I'm sure sooner or later gene therapy will become a major issue. The idea that athletics is purely a competition of body is a convenient fiction, nothing more. It seems a shame to me to exclude people simply because they challenge that fiction.
    - lusr 14y ago
davidjohnstone 14y ago
Unless the analysis in http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/12/science-of-sport-awards-controversy-of.html http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/12/science-of-sport-awa... is quite wrong, I can't see how he should be allowed to compete. The story here is being cast as a win against bureaucracy, but ignores the fact that he has significant mechanical and metabolic advantages against able-bodied athletes. Final paragraphs: > The end result of this is that Pistorius was "cleared", based not on science, but on a legal process that was manipulated by science and the huge drive to permit Pistorius to run. And make no mistake, there is inspiration in the story. > In fact, it got to the point where despite the science, I can appreciate the viewpoint of those who say "Sure, there is an advantage, but there's only one such athlete, and he's not running away with the gold medals, and so the good outweighs the bad, so let him compete despite that advantage". > I disagree with that, but I can respect the opinion of those who believe it. What cannot be accepted, however, is the assertion that there is no advantage. Everything about the science points to the advantage, from the pacing strategy he uses, to the German-testing that found mechanical and metabolic differences, to the Texas testing which provided evidence of an athletic advantage. > The science was clear, from the point of hypothesis, to the theory behind it, to the evidence. The deceit in the case, fueled by a willfully ignorant media who would rather portray as villains anyone who dares suggest what the science really says, is equally clear, to me at least.
- baddox 14y ago
  What is the decision procedure for whether an advantage is unfair? Athletic competition is always about physical inequalities among humans. Does your decision procedure resort to the idea that certain things are "natural?" If so, that's a feeble notion, since prosthetics are no more or less "natural" than, say, rigorous training and diets or metal plates to fix a broken bone.
  - lusr 14y ago
    Physical inequalities - not mechanical.
    - 14y ago
DannoHung 14y ago
I'll start believing that Pistorious has an unfair advantage when professional athletes start hacking their limbs off.
- stcredzero 14y ago
  There are very strong inbuilt aversions to losing your limb.
  - natrius 14y ago
    For most people, at least. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_integrity_identity_disorder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_integrity_identity_disorde...
- sageikosa 14y ago
  I can easily imagine the Chinese or North Koreans sending a team of runners that fit this exact description.
  - antoko 14y ago
    I think that says much more about you than it does the Chinese or North Koreans.
    - sageikosa 14y ago
      Probably.
jdietrich 14y ago
Several comments in this thread relate to Pistorius' prosthetics and whether they give him an unfair advantage. The Court of Arbitration for Sport have ruled that there is no evidence that his prosthetics constitute an unfair advantage over his preferred 400m distance. The initial IAAF testing showed that he used less energy at full speed, but this is not relevant to sprinting performance, which demands maximum power output. All below-knee amputees are at a significant disadvantage during the start and initial acceleration of the race, which is vital in sprinting. Personally, I think the most obvious evidence that these prosthetics do not constitute an advantage is the times of other athletes using identical limbs. Pistorius is whole seconds faster than his nearest rivals. If the limbs constitute a meaningful advantage, then why is Pistorius so uniquely quick?
- luser001 14y ago
  davidjohnson below posted this excellent link which talks about the shenanigans^Wcheating that happened during arbitration. http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/12/science-of-sport-awards-controversy-of.html http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/12/science-of-sport-awa... And see the top comment for a good explanation (imho) for why you are wrong about the initial acceleration phase being important for 400m.
- MSM 14y ago
  > I think the most obvious evidence that these prosthetics do not constitute an advantage is the times of other athletes using identical limbs. Pistorius is whole seconds faster than his nearest rivals. If the limbs constitute a meaningful advantage, then why is Pistorius so uniquely quick? You're mixing apples and oranges here. In the highest most competitive horse races, it's not uncommon to still see horses that win by large margins. Having a horse win without advantage against other horses is not a good reason to start having humans race against horses.
  - gaius 14y ago
    Or isn't it? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/mid/3801177.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/mid/3801177.stm
  - 14y ago
mrbill 14y ago
Po' lil' tink-tink.
Evernoob 14y ago
I'm personally not in support of this decision regardless of whether or not the prosthetics provide Oscar an advantage. I think a sport such as a running race is a test in how fast the very best people in the world can push the limits of the human body. Removing limbs and replacing them with prosthetics while impressive does not fit that standard. It's not a level playing field.
- maxerickson 14y ago
  It doesn't particularly matter. History will remember the asterisk whether the Olympic committee puts one down or not. Perhaps the biggest question of fairness is that a person (or two) that dedicates much of their life to training for athletic contests will not receive the medal that they would have received had he been prevented from competing.
nsns 14y ago
Good luck to him. The specs for his "legs" - http://www.ossur.com/?PageID=13462 http://www.ossur.com/?PageID=13462
pkulak 14y ago
Whatever anyone thinks, I feel bad for this guy. Advantage or not, he's a hell of an athlete, yet he can never accomplish anything without people questioning it.
- Jach 14y ago
  If he wins, people will be split over feeling happy for him and thinking he only won because of his prosthetics. If he loses, the media will spin it as a triumph of meat over machine.
toxiczone 14y ago
What a sweet story leg less dude gets to compete w legged dudes, but his legs were made for robocop.... Im not going to dispute his athleticism, but in a place like the Olympics where it always comes down to hundredth of a second to beat some decade old record... Where all these ppl trained since they were born... It just doesn't seem right... If at least the prosthetics were engineered to behave like human legs it wouldn't be as bad, but they are obviously designed for a specific goal. I don't think he uses the same legs to go grocery shopping or catch a movie... Ps: this is an undeducated comment, I'm not planning to read dozens of articles to study the scientific aspects of Joe's toes...
stcredzero 14y ago
One should be able to develop rigid boots that couple to composite springs for non amputees to run in a similar fashion. This would involve an effective lengthening of the limbs. Maybe this is not an idea but a memory... Search on YouTube for "Spring Shoes": They're called "Skyrunners." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_rqRknJ7N0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_rqRknJ7N0 I wonder if short people equipped with these would be competitive with bicycle messengers? Apparently they confer a significant efficiency advantage. I also wonder if robots could use these to move. I think that would be okay, so long as the robots could also stand still and dynamically balance without bouncing, otherwise they'd be annoying.
lifeformed 14y ago
I'm surprised that everywhere I read, people are more interested in wondering how much of an advantage his condition gives him, than considering that perhaps it is a great disadvantage. People are claiming things like, "oh, his heart has to pump less blood a shorter distance." What about the fact that he has way less muscle, no toes, feet, or ankles (which are all critical for balance and for sensing distances and terrain), and that his body is being stressed in ways not intended. These are huge, obvious disadvantages, and I don't see why they're seemingly ignored. Sure, the prosthetics can vary in mechanical advantage, but you could just regulate those like any other sports equipment. But to say that not having legs could even possibly be unfair for running is ridiculous and a bit offensive.
- karamazov 14y ago
  What if, instead of legs, he had electric wheels capable of going 30 miles per hour? That would be a clear advantage.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- watty 14y ago
  I think part of the skepticism is that it's far more likely that these carbon fiber legs are advantageous making a naturally fast runner become world caliber as opposed to the fastest man in the world having a great disadvantage causing him to only become world caliber. There are scientists on both sides of the issue as well, so all we have is opinions. I'm no expert but my guess is that if Usain Bolt had been wearing these and training his whole life he would not only hold the world record, he would have destroyed it and would not count. Edit: BUT, there's no question in my mind that they are not "equal" to a human legs. There are clear advantages and disadvantages of them. I refuse to believe that the designers who were trying to make them as fast as possible just happened to create legs that were 100% equivalent to human legs. It's IMO not fair for Oscar or other Olympians but it's not his fault he has no one else to compete against.
- ramblerman 14y ago
sxp 14y ago
The whole notion of preventing unfair technical advantages in the Olympics is outdated and stems from the fundamental attribution error [1]. The competition is no longer primarily about the athlete but about the level of training they have access to and the size of a country's pool of healthy candidates to select from. Industrialized nations win the majority of medals [2] since they have a large healthy population to select from and they can afford to train those athletes and provide high quality equipment. Discriminating against Pistorius would be as bad as discriminating against an Olympian because they were rich enough to afford expensive coaches and equipment or banning Michael Phelps because he won the genetic lottery which gave him his body structure. It makes sense to ban certain performance enhancing methods such as illegal steroids because they have severely negative side effects, but the Olympics would be more fun if the rules were much looser. Let all the athletes have the best training and equipment their sponsors can afford. There is little difference between technology that reduces disadvantages such as lighter bikes or shoes and technology that enhances advantages like low drag swimsuits or cybernetic legs. Unless we want to genetically screen all our athletes to make sure they were not born with any advantage and force them to use the same training program and equipment, we should stop trying to compensates for advantages and disadvantages and just do whatever results in the best entertainment. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-time_Olympic_Games_medal_table http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-time_Olympic_Games_medal_ta...
- hackinthebochs 14y ago
  >The competition is no longer primarily about the athlete but about the level of training they have access to and the size of a country's pool of healthy candidates to select from. Sure, if the unit under consideration is the country that gains the most medals. But at the individual level, it is still very much about the athlete and what the human body can accomplish.
anmol 14y ago
For everyone claiming Oscar has a technology advantage, an expert committee led by Hugh Herr (world leader in bio-mechatronics)[1,2] across scientists from 6 universities, proved in 2008 that Oscar did NOT have any advantage. This has been mostly a political battle. [1] http://www.media.mit.edu/news/releases/2008/05/study-revives-olympic-prospects-amputee-sprinter http://www.media.mit.edu/news/releases/2008/05/study-revives... [2] http://www.technologyreview.com/news/410167/amputee-gets-a-shot-at-the-olympics/ http://www.technologyreview.com/news/410167/amputee-gets-a-s...
- sageikosa 14y ago
  In every race someone has an advantage, otherwise every finish would be a tie. The question is whether his mechanical advantage in one section is balanced by his disadvantages in others, and whether this is fair to other runners. Frankly, I have no dog in that fight; since I am not likely to be running that race, nor am I on the Olympic Committee. I just find it interesting for people's understanding athletics and fairness in general.
johnbenwoo 14y ago
Stand-up comedian Katt Williams' take on Pistorius being disqualified from the 2008 Olympics - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qlNEmpxQxI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qlNEmpxQxI "The last place you wanna be in a muthaf-ckin foot race is behind the guy with no goddamn foots."
jcizzle 14y ago
I think some of the comments are missing an understanding of sprinting, so I will attempt to clarify: There are four "pure" sprinting events, 60m (indoor only), 100m (outdoor only), 200m, 400m. On TV, you just see a person effortlessly "sprinting." However, the sprints are actually very technical events. What you don't see is that each race is comprised of four phases: beginning with an explosive start out of the blocks, a drive phase, a transition phase, and finally a sprint phase. The drive phase - which some commenters have concluded as Pistorius' weakness - is where the athlete builds speed. It is characterized by a forward lean in the athlete and powerful, "pulling" strides. At the elite level, an athlete will remain in this phase for 30m-40m, depending on the length of the race and the height of the athlete. As the athlete builds speed, it becomes much harder to stay in this forward-leaning position - their legs simply cannot keep up with their body. Thus, they begin to transition into a different style of running. This is called the transition phase - where the sprinter's body moves to from this leaning drive phase into the tall and upright sprinting phase. This can be anywhere from 10-30m. The drive and transition are important. Some time during these two phases, the athlete will reach their maximum instantaneous speed. At no point after reaching maximum speed will the athlete ever reach that speed again. Thus, the race becomes "who can slow down the least." The upright sprinting phase is where the athlete tries to maintain the speed they built up during the drive phase until the end of the race. An athlete will be upright, with the slightest of forward leans. Their legs are firing straight up and down very quickly, trying to minimize the time spent on the ground. The ability to do this correctly very much depends on an athlete's "sprint endurance" - which is a completely different kind of endurance than, say, running a mile. So, on average, 90% of a 60m race is spent gaining speed, 50% of 100m race, 25% of a 200m race, and 12% of a 400m race. The race a sprinter chooses to run depends on whether they are powerful and explosive (shorter races) or how little speed they can lose while upright (longer races). Here are two fun facts now that you know this information: 1. Marion Jones (who is a cheater) did not have the fastest top end speed out of her contemporaries. She did, however, have the best ability to maintain speed. She was a 100m Olympic Gold Medalist. 2. The Olympic-level weight lifters will outperform Olympic-level sprinters in the first 30m of a race. There are some nuances to what what I've said that I won't bore you with (for example, some 200m runners can perform a mini-drive on the curve to grab a bit more speed for the straight), but the basic idea is that your sprint endurance is crucial in EVERY sprint race except the 60m. You can make your own conclusions about whether or not Pistorius is legit, but having run the 400m at a high level for a number of years, I can tell you that not being able to feel your calves or feet or have to use the energy required to make them move would have been something I'd be interested in.
oh_sigh 14y ago
Ridiculous. There should be absolutely no technology or mechanical aids allowed in Olympic events like running. There is no way to determine how Pistorius would run if he had legs, so any attempt at analyzing the impact of the prosthetic is untestable. Suppose a person who suffers from Short stature(http://www.diseasesdatabase.com/ddb18756.htm http://www.diseasesdatabase.com/ddb18756.htm) wanted to compete in Olympic sprinting. Would it be acceptable for him to wear stilts that make him 5'10", since he suffers from a medical condition which prevents him from entering the race otherwise?
JonoW 14y ago
I'm really saddened by the cynical tone of the many critics of Oscar out there. People only seem to focus on the advantages his prosthetics, whilst ignoring what must be a multitude of disadvantages. He has less leg power to power out of the blocks and he probably looses energy through the connection of his legs to the prosthetics. And lets not forget mental disadvantages. Oscar is probably a one in a generation case, it would be travesty to ban him from competing.
joshlegs 14y ago
I love this story. I believe the government actually loosened its requirements just a bit to allow him to compete. I think it was a terrific idea. [I'm kind of rooting for him more than I'm rooting for my home country! -- shhh, don't tell anyone]
jonah 14y ago
An older piece with some good background: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.03/blade.html http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.03/blade.html

77 points by casemorton 14y ago

In some sense, all athletes use prosthetics. Humans aren't born with spikes, and definitely not with asymmetrical ones optimized for making left turns (especially important in the 200m, where one accelerates throughout the curve of the track) Amputees can take this to a new level. They can optimize the length of their legs on the distance to run and their fitness. For now, we see that as something that enables people, but I think this guy would not have been allowed to take part in a 'regular' event if he had a real chance to win (the wheelchair marathon is a separate event from the regular marathon for the same reason)

simondlr 14y ago
In regards to already accepted 'prosthetics' such as spikes and suits in swimming, perhaps it should go back to the way the olympics started? I'm not being facetious, but it is going to start cropping up more and more. They don't have to be completely naked, but just covered up so that nothing a person wears affects their performance.

AUmrysh 14y ago

This is the sort of thing Deus Ex touches on. I think we should allow people with prosthetics to perform in the olympics, but they should be judged against other people with the same or similar prostheses. There's no reason we can't accept the accomplishments of humans who have modified or artificial body parts, but they should not be compared to the 'natural' human body. I imagine if they had a separate set of events for cyborgs or humans with modified bodies, people would enjoy those events as celebrations of technology. In a way, all competitors in the olympics use prosthetics. The shoes that runners use modify the function and behavior of the foot, the suits (banned or unbanned) that swimmers wear modify the drag on the body, and even sports like archery use the highest quality technologies for bows and arrows to provide the highest competitive advantage. These body part replacements aren't much different, and one day the prosthetics will be better than our natural body parts (in some ways they already are).

timmaxw 14y ago

Prosthetics that improve performance should be banned from the Olympics. If prosthetics become good enough that completely-natural athletes can't win medals, then athletes who haven't lost limbs (and aren't willing to have an "accident") will effectively be excluded from the sport. Of course, this doesn't apply to prosthetics that don't actually improve performance or are completely irrelevant to the sport in question. It doesn't matter if a soccer player has a prosthetic arm as long as it weighs as much as his other one. Prosthetics are fundamentally different from other sports equipment in that any athlete can use a given piece of equipment, but most athletes can't use prosthetics at all.

mjor 14y ago

Good for him, I guess, but does those springs not give him an advantage? How would you even go about measuring that?

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

stupandaus 14y ago

There were studies done that showed that he gains some advantages from springs in long, straight sections, but also has disadvantages in starting and turning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Pistorius#Dispute_over_prosthetics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Pistorius#Dispute_over_pr...

mayneack 14y ago

More detail in the full article: http://www.nbcolympics.com/news-blogs/track-and-field/pistorius-among-those-added-to-south-african-team.html http://www.nbcolympics.com/news-blogs/track-and-field/pistor...

jessriedel 14y ago

Although I admire the guy, it doesn't make much sense to include him in the Olympics. If he were actually good enough to compete for medals, then everything would boil down to the results of the studies gauging the size of his advantage/disadvantage (as linked by stupandaus below). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Pistorius#Dispute_over_prosthetics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Pistorius#Dispute_over_pr... Track runners compete on tenths or even hundredths of a second, and it's silly to think you could have a reasonable, objective decision on the type of equipment he was allowed to use based off of the nebulous concept of an "advantage".

brildum 14y ago
Although less obvious, there are other areas in sport where these issues currently exist. One of the more recent controversies resulted in the ban of LZR Racer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LZR_Racer#FINA_rule_changes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LZR_Racer#FINA_rule_changes), a swimsuit which resulted in an abnormally high number of world records during the years it was available. Whats to say that track shoes can't have similar performance aiding effects? It may be time for sporting officials to limit the equipment athletes can use. NASCAR does this successfully -- they have stringent specifications regarding the cars/parts that can be used to keep the races competitive.
- roguecoder 14y ago
  And steroid after steroid has gone through similar processes; there is a reason there are still world records from the 80s East Germany and the Soviet Union. In less obvious advantages we have dietary supplements, training at altitude or in altitude chambers, biomechanical analysis and direct muscle stimulation. Every athletic competition is a balance between what technology gets through and which doesn't. Most olympic athletes are already genetic outliers; I'm sure sooner or later gene therapy will become a major issue. The idea that athletics is purely a competition of body is a convenient fiction, nothing more. It seems a shame to me to exclude people simply because they challenge that fiction.
  - lusr 14y ago

davidjohnstone 14y ago

Unless the analysis in http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/12/science-of-sport-awards-controversy-of.html http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/12/science-of-sport-awa... is quite wrong, I can't see how he should be allowed to compete. The story here is being cast as a win against bureaucracy, but ignores the fact that he has significant mechanical and metabolic advantages against able-bodied athletes. Final paragraphs: > The end result of this is that Pistorius was "cleared", based not on science, but on a legal process that was manipulated by science and the huge drive to permit Pistorius to run. And make no mistake, there is inspiration in the story. > In fact, it got to the point where despite the science, I can appreciate the viewpoint of those who say "Sure, there is an advantage, but there's only one such athlete, and he's not running away with the gold medals, and so the good outweighs the bad, so let him compete despite that advantage". > I disagree with that, but I can respect the opinion of those who believe it. What cannot be accepted, however, is the assertion that there is no advantage. Everything about the science points to the advantage, from the pacing strategy he uses, to the German-testing that found mechanical and metabolic differences, to the Texas testing which provided evidence of an athletic advantage. > The science was clear, from the point of hypothesis, to the theory behind it, to the evidence. The deceit in the case, fueled by a willfully ignorant media who would rather portray as villains anyone who dares suggest what the science really says, is equally clear, to me at least.

baddox 14y ago
What is the decision procedure for whether an advantage is unfair? Athletic competition is always about physical inequalities among humans. Does your decision procedure resort to the idea that certain things are "natural?" If so, that's a feeble notion, since prosthetics are no more or less "natural" than, say, rigorous training and diets or metal plates to fix a broken bone.
- lusr 14y ago
  Physical inequalities - not mechanical.
  - 14y ago

DannoHung 14y ago

I'll start believing that Pistorious has an unfair advantage when professional athletes start hacking their limbs off.

stcredzero 14y ago
There are very strong inbuilt aversions to losing your limb.
- natrius 14y ago
  For most people, at least. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_integrity_identity_disorder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_integrity_identity_disorde...
sageikosa 14y ago
I can easily imagine the Chinese or North Koreans sending a team of runners that fit this exact description.
- antoko 14y ago
  I think that says much more about you than it does the Chinese or North Koreans.
  - sageikosa 14y ago
    Probably.

jdietrich 14y ago

Several comments in this thread relate to Pistorius' prosthetics and whether they give him an unfair advantage. The Court of Arbitration for Sport have ruled that there is no evidence that his prosthetics constitute an unfair advantage over his preferred 400m distance. The initial IAAF testing showed that he used less energy at full speed, but this is not relevant to sprinting performance, which demands maximum power output. All below-knee amputees are at a significant disadvantage during the start and initial acceleration of the race, which is vital in sprinting. Personally, I think the most obvious evidence that these prosthetics do not constitute an advantage is the times of other athletes using identical limbs. Pistorius is whole seconds faster than his nearest rivals. If the limbs constitute a meaningful advantage, then why is Pistorius so uniquely quick?

luser001 14y ago
davidjohnson below posted this excellent link which talks about the shenanigans^Wcheating that happened during arbitration. http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/12/science-of-sport-awards-controversy-of.html http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/12/science-of-sport-awa... And see the top comment for a good explanation (imho) for why you are wrong about the initial acceleration phase being important for 400m.
MSM 14y ago
> I think the most obvious evidence that these prosthetics do not constitute an advantage is the times of other athletes using identical limbs. Pistorius is whole seconds faster than his nearest rivals. If the limbs constitute a meaningful advantage, then why is Pistorius so uniquely quick? You're mixing apples and oranges here. In the highest most competitive horse races, it's not uncommon to still see horses that win by large margins. Having a horse win without advantage against other horses is not a good reason to start having humans race against horses.
- gaius 14y ago
  Or isn't it? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/mid/3801177.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/mid/3801177.stm
- 14y ago

mrbill 14y ago

Po' lil' tink-tink.

Evernoob 14y ago

I'm personally not in support of this decision regardless of whether or not the prosthetics provide Oscar an advantage. I think a sport such as a running race is a test in how fast the very best people in the world can push the limits of the human body. Removing limbs and replacing them with prosthetics while impressive does not fit that standard. It's not a level playing field.

maxerickson 14y ago
It doesn't particularly matter. History will remember the asterisk whether the Olympic committee puts one down or not. Perhaps the biggest question of fairness is that a person (or two) that dedicates much of their life to training for athletic contests will not receive the medal that they would have received had he been prevented from competing.

nsns 14y ago

Good luck to him. The specs for his "legs" - http://www.ossur.com/?PageID=13462 http://www.ossur.com/?PageID=13462

pkulak 14y ago

Whatever anyone thinks, I feel bad for this guy. Advantage or not, he's a hell of an athlete, yet he can never accomplish anything without people questioning it.

Jach 14y ago
If he wins, people will be split over feeling happy for him and thinking he only won because of his prosthetics. If he loses, the media will spin it as a triumph of meat over machine.

toxiczone 14y ago

What a sweet story leg less dude gets to compete w legged dudes, but his legs were made for robocop.... Im not going to dispute his athleticism, but in a place like the Olympics where it always comes down to hundredth of a second to beat some decade old record... Where all these ppl trained since they were born... It just doesn't seem right... If at least the prosthetics were engineered to behave like human legs it wouldn't be as bad, but they are obviously designed for a specific goal. I don't think he uses the same legs to go grocery shopping or catch a movie... Ps: this is an undeducated comment, I'm not planning to read dozens of articles to study the scientific aspects of Joe's toes...

stcredzero 14y ago

One should be able to develop rigid boots that couple to composite springs for non amputees to run in a similar fashion. This would involve an effective lengthening of the limbs. Maybe this is not an idea but a memory... Search on YouTube for "Spring Shoes": They're called "Skyrunners." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_rqRknJ7N0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_rqRknJ7N0 I wonder if short people equipped with these would be competitive with bicycle messengers? Apparently they confer a significant efficiency advantage. I also wonder if robots could use these to move. I think that would be okay, so long as the robots could also stand still and dynamically balance without bouncing, otherwise they'd be annoying.

lifeformed 14y ago

I'm surprised that everywhere I read, people are more interested in wondering how much of an advantage his condition gives him, than considering that perhaps it is a great disadvantage. People are claiming things like, "oh, his heart has to pump less blood a shorter distance." What about the fact that he has way less muscle, no toes, feet, or ankles (which are all critical for balance and for sensing distances and terrain), and that his body is being stressed in ways not intended. These are huge, obvious disadvantages, and I don't see why they're seemingly ignored. Sure, the prosthetics can vary in mechanical advantage, but you could just regulate those like any other sports equipment. But to say that not having legs could even possibly be unfair for running is ridiculous and a bit offensive.

karamazov 14y ago
What if, instead of legs, he had electric wheels capable of going 30 miles per hour? That would be a clear advantage.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
watty 14y ago
I think part of the skepticism is that it's far more likely that these carbon fiber legs are advantageous making a naturally fast runner become world caliber as opposed to the fastest man in the world having a great disadvantage causing him to only become world caliber. There are scientists on both sides of the issue as well, so all we have is opinions. I'm no expert but my guess is that if Usain Bolt had been wearing these and training his whole life he would not only hold the world record, he would have destroyed it and would not count. Edit: BUT, there's no question in my mind that they are not "equal" to a human legs. There are clear advantages and disadvantages of them. I refuse to believe that the designers who were trying to make them as fast as possible just happened to create legs that were 100% equivalent to human legs. It's IMO not fair for Oscar or other Olympians but it's not his fault he has no one else to compete against.
ramblerman 14y ago

sxp 14y ago

The whole notion of preventing unfair technical advantages in the Olympics is outdated and stems from the fundamental attribution error [1]. The competition is no longer primarily about the athlete but about the level of training they have access to and the size of a country's pool of healthy candidates to select from. Industrialized nations win the majority of medals [2] since they have a large healthy population to select from and they can afford to train those athletes and provide high quality equipment. Discriminating against Pistorius would be as bad as discriminating against an Olympian because they were rich enough to afford expensive coaches and equipment or banning Michael Phelps because he won the genetic lottery which gave him his body structure. It makes sense to ban certain performance enhancing methods such as illegal steroids because they have severely negative side effects, but the Olympics would be more fun if the rules were much looser. Let all the athletes have the best training and equipment their sponsors can afford. There is little difference between technology that reduces disadvantages such as lighter bikes or shoes and technology that enhances advantages like low drag swimsuits or cybernetic legs. Unless we want to genetically screen all our athletes to make sure they were not born with any advantage and force them to use the same training program and equipment, we should stop trying to compensates for advantages and disadvantages and just do whatever results in the best entertainment. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-time_Olympic_Games_medal_table http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-time_Olympic_Games_medal_ta...

hackinthebochs 14y ago
>The competition is no longer primarily about the athlete but about the level of training they have access to and the size of a country's pool of healthy candidates to select from. Sure, if the unit under consideration is the country that gains the most medals. But at the individual level, it is still very much about the athlete and what the human body can accomplish.

anmol 14y ago

For everyone claiming Oscar has a technology advantage, an expert committee led by Hugh Herr (world leader in bio-mechatronics)[1,2] across scientists from 6 universities, proved in 2008 that Oscar did NOT have any advantage. This has been mostly a political battle. [1] http://www.media.mit.edu/news/releases/2008/05/study-revives-olympic-prospects-amputee-sprinter http://www.media.mit.edu/news/releases/2008/05/study-revives... [2] http://www.technologyreview.com/news/410167/amputee-gets-a-shot-at-the-olympics/ http://www.technologyreview.com/news/410167/amputee-gets-a-s...

sageikosa 14y ago
In every race someone has an advantage, otherwise every finish would be a tie. The question is whether his mechanical advantage in one section is balanced by his disadvantages in others, and whether this is fair to other runners. Frankly, I have no dog in that fight; since I am not likely to be running that race, nor am I on the Olympic Committee. I just find it interesting for people's understanding athletics and fairness in general.

johnbenwoo 14y ago

Stand-up comedian Katt Williams' take on Pistorius being disqualified from the 2008 Olympics - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qlNEmpxQxI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qlNEmpxQxI "The last place you wanna be in a muthaf-ckin foot race is behind the guy with no goddamn foots."

jcizzle 14y ago

I think some of the comments are missing an understanding of sprinting, so I will attempt to clarify: There are four "pure" sprinting events, 60m (indoor only), 100m (outdoor only), 200m, 400m. On TV, you just see a person effortlessly "sprinting." However, the sprints are actually very technical events. What you don't see is that each race is comprised of four phases: beginning with an explosive start out of the blocks, a drive phase, a transition phase, and finally a sprint phase. The drive phase - which some commenters have concluded as Pistorius' weakness - is where the athlete builds speed. It is characterized by a forward lean in the athlete and powerful, "pulling" strides. At the elite level, an athlete will remain in this phase for 30m-40m, depending on the length of the race and the height of the athlete. As the athlete builds speed, it becomes much harder to stay in this forward-leaning position - their legs simply cannot keep up with their body. Thus, they begin to transition into a different style of running. This is called the transition phase - where the sprinter's body moves to from this leaning drive phase into the tall and upright sprinting phase. This can be anywhere from 10-30m. The drive and transition are important. Some time during these two phases, the athlete will reach their maximum instantaneous speed. At no point after reaching maximum speed will the athlete ever reach that speed again. Thus, the race becomes "who can slow down the least." The upright sprinting phase is where the athlete tries to maintain the speed they built up during the drive phase until the end of the race. An athlete will be upright, with the slightest of forward leans. Their legs are firing straight up and down very quickly, trying to minimize the time spent on the ground. The ability to do this correctly very much depends on an athlete's "sprint endurance" - which is a completely different kind of endurance than, say, running a mile. So, on average, 90% of a 60m race is spent gaining speed, 50% of 100m race, 25% of a 200m race, and 12% of a 400m race. The race a sprinter chooses to run depends on whether they are powerful and explosive (shorter races) or how little speed they can lose while upright (longer races). Here are two fun facts now that you know this information: 1. Marion Jones (who is a cheater) did not have the fastest top end speed out of her contemporaries. She did, however, have the best ability to maintain speed. She was a 100m Olympic Gold Medalist. 2. The Olympic-level weight lifters will outperform Olympic-level sprinters in the first 30m of a race. There are some nuances to what what I've said that I won't bore you with (for example, some 200m runners can perform a mini-drive on the curve to grab a bit more speed for the straight), but the basic idea is that your sprint endurance is crucial in EVERY sprint race except the 60m. You can make your own conclusions about whether or not Pistorius is legit, but having run the 400m at a high level for a number of years, I can tell you that not being able to feel your calves or feet or have to use the energy required to make them move would have been something I'd be interested in.

oh_sigh 14y ago

Ridiculous. There should be absolutely no technology or mechanical aids allowed in Olympic events like running. There is no way to determine how Pistorius would run if he had legs, so any attempt at analyzing the impact of the prosthetic is untestable. Suppose a person who suffers from Short stature(http://www.diseasesdatabase.com/ddb18756.htm http://www.diseasesdatabase.com/ddb18756.htm) wanted to compete in Olympic sprinting. Would it be acceptable for him to wear stilts that make him 5'10", since he suffers from a medical condition which prevents him from entering the race otherwise?

JonoW 14y ago

I'm really saddened by the cynical tone of the many critics of Oscar out there. People only seem to focus on the advantages his prosthetics, whilst ignoring what must be a multitude of disadvantages. He has less leg power to power out of the blocks and he probably looses energy through the connection of his legs to the prosthetics. And lets not forget mental disadvantages. Oscar is probably a one in a generation case, it would be travesty to ban him from competing.

joshlegs 14y ago

I love this story. I believe the government actually loosened its requirements just a bit to allow him to compete. I think it was a terrific idea. [I'm kind of rooting for him more than I'm rooting for my home country! -- shhh, don't tell anyone]

jonah 14y ago

An older piece with some good background: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.03/blade.html http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.03/blade.html