Oscar Pistorius isn't competing in this year's Olympics, and that's a good thing. In case you missed it, Pistorius is the double-amputee sprinter who occasionally has carbon-fiber artificial limbs stand in for his missing lower legs. His amazing Cheetah Flex-Foot legs, made by Icelandic orthopedics company Ossur, are specially designed for running and have enabled him to achieve heretofore-unattained running speeds for an amputee. This year, after a lot of hand-wrenching by various global athletics organizations, he was finally allowed to qualify for the Beijing Olympics (he didn't).
A triumph of one man's spirit over ingrained prejudices? Hardly. More like a close call that could have upset the entire notion of fairness in sports. While it's fantastic that technology has made it possible that a disabled person can, in effect, perform as well as if not better than an "abled" one, machine-enhanced athletes have no business competing against the regular variety. Why shouldn't they? Hit the Continue jump for more.
No Oscar Gold, Man
First, a recap. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) gave Pistorius the green light to try out for Beijing 2008. It did so relatively recently, in May, a few short months after the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) forbade him from doing so on the basis that any device that provides an advantage should be banned. The CAS reversed that ruling and let him try and qualify, reasoning that it hasn't been fully demonstrated the Cheetahs actually give him an advantage. Essentially, as William Saletan observed in Slate, the ruling allows Pistorius to compete until he starts winning.
Separating Limb from Limb
Obviously, if Pistorius wore huge pogo sticks on each leg or rocket boots, he would be disqualified. My question is: where's the line? Already scientists have looked at how Pistorius runs in the Cheetahs and concluded they have advantages over human legs and feet, and Ossur has engineers working on even better versions. All this discussion makes me wonder what the goal is here: creating the best possible running limb or simulating a real foot as closely as possible?
The latter seems more fair. The problem is, short of a transplant or a regrown limb, simulating a real foot perfectly is impossible with machines. A regular athlete trains her legs to be more efficient and durable, strengthening muscles and organs with exercise and diet (and sometimes illegal drugs). Pistorius can do that with the rest of his body, but to improve his legs he has to go back to the lab.
The Cyberlimpics
But why not go back to the lab? Why hold Ossur back? How about we let them create the best running legs technology can make? As prosthetics engineering improves (and crosses over into bionics), amputees like Pistorious will sooner or later be able to run faster than any human ever could. In this case, the only fair solution is for them to compete in a separate event. Fortunately, there's already one tailor-made for them: the Paralympics.
Traditionally, Olympic competition among disabled athletes hasn't gotten anywhere near the attention the regular games do. That could change, however, as technology starts enhancing the disabled instead of simply making them capable. In 100 years, the Paralympics might have to change its name to the Cyberlimpics, featuring not just runners with robotic legs, but weightlifters with hydraulic arms, and synchronized swimmers with webbed hands and feet. The spectacle of seeing cybernetic humans doing things far beyond the abilities of "normals" already draws lots of eyeballs to movie screens — why not real life?
Human Race
But regardless of how many people watch, enhanced humans have no place in a competition against normal ones. Saying prosthetics are OK unless they provide an advantage isn't a solution — results of training and gifts of genetics are also advantages, but at least in those cases athletes are playing with the same rulebook: being human. Add machine into the mix, and you have a whole new ballgame.
editor@dvice.com
By RossF18 at 12:02 AM ON 08/08/08
Until the steroid issues at the Olympics are truly resolved, the concern over double amputees competing is a bit premature at best and prejudiced at worst. The same issues have arisen with the new swim suits for swimmers that give, one could say, an unfair technological advantage to people with the money to buy them as opposed to diving with just speedoes. And there is a difference between human power prosthetics and self-powered prosthetics that artificially recreate muscles. That's a pretty simple line. Artifical recreation of muscles allows one to make a stronger and faster prosthetic that will easily beat a human. A self-powered prosthetic that does not artificallly recreate the muscles in the foot can hardly provide an advantage.
By RossF18 at 12:04 AM ON 08/08/08
Until the steroid issues at the Olympics are truly resolved, the concern over double amputees competing is a bit premature at best and prejudiced at worst. The same issues have arisen with the new swim suits for swimmers that give, one could say, an unfair technological advantage to people with the money to buy them as opposed to diving with just speedoes. And there is a difference between human power prosthetics and self-powered prosthetics that artificially recreate muscles. That's a pretty simple line. Artifical recreation of muscles allows one to make a stronger and faster prosthetic that will easily beat a human. A self-powered prosthetic that does not artifically recreate the muscles in the foot can hardly provide an advantage.
By SFB at 1:32 AM ON 08/08/08
I feel obligated to point out the prejudicial language Mr. Pachal has used in this post. He has used phrases like "regular athletes," "the regular variety," and "normals" in contrast to disabled athletes. This implies clearly that he considers disabled athletes to be "irregular" and "abnormal." This language is dangerously inappropriate.
Further, Mr. Pachal used the phrase, "Pistorious will sooner or later be able to run faster than any human ever could." While I take it he meant that Pistorious will sooner or later be able to run faster than any "regular" (to use Mr. Pachal's own phrase) human ever could, this construction implies that Pistorious is not human at all.
I suspect that Mr. Pachal did not actually mean to imply that disabled athletes are irregular or abnormal, or that Mr. Pistorious is not human, but rather that he did not consider the implications of his words. Given his high-profile status as a writer, I'd suggest that if he elects to discuss sensitive subjects such as this, he'd do well to very carefully consider his words.
Words can be offensive and, indeed, damaging.
I'd like to encourage the editorial staff of DVICE to please take greater care in the future.
By Anon at 2:04 AM ON 08/08/08
You guys (commenters) are funny. Bashing the wording instead of the sense.
Think: you are not allowed to drink more than 5 cups of coffee not to "artificially enhance your performance". But you can replace your legs with metal that doesn't need energy, oxygen, doesn't tire and is not prone to unfixable injuries - and it can make you run faster, until the advantage becomes noticeable.
I am not against the impaired ones, but when you block one artificial enhancement and allow another, it makes for irony, really.
Oh, I'd like to encourage the editorial staff of DVICE to praise Mr. Pachal for the use of words that precisely describe what he meant and make reading of his post very easy. Thanks.
By Anon at 2:14 AM ON 08/08/08
Me again. Yeah, I forgot to mention that caffeine is off the banned list, but it made a good example.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/02/2322263.htm
Replace coffee with a weight loss pill, one gel application or anything remotely helpful and understandable by non-sportsmen and you still have a nice comparison of the difference on the performance people get using devices.
By Logic at 4:32 AM ON 08/08/08
Don't shoes count as technology? what about clothing?
By Attreides at 9:22 AM ON 08/08/08
Shoes and clothing are a necessary evil. You can race barefoot and naked.
The artificial limbs are replacing whole BODY PARTS and giving the user an edge over people with flesh and blood. His legs (calves, at least) won't cramp or his feet won't blister.
By Wildember at 9:43 AM ON 08/08/08
While I agree with the gist expressed by Mr. Pachal, his choice of words can easily be taken as a large bias. Blog forums are a medium for expression of ideas and it is not going to be perfect every time for everyone.
I doubt Mr. Pachal wanted to demean the hard work and accomplishments of athletes in the paralympics. What they have accomplished is more than what the majority of the "human" population is able or willing to do.
By being partially "enhanced" with self-powered prosthetic; a competitor in my opinion should no longer be allowed to compete in the same field as "un-enhanced" competitors. I believe this hold true for articles of clothing as well. For instance: The swimmers in today's Olympics are much more assisted by technology than Olympians of the past. Their accomplishments in the 2008 Olympics should really not be compared to records set 10, 20, 50 years ago because of the unfair advantage given by their suits.
Everyone is allowed to have an opinion. What is expressed in those opinions are then interpreted by the reader in their own way.
I agree with Mr. Pachal but I wish that he had chosen his word more carefully.
By Bratag at 10:46 AM ON 08/08/08
Once again, another Op-Ed piece and nothing to do with technology which is what this site is meant to be about. This will be my last comment and my last time reading dvice.
A couple of things. The prosthetic that is being used cannot put out more energy than goes in. Any suggestion that it allows some sort of "boost" is total rubbish. These are not springs - and even if they were would be unsuited to sprinting.
Secondly Mr Pistorius is just as prone to injury as any other athlete in fact more so as balancing on the artificial limbs is no easy task - let alone running on them.
Lastly the implication in the article that Mr Pistorius is one step away from a cyborg and not a "normal" human being is crass in the extreme. This is a person who has overcome something that most "regular" people will never even come close to having to deal with, and gone on to achieve things that 99% or "normal" people will never come close to being able to do.
Whilst I agree with Mt Pachal's right to have an opinion. This website is not his personal soap box (The title reads Tech Is Our Obsession, not Come listen to us spout off). In addition he writing shows a lack of maturity and sensitivity.
One reader lost.
By Onelegtwoshoes at 11:48 AM ON 08/08/08
I feel the writer as well as a lot of the readers are not amputees themselves. I am an amputee and have the same prosthetic set up as Pistorius but only on one leg.
Trust me, there is no advantage for an amputee over an able bodied athlete. The energy, strength, and determination needed to reach the level of Pistotius is hard to come by. You can tell that man is designed to run. He is an amazing athlete.
The thing is, there are a lot of amputees with these same prosthetic set ups, and yet, we dont hundreds of them competing against Pistorius, or even trying to get into the Olympics. Truth is, he is a great athlete and by strides better than any other Paralympic runner.
He deserved the chance to Qualify for the Olympics. If it truly gave him such an edge over able bodied athletes, how come he didn't qualify? How many able bodied athletes did qualify?
I feel this article was extremely offensive.
By Bio at 12:09 PM ON 08/08/08
I that the language will seem a bit pointed to some, but the over-all point seems sound.
I won't repeat anything that's been said already, but rather, take issue with some of the responses - one in particular made by Bratag.
First of all, this does have everything to do with how technology will effect society in the comming years.
Second, nobody said anything about this "boost" you conjured up. Nobody was talking about "springs" either; this makes me wonder if you even read the article. If you're referring to his use of the word "advantage" that simply refers to the fact that these limbs are designed to use the energy given to them far more efficiently in the task of running than biological human limbs, which have to multi-task.
I agree with the last substantial point, so I won't go further into that.
Bratag, while I think you're correct about the insensitive tone of the piece, I hardly think you're in the position to lecture anyone anyone on lack of maturity when you display a similar magnitude of intelligence. The majority of the post was at best, intellectually irresponsible, and at worst, totally ignorant.
By Traveler at 12:30 PM ON 08/08/08
Cyborgs should have full eauality!!!! The attacks against people like Pistorius are just sikening, it reminds me of the way black athletes were treated.
By Bratag at 1:23 PM ON 08/08/08
Bio exactly what about
"Obviously, if Pistorius wore huge pogo sticks on each leg or rocket boots, he would be disqualified. "
Does not infer that the author is equating the prosthetics in question with a boost?(Did YOU read the article?) It is beyond silly to even mention rocket boosts, so I used the term springs, since the legs themselves in some way resemble springs.
"...playing with the same rulebook: being human. Add machine into the mix, and you have a whole new ballgame."
This obviously suggests that Pistorius is something other than "human".
Finally taking task with your point that biological limbs have to multi-task. Thats true, however one of those tasks is running. And the human form has evolved to incorporate that task. Mr Pistorius meanwhile is placing massive pressure and stress on parts of his legs that were never designed to take those kinds of activity, he does not have the natural advantage of a, to use the authors words, "normal" humans shock absorbing and well balanced legs.
The overall point here is that the author obviously thinks these artificial limbs give the athlete some advantage and that is patently untrue. The fact that he managed to express his ignorance in an ignorant, callus way is simply an additional slap in the face to disabled , not only athletes, but people everywhere
By mj at 2:02 PM ON 08/08/08
I am impressed by the soundness in everyone's arguments. This is definitely a difficult issue to get to the bottom of.
I think it is important to remember that CASA heard arguments from scientists on both sides (who presumably are substantially better informed than any of us). Their ruling was that Oscar's prosthetics do not give an advantage.
Since that is the issue, and lawyers have duked it out in front of judges, who are we to second guess?
By the way, CASA also left the door open to re-examine the case if the prosthetic technology does improve. In all I thought the ruling was extremely appropriate. Has anyone else read it?
I too am an amputee athlete - to read the article I wrote after Oscar's green light in May go here:
http://meyrickjones.blogspot.com/2008/05/what-do-you-think-about-that-south.html
By mj at 2:03 PM ON 08/08/08
I am impressed by the soundness in everyone's arguments. This is definitely a difficult issue to get to the bottom of.
I think it is important to remember that CASA heard arguments from scientists on both sides (who presumably are substantially better informed than any of us). Their ruling was that Oscar's prosthetics do not give an advantage.
Since that is the issue, and lawyers have duked it out in front of judges, who are we to second guess?
By the way, CASA also left the door open to re-examine the case if the prosthetic technology does improve. In all I thought the ruling was extremely appropriate. Has anyone else read it?
I too am an amputee athlete - to read the article I wrote after Oscar's green light in May go here:
http://meyrickjones.blogspot.com/2008/05/what-do-you-think-about-that-south.html
By Tyryt at 3:38 PM ON 08/08/08
Some of you may want to re-read the article from a neutral point. The point wasn't about Pistorius specifically, except as an example (and doesn't say that his prothetics do or don't provide an advantage). What it does point out, is that allowing such things is opening a door that will be (near) impossible to be closed in the future.
Yes, 'technology' does improve over time every athelete's ability. However, where as any athelete can get a swim suit made from the same material (and while most swimmers are using the new razor, there are many that are not and don't believe it provides an advantage), do the same training routines, have the same diets, etc, it's not reasonable to expect fully-bodied athletes to go for body replacements for the advantage it gives.
Take another example, that being a heart. In the very near future we'll have fully functioning artificial harts able to be set to pump at whatever rate is needed. Would this be allowed? It only works 'as good' as a normal one. What about someone who has a bone cancer, so has an artificial blood/hemoglobin substitute? What about a one armed discus thrower whose throwing arm is a mechanical 'rig' designed to throw at the optimum speed and trajectory every time? What about the target shooter who has a similar rig for an arm, providing him with a steady aim?
The problem, is that prothetics offer a potential to have an advantage that can not be gained gained equally by every other athelete.
Now, in this specific example, what happens if he did get in and win? HE would always, always, always have that asterisk next to his name, his accomplishment would never be his own but would always come with the caveat that he had prosthetics. IE: He would never get the credit that a non-enhanced athelete would, justifiably or not. And you can bet that if he did win, every team that placed after him would be petitioning to have it overturned and his results thrown out.
All that being said, no, I don't think he should be allowed to compete in the olympics as they are today.
However, I do think there should either a secondary type competition, or an 'unrestricted' class where people are allowed to push themselves to the extreme using drugs, steroids, cybernetics, etc. I mean, who doesn't want to watch a swimmer with a genetic/surgical bio-waterjet (a la squids) compete against one with cybernetic legs with jet-ski jets in them; or a high-jumper with myomar-muscle replacement against a digitigrade-enhanced one?
By MJ at 9:41 PM ON 08/08/08
On the topic of doors that are (or are nearly) impossible to close why should this be the only one that gets slammed outright?
If you take the example of drugs for instance... Many thousands of drugs are legal within Olympic rules (and don't they all claim to make you feel better and function better?) And then there is a growing list that is not allowed (essentially because they work too well at making you function better.)
The same could easily be argued (as I am doing now) for prosthetics. Ones that make you function better could be allowed but ones that turn you into a super-human (like the littany of examples you gave) could quite reasonably be ruled 'illegal'. IN FACT, 100% of the things you listed would be instantly ruled illegal under current rules (whether attached to a prosthesis or not because as you pointed out they can be proven to be advantageous.)
It works that way for:
-equipment (i.e. bikes, javelins etc. need to be a certain weight and shape etc.)
-drugs (as indicated above)
I 100% agree that prostheses can be an advantage already in many scenarios (e.g. you wouldn't want to compete against me in walking over hot coals.)
The crux of the matter however, is whether prostheses (Oscar's in this case) provide an advantage over natural parts in the sport at hand. Scientists tried to prove it and failed - for now... if they couldn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt it isn't particularly fair to take the man's right to compete away.
Imagine if they did the same for a cold remedy.... "We feel Sniffle FX is a real advantage... just look at this dude - he has a terrible cold but yet he can run like crazy. We can't prove it but could you please ban him?"
By R-U-KIDDING-ME? at 3:15 PM ON 08/09/08
As an outsider to DVICE i stumbled upon this article and felt the urge, nay the obligation to comment. I know nothing about nuclear physics and thus would not comment on that...why would Peter Pachal comment on human physiology - cause that's what you did mate, knowingly or not. It is clear that you have little knowledge or understanding of the complex anatomy or function of the lower legs and you might want to call in expert consultation before publishing. As a tech fundi, i'm sure Peter that you know that the first pc had an internal memory of 256 kB.....can you even comprehend that pc's today can store tetrabytes....it's mindblowing. Oscar Pistorius has no lower legs and yet he can stand up straight, no wait, he can walk, no wait HE CAN FREAKING RUN....LIKE THE WIND...HE HAS NO LEGS!!! You are too close to the light. Peter you seem to trivialize that fact, kinda like you naively think that anyone can loose both lower legs, slip on a pair of cheetah flex blades and run like an olympian. Someone commented that he has no calf muscles that need oxygen....those keep you upright Einstein. Try to balance 60kg on two pieces of hitech carbon fiber and you will learn the meaning of high center of gravity - yeah top heavy. Oscar needs to use other muscles to keep him balanced upright, like the Quadriceps Femoris. Able bodied athletes use the Quads to power them forward - Oscar needs to use them ADDITIONALLY to balance himself. His Femur ADDITIONALLY performs the function of his tibia and fibula, dealing with hugh amounts of energy and stress. He cant feel anything, cant control anything and has no feedback from what happens below his knees. The bottom line is that Oscar Pistorius is an amazing human Peter, HUMAN, and has courage the you cant even begin to comprehend. The fact that he can competitivly compete with able bodies athletes is mindblowing and triumph of HUMAN courage and spirit over adversity and has nothing to do with carbon fiber. Peter your article is mind numbingly ignorant and arrogant and the fact that you, and anyone that is of similar opinion think that you can strap on carbon fiber like you strap on shoes and go out for a run are clearly derranged. Your article implies that any olympic sprinter can loose both lower legs, strap on cheetah flex blades and be competitive again.....ENHANCED?.....R U KIDDING ME?
By MJ at 2:01 AM ON 08/10/08
As true as I find all the things you said in your comment R-U Kidding Me, I can see the point that some of these others are trying to make.
The point that, yes, at some point it is conceivable that a prosthetic could provide an advantage. The problem with this argument is that there are any number of things that "could" provide an advantage as technology develops and so, reasonably, standards and rules have been applied to ensure fairness in things like equipment.
Shoes could be built with wheels on the bottom and people could start rollerblading in the marathon. Javelins could be built with miniature rockets in the back... and any other ridiculous crap like one of the other commenters listed.
Of course, sports governing bodies are not stupid and have considered these types of possibilities. They have come up with rules and equipment standards for these things. No standards were ever set for prosthetics (probably because nobody thought it would ever need to be studied until now.)
The obvious answer is to agree on a set of standards for prosthetics, develop tests to ensure compliance, perform them on all prostheses and then let athletes like Oscar give it their all. It won't be required often because there aren't many (any) Oscars out there...
Kind of simple.
By Thundr at 8:51 AM ON 08/10/08
Man o Man Pete did you open a can of political correct worms here! What most of the posters failed to see in their intellectual highbrowness is the tongue in cheekness of your article. All the references to sci-fi terms. All the posters need to get over themselves. I have seen firsthand the stupidity of the Americans with Dissabilitys Act. Since were on an athletics story I have some insights here. I have worked on constructing several well known gyms that the ADA has gone wild on, a couple of examples here.
A wheelchair ramp to an elevated platform for the treadmills. A special lift into a pool for the disabled. Special shower stalls, the list goes on and on costing the owners tens of thousand of dollars to "Comply". And to top it off I asked all of the owners "How many wheelchair bound or severly disabled do you have as clients?" The answer was none. Some of the owners have been in the business for 20 years. You all need to get over yourselves. Picking apart the wording of the article while missing the point is stupid. You disabled are so touchy, you have a disablity get over it and the anger and get on with your life. He's simply stating once you let the Genie out of the bottle it will hard for us to put him back!
By MJ at 2:21 AM ON 08/11/08
ha ha ha. Wow. That is SO surprising that they have no disabled clients, especially considering they have no equipment to make the gym usable for them... baffling.
Maybe there actually aren't any disabled Americans and the ADA was all for nothing? After all, according to your official poll of bitching, cheap gym owners that hate to spend money to provide an accessible facility, there are actually no disabled folks out there!
But wait! I thought I heard about a few thousand disabled vets coming back from Iraq/Afghanistan etc? Hmmmm, maybe there are a few.... Those injured veterans... they'll figure out a way to get in and out of the pool - just takes determination right! Hoo-Ah!
You're right THUNDR, we all got a bit to "intellectually highbrow" - fortunately, your comment brought the "intellectual highbrow-ness" factor back down to 0.
We've all been THUNDR-struck.
By Aramax at 2:29 AM ON 08/11/08
How can anyone tell if athletes have been genetically enhanced? There could be cyborgs or genetically enhanced athletes competing at the olympics right now. Are they even running tests to see if there's any?
What if there was a mutant with natural webbed hands and feet... would you prevent him from competing?
It's good to know that Oscar Pistorius' prosthetics legs are just J-shaped carbon-fibre prosthetics ( Also called blades ) that has nothing electrical inside and that all the current competing athletes have springs inside their footwear.
If they want to prevent people like Oscar Pistorius to compete then they shold at least remove their shoes when they compete as a sign of respect.
By Tincatt at 3:00 PM ON 08/12/08
The Olympics are just plain stupid and should be done away with anyway. That would resolve that issue.
By Ryan at 2:34 AM ON 08/14/08
This is absolutely, positively BS and offensive. If Oscar's "cyborg" abilities were so damn overpowering and unfair, why is he the first amputee to ever even get close to competing in the able-bodied Olympics.
I think that Yoa Ming shouldn't be able to complete in the NBA or Olympics, because for reasons out of his control, he ended up being 7'6". That's clearly an unfair advantage and, if he were only 5'8" he could never be in the NBA.
That's really the same logic.
The fact of the matter is Oscar lost his freaking legs. He'd be the only person with his disability to ever compete in the Summer Olympics, if he could manage to win a spot on it. His "advantage" is clearly nonexistent, or there'd be a lot more Oscars out there. He's just an incredible runner and an incredible athlete. This article is incredibly offensive and just plain old wrong.
By hydrohead at 4:58 AM ON 08/14/08
I am not even a sports fan, but was there not an extremely short black guy in the NBA at one point?
By raymondjram at 6:37 AM ON 08/14/08
If an amputee uses passive limb replacements, where the athlete must use his/her own energy, then I would allow it. No "active" or "boost" parts allowed (springs, electrics or hydraulics). Like someone posted before, shoes and clothing can help improve the runners and swimmers, but they are passive devices. So this poor Oscar should be allowed. But his limbs must pass inspection every time he uses them.
By moviedemon at 8:56 AM ON 08/14/08
Not to fan any more flames, but Pistorius has a couple of "advantages" (if you wanted to call them that) that no one has mentioned yet. He doesn't have the weight of the lower legs to move (the carbon fiber prosthetics are considerably lighter) and his heart has significantly less blood to pump through his body. Of course his disadvantages considerably outweigh these factors - on the other hand the full effects of these things are so hard to quantify that neither side would ever be able to agree on the fairness of allowing him to compete among fully abled athletes.
By MGMANN at 9:17 AM ON 08/14/08
Just as the Olympic Committees and sports regulators of different names have had to deal with other forms of enhancement, judging some as acceptable for competition and others for not being allowable, they will necessarily become educated on the finer points of prosthesis. I believe they have largely come to grips with natural mutations, many artificial enhancements, passive and otherwise, by judging each against the effect on competition, the comparability of the enhanced competitor, the effects on the athlete and even the perceived purpose of the event at hand.
Whether or not a person is deemed to be comparable enough, for any given competition to be meaningful, should not in any way detract from the wonder and beauty of the level and sophistication of these adaptions created for those who have lost the body parts they were born (or not born) with. I celebrate the fact that we are debating this! How amazing!!! May we someday have to grapple with whether an athlete who has had both lungs and a heart replaced can compete, because our technology has become so good as to allow them to chase a dream beyond living another day or year!!!! Projecting out, we may end up facing, in the future, the darker flip side of the coin here - will athletes CHOOSE to remove naturally developed limbs (or bone or muscle fibers) in favor of man-made? If an athlete is willing to pump body-harming chemicals into his or herself in order to attain the medal, or the record.... where is THAT line? You may say, who would want to do that? But who wants the effects of massive doses of steroids, in the long run, either?
While I have some measure of faith that our human race will figure out how to moderate that extreme, if you think on it, we are on the cusp of a new era in biotech engineering that will have us all blinking our eyes in wonder and causing many many more considerations and debates on the topic of integration! Will the man with the bionic eye, which sees farther, get the job that values eyesight over the man with the eye he was born with???? Will he be paid more because he can perform the task “better”? Run with that one!
Finally, as the spouse of a double amputee (legs), please accept my position that based on experience with my guy, he would be at ease with words as were used in the article and is definitely offended by over-the-top attempts at "sensitivity" to his “condition.” The human language has not, effectively, evolved to take into consideration the needs our society seems to have developed for "appropriate sensitivity" or "political correctness” without often coming off as patronizing. Writing an article on this kind of topic is to invite criticism in language choices and is a virtual mine-field for the author and editor. Despite any "interpretation" of words, his article felt respectful and lacked any insensitivity in my opinion. Instead it was informational, inspiring and thought provoking.
By Jered at 1:35 PM ON 08/14/08
For those posters who say he can't have an advantage since his prosthetics aren't "powered," you apparently failed physics class.
The cheetahs work through leverage and stored potential energy in the carbon fiber structure. What this means is, like a fulcrum, the cheetahs take less energy for more output. It says so right on their website. And they're working to make it even more efficient.
From their site:
"Vertical forces generated at heel contact are stored and translated into a linear motion described as Active Tibial Progression, from the foot-flat to toe-off phase. This action reduces the need to actively push the body forward using the contralateral foot as well as equalizing stride length. The foot's unique design and technology produces all movement; there are no mechanical joints."
And there's a lot more on their site about shock absorption, spring action, etc.
No Olympics for anyone using these, sorry. Without the advantage that the cheetahs provide, Oscar wouldn't even be in Olympic contention. He'd at best be a good sprinter, but not Olympic class.
The cyber-games sound good for this kind of stuff.
By Tev at 2:50 PM ON 08/14/08
The simple fact is that even if the Cheetahs don't make him faster than an able bodied person, sooner or later something will.
When it does we have another issue - will someone be allowed to compete if they CHOOSE to remove a body part and replace it with technology? Comparing a shoe or a suit to a replaced body part is illogical at best but it brings to mind a good reason to have the Olympics the old way - nothing at all except the human being.
It really seems people want to be offended these days. The author meant nothing like many have taken it. What if they made a Cheetah for sprinting, a Kangaroo for high jump, a Fin for swimming... Should he be allowed to change them out based on what sport he is competing in? I think this is the real reasoning and nothing descriminatory. Comparing it to not allowing black athletes to compete... shame on you.
By MJ at 3:18 PM ON 08/14/08
Equipment is equipment.... I don't think it is too fair to say that a swimsuit, shoe, or prosthetic should be treated differently than anything else. The gist is that it can't provide an unfair advantage.
As far as comparing it to racial discrimination.... disabled folk get discriminated against in exactly the same way all the time. It isn't that different. I don't think anyone should feel too much shame for comparing the two (especially when the logic is just as questionable at times from some commenters.)
On proving an advantage: Don't you think the scientists that tried to prove he had an advantage went to the website JERED? I suspect they did that, as well as anything else they could think of to try to prove an advantage. And surely, as SCIENTISTS, they didn't fail "physics class".
Nevertheless they failed to prove an advantage.
Perhaps, since it is obvious to you, and you apparently did not fail physics class, you can be of assistance to the IAAF's scientists.
You also say, "Without the advantage the cheetahs provide, Oscar wouldn't even be in Olympic contention. He'd at best be a good sprinter, but not Olympic class."
I assume you mean if he was forced to run with lesser prostheses....
1. The "advantage" you refer to over "normal legs" has not been proven. Ever.
2. If you forced any of the sprinters to run with lesser equipment i.e. Converse Chuck Taylors or Vans instead of track spikes. Or, Rocky Balboa sweats instead of skintight lycra, they'd all be just, "good sprinters not Olympic class".
You fail to prove why Oscar's legs should be treated differently. I suspect you'll say "because he is the only one able to use them whereas they can all put on spikes and lycra."
Two things about that:
1. There are others using the same equipment as Oscar, just not as well known so you've never heard of them.
2. If you think the prostheses should be banned because they can only be used by a select few, then what about athletes with rare medication needs (like diabetics, let's say.) Clearly, without insulin they'd be "good sprinters" at best, (dead at worst), but not everyone gets to use insulin. Obviously, diabetes (and therefore insulin) is not an advantage, but something used to overcome a disease. Kind of like Oscar's legs are used to overcome a disability.
If you want to ban athletes using this equipment you should focus on proving that it is an advantage over sprinters with natural "normal" legs. Put that "pass" you got in Physics class to work.... it isn't as easy as saying, "well it could be one day."
By Nathan at 10:09 PM ON 08/15/08
It is amazing that while nearly all athletes use technology to train and improve their performance, when it comes to another using technology to actually have the ability just to compete, people start getting frightened (or is that prejudice...same thing anyway). The fact he didn't qualify should be a clear example of how his blades do not give him an advantage. Whatever next athletes that are black have a more conducive bone and muscle structure or perhaps others using steroids!