Slashdot Log In
Prosthetic-Limbed Runner Disqualified from Olympic Games
Posted by
Zonk
on Thu Jan 17, 2008 06:21 PM
from the street-sams-are-right-around-the-corner dept.
from the street-sams-are-right-around-the-corner dept.
contraba55 wrote with a link to an Engadget story on a sign of the postmodern times. Oscar Pistorius, a world-class sprinter, has been denied a shot at participating in the Olympics this year. He's a double-amputee, but he's not out because of his handicap; he's disqualified because he's faster than most sprinters. "The runner — who uses carbon-fiber, prosthetic feet — was reviewed by the International Association of Athletics Federations (or IAAF), a review which found the combination of man and machine to be too much for its purely human competitors. According to the IAAF report, the 'mechanical advantage of the blade in relation to the healthy ankle joint of an able bodied athlete is higher than 30-percent.' Additionally, Pistorius uses 25-percent less energy than average runners due to the artificial limbs, therefore giving him an unfair advantage on the track."
Related Stories
[+]
Science: Bluetooth Prosthetics Help US Marine To Walk Again 127 comments
Like2Byte writes "CNN is reporting that a US Marine who lost both his legs in Iraq is now able to walk again by using bluetooth technology to coordinate his leg movement. The two legs communicate to keep the man in motion. ' [...] Computer chips in each leg send signals to motors in the artificial joints so the knees and ankles move in a coordinated fashion. Bleill's set of prosthetics [legs] have Bluetooth receivers strapped to the ankle area. The Bluetooth device on each leg tells the other leg what it's doing, how it's moving, whether walking, standing or climbing steps, for example.'"
[+]
Science: Amputee Sprinter Wins Olympic Appeal to Compete 366 comments
Dr. Eggman writes "Oscar Pistorius, a 21-year-old South African double-amputee sprinter, has won his appeal filed with the Court of Arbitration for Sport. This overturns a ban imposed by the International Association of Athletics Federations, and allows Mr. Pistorius the chance to compete against other able-bodied athletes for a chance at a place on the South African team for the Beijing Olympics. He currently holds the 400-meter Paralympic world sprinting record, but must improve on his time by 1.01 seconds to meet the Olympic qualification standard. However, even if Pistorius fails to get the qualifying time, South African selectors could add Oscar to the Olympic 1,600-meter relay squad."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
man... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:man... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:man... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:man... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Headline not accurate. (Surprise!) (Score:5, Funny)
It's still possible for the runner to compete, so long as he does not use equipment that gives him an unfair advantage.
Spring instead of 'feet' (Score:5, Interesting)
Get over it. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Get over it. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Not faster... more efficient (Score:5, Informative)
The only real surprise is that he hadn't worked this out and competed at the 800m, 1500m or even the 5,000m as that efficiency would really pay off.
Its an artificial aid in the same was a drugs are or riding a bike would be. Its unfortunate for the chap but its the right decision, otherwise you might as well let Marion Jones back in with a terminator suit and a jet-pack.
AS USUAL (Score:5, Informative)
He's not out because he's "too fast"
He's out because his specific prosthetic lower legs and feet have less wind resistance than normal legs, return WAY more energy per stride than normal legs, and offer him what amounts to a competitive advantage over other runners.
If he wants to compete, he's free to do so, just not with those specific prosthesis.
He can submit others to the Committee for acceptance all day long.
This is no different than the way the olympic committee judges the use of certain swimsuits, softball bats, or any other equipment in use during the Olympics.
Life imitates art. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I never thought I'd see the day ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I never thought I'd see the day ... (Score:5, Interesting)
I can see why he'd be disqualified, although it must be sad for him. Surely he must have realised the chances were slim though, those things are far too good.
Parent
Re:I never thought I'd see the day ... (Score:5, Insightful)
People are not allowed to use technical assistance in competitions. You wouldn't let someone run the 100 meters with shoes with wheels and a gasoline engine, would you?
While the limbs this fellow is using are not as good as gasoline engines, they are still apparently better than natural limbs - an advantage other athletes can not overcome without amputating their legs.
It's the same logic used in regards to banning steroids - you shouldn't have to destroy your body to have a chance at winning.
Parent
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
He then bounded over the table and out the door at 40mph.
Parent
Re:In other news... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:I never thought I'd see the day ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that this guy has been able to overcome such a tremendous disadvantage so effectively, but in the end it would unfortunately be both unfair and set a bad precedent to allow him to compete. Now, if he wants to handicap (oh the irony) himself by adding weight (?) to his artificial limbs and such to make them more closely approximate the mechanical characteristics of natural limbs, then I think it'd be fair game
Parent
Re:I never thought I'd see the day ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Using a mechanical device that provides an advantage over natural body parts is in fact cheating. The Olympics are not about what can be done by machines, it's about achieving the limits of the human body. When machines are involved, e.g. bicycling, they're a separate event unto themselves. We have devices that could hurl a discus farther than any human possibly could. But that's not what the Discus Throw is about, now is it?
Not that it really matters to the fundamental argument, but really, he does -not- need these particular legs to live a close to normal life. These are legs specifically designed for sprinting, not to let him walk around. He has other legs for that.
a chess tournament that banned players with hearing aids (seriously, WTF?)
I don't know anything about it, but I would wager that it's more about the fear that the hearing aid is actually a wireless speaker and they are receiving coaching. It is presumably a one-on-one chess tournament, and just like using mechanical devices in a foot race is cheating, so is using extra brains.
Though the policy is probably stupid, I'm sure there's a better way to ensure nobody gets remote coaching.
I'm not sure I like this trend of accusing anyone who has artificial replacements for body parts that don't work right of doing something naughty.
He isn't being accused of doing something "naughty". He isn't "accused" of anything. It's just a matter of fact assessment that his synthetic legs provide a mechanical advantage over human limbs, and that this is not what the Olympics are about.
"Naughty" would be if he were trying to somehow hide the fact that he was using performance-enhancing limbs, like athletes lie about using performance enhancing drugs. Maybe if cybernetics become more advanced, this will become an actual issue. In this case though he approached them openly and they said "um, no." It's not a value judgment of his character.
Personally I think this guy and his limbs are pretty awesome. But I also think that a competition about human performance should be about human performance.
Parent
Re:I never thought I'd see the day ... (Score:5, Insightful)
In sharpshooting competitions (which I've been in), you're allowed to compete even if you wear corrective lenses (I'm also a four-eyed "handicapable" person). This is largely because glasses and contacts provide vision that falls well within the range of the average human eye. No distinct advantage is provided by glasses (or contacts) other than allowing the myopic to see roughly as well as their peers can. Vision isn't the only deciding factor in who wins, but it's significant.
Lasig and other forms of eye surgery are now capable of providing vision (in some) that starts to reach into the upper ranges of human vision. This has caused some minor controversy in the sport, but most are not too concerned since it's a common procedure and can still easily be matched by anyone with pretty good vision.
Now what would happen if you took someone who had been blind, but given an operation that restored his sight? It would be uplifting to see such a person compete in a sport they had been previously incapable of competing in. Now what if that same operation involved bionic implants, no matter how simple or complicated, that gave him visual acuity that the very best "naturals" couldn't honestly beat? Even if his advantage was relatively minor, even if his story was so inspiring it made everyone want to cry, the ultimate outcome is that any specific competition he was a part of would be damaged due to one player having a distinctly unfair advantage, little different from allowing someone to use a scope (when others are not).
The Olympics is politically charged, utterly serious, and is full of athletes who devote a significant portion of their lifespan towards training for the opportunity to win. If the rules are all obeyed, they are guaranteed that no competitor will be physically superior to them except by the virtue of better genes or even more intense training. The day someone with a distinct man-made advantage enters the field, the nature of the game changes entirely - the basic measure of fairness is lost.
I'm always proud to see someone with a damaged body overcome their limitations (you know he didn't learn to run on those things overnight), and it's always invigorating to see technology find replacements that, even if limited in scope, surpass nature. But I don't believe that it serves the best interests of the Olympic Games to allow someone with a clear unnatural advantage to compete, no matter if it's their fault or not. Would it be a future track star's fault if his parents had chosen to have him genetically engineered to be a super-human runner?
Parent
Re:I never thought I'd see the day ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:I never thought I'd see the day ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I never thought I'd see the day ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just looking at them, it's debatable as to whether or not its an advantage, but assuming the science was done correctly, a large mechanical advantage over an unmodified human should be grounds for disqualification from events that only feature unmodified humans. That's just math.
Parent
Re:good, no precedent (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:good, no precedent (Score:5, Funny)
How about a pay per view televised event where they amputated your legs with a sledge hammer? It would take many swings, but I'm sure 80's celebrity Gallagher could do it with a live audience protected from flying knee meat by a plastic bib.
Certainly that would fetch $20 million.
Parent
Paralympics (Score:5, Informative)
He could however compete in the Paralympics which are geared towards physical disabilities such as amputees or blind people. They are held in the same year and same city as the regular olympics. The one catch with the paralympics is that because there are so many classifications disabilities they have to rotate through which type gets to compete each year. Think: you couldn't very well have someone missing a leg and a half swimming against someone only missing a foot. I can't remember exactly how many classifications of amputees there are but I think there are enough that an athlete might only get to compete in one Paralympics that falls into their particular condition.
Parent