Prosthetic-Limbed Runner Disqualified from Olympic Games 509
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."
good, no precedent (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I never thought I'd see the day ... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Wait a minute... (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess I won't be needing these anymore.
Re:I never thought I'd see the day ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:good, no precedent (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Spring instead of 'feet' (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
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
Re:I never thought I'd see the day ... (Score:2, Insightful)
While I thing it's wrong that he is being told he can't compete, the legs he uses to run are not normal "walking legs" that amputees normally have. Wired had a great article about him last spring http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.03/blade_pr.html [wired.com] and I think I remember it saying that his running legs are not easy to walk on. He has two sets: one for "about the town" as it were and one for sprinting. He *could* run with his walking legs, but his running legs do give him more power.
I for one think he had to overcome far more *not having legs* in order to run and any advantage he has because of these legs is offset by that. However, it's hard to tell where you draw the line with these things, which is unfortunate.
So... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I never thought I'd see the day ... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
They Should Compete Naked Again (Score:2, Insightful)
FWIW, how long will it be until the special olympics where people can use prosthetics surpasses the regular ones? Hat tip to GitS: SAC [wikipedia.org] (Official Site [ghostintheshell.tv]).
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?
Re:Pure bullshit (Score:1, Insightful)
Sorry, but I call bullshit on you sir.
The Problem with Sports (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm a distance runner. I love to run and I'm pretty fast. I also like to compete. The problem comes when you start having to decide what "fair" means. Is it fair for this guy not to be able to compete? Is it fair to give him an advantage in one aspect of biomechanics since he's at a disadvantage in others?
Sports in many ways are doomed. Nothing's fair - environmental and genetic factors outside of one's control determine so much. For me, I run because it makes me feel good. I compete as a means to beating my own previous best. It's a romantic thought that sports are somehow fair and that winning comes solely from dedication and drive, but it's far from reality.
I have no idea if this guy should be allowed to compete. It doesn't sound like he's fast enough to change the final placings. In the end, the most important aspect of him trying to race is that his case will help decide the fate of a number of other runners with different, but similar, stories. I, for one, just hope he keeps competing for himself and doesn't let this rejection sour him on running altogether. In the end, everyone gets slow...I like to think I'll enjoy competing in some sort of sports for the rest of my life.
Re:And that logic is asinine (Score:3, Insightful)
So is everyone else competing. They're wearing shoes.
Harrison Bergeron anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just wait for those 211th, 212th, and 213th amendments to the constitution and the US Handicapper General...
Re:Liberal use of a clue stick is indicated... (Score:3, Insightful)
Thank you for posting that. I've been an amputee for five years now (today is the fifth anniversary of the motorcycle accident that cost me my left leg below the knee). I have a kick ass foot [freedom-innovations.com] now, the third one that I've had and I joke that this is the second best leg I've ever had, but it's nowhere near as good as the best one I've ever had, which is to say the one that I was born with.
Oscar Pistorius does not have an unfair advantage because of his prosthetics, that's sheer bullshit, he doesn't have any muscles below his knees to help him run and regardless of how good the technology is it does not make up for the fact that the best that his prosthetics can do is passively return energy. Any ignorant two-legged fuckers out there who need an example of this? OK, stand on your toes. You have enough muscle below your knees (unless you're some disgusting fat bastard) to support your entire body weight and lift it up over and over and over again throughout the day as you walk or if you run. Oscar Pistorius doesn't have those muscles. Need another example? Walk up a flight of stairs without flexing your feet. Keep the soles of your feet flat and use nothing but your knees and hip muscles to lift your legs up. Notice how quickly you get tired? Yeah, those calf muscles are pretty fucking sweet aren't they, so's an ankle. Despite what /. reading morons and the tards at the IOC might think these are not bionics. Using them takes a lot of energy and a lot of will power and while progress has been made they're nowhere near as good as the real thing, if they were then making the decision to have your leg cut off would be a lot fucking easier than it is.
Re:I never thought I'd see the day ... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it's high time we invent rocket legs for the handicapped. Do the 100m dash at Mach
Re:Liberal use of a clue stick is indicated... (Score:5, Insightful)
When a regular foot hits the floor when running, almost all the energy is lost when it impacts the floor. There is almost no elasticity in the lower leg. This means when making the next stride, almost all the energy needed to maintain speed comes from muscles.
When this carbon limb hits the ground, it flexes, storing some of the force rather than transferring it to the ground. When the next stride is made the carbon limb will want to relieve it's tension and will provide a force that will assist the muscles
Re:Liberal use of a clue stick is indicated... (Score:2, Insightful)
I would have no objection as long as he had to keep his running limbs on at all times just like a naturally footed person does.
Re:Liberal use of a clue stick is indicated... (Score:4, Insightful)
In a 100M dash, that might be irrelevant. In a 400m dash such as the one this fellow raced in, or even longer, energy conservation plays a big role in how much energy you have to "push" at the end of a race. That is why he is deemed to have an advantage.
That's debatable, and your input is really awesome (and varied knowledge like this is why I love slashdot), but I think you missed the reason for the determination here. No one was insinuating this guy was wearing legs that would let him leap tall buildings or anything, or run hyper fast. Just that he would have more energy at the end of the race than a fully legged competitor.