Oscar Pistorius

[BroDeal]

That's BS. He qualified for the semis as everyone else did. So he's not good enough to get through to the final - only eight guys are.

He qualified using a huge advantage. Put me on a motorcycle and I would qualify also.

The "science" that he used to assert that his springs were not an advantage was utterly bogus and should have been laughed out of court. The Science of Sport blog has a damning analysis.

The only thing that is preventing this guy from winning is that naturally he is crappy runner.

 

[Rockets160]

I've been trying to find the article on Yahoo I saw a while back regarding how fast Usain Bolt runs. From what I can remember, it stated the difference between elite sprinters and normal people was the DISTANCE each stride covered versus the SPEED of their legs. The study showed most people are capable of the same leg speed as an elite sprinter, but can not match the distance covered per stride. I can not remember any specifics as far as Bolts distance versus normal people but I figured I'd throw it in the conversation as well.
For the record, if the blades enble him to stride FARTHER, I'd say it was an advantage and he should not have been allowed to participate. But judging from the results, there was absolutely no advantage gained. He finished with the 23rd fastest time of 24 participants. I see no advantage.

 

[Franklin]

There have already been precedents. One example is a golfer that sued to compete in golf even though he had to ride carts instead of walk like the other golfers.

I'd say the walking isn't a fundamental part in golf. Same for gunmen. If a gunmen has no legs he sure should be able to compete.

The swimmer without a foot is a complete red herring, as she simply has lost a propellant, which she didn't replace with a flipper.

Oscar is a different kettle of fish though as the key point is very different. The fact that his start and cornering is slower and his straights are faster show that it's fundamentally different than "normal" running.

I would love to see it be possible to have him compete fairly but in this case it's simply to different.

 

[twothirds]

I've been trying to find the article on Yahoo I saw a while back regarding how fast Usain Bolt runs. From what I can remember, it stated the difference between elite sprinters and normal people was the DISTANCE each stride covered versus the SPEED of their legs. The study showed most people are capable of the same leg speed as an elite sprinter, but can not match the distance covered per stride. I can not remember any specifics as far as Bolts distance versus normal people but I figured I'd throw it in the conversation as well.
For the record, if the blades enble him to stride FARTHER, I'd say it was an advantage and he should not have been allowed to participate. But judging from the results, there was absolutely no advantage gained. He finished with the 23rd fastest time of 24 participants. I see no advantage.

You are partially correct. Amongst "anatomically typical" humans, the distance covered each stride is what separates elite sprinters from average joes. This is because there are three things in a typical human that determine speed: stride length/distance covered, ground force, and turnover rate/cadence. It's been researched and determined that turnover speed or cadence is almost identical in Elite sprinters and Average humans. This is due to the fact that the body has to decelerate the leg, then re-accellerate the leg at either end of each stride. This leaves ground force and stride length as the only things that separate the elite's from the average. These are related to each other. Hit the ground harder and you travel farther everytime you hit the ground. So it's really ground force that largely determines your speed.

Where Oscar differs from those with intact lower limbs is that each of his prosthetics weigh about 3kg less than the typical lower leg. This means that it takes less energy to swing his prosthetics as he runs, as well as allows him to accelerate and decellerate his prosthetics much quicker than a full legged runner. This translates into insanely fast stride turnover. Oscar's advantage here is that he can exploit and manipulate to any degree that he wants, a physical constant for other runners.

 

[noddy69]

Let him run. The legs preform well, but to say he gets an unfair advantage is a bit silly. He has no legs..his body needs to adapt to the prosthetic ones,its harder for him,any so called advantage is nullified by the fact its not part of his body.... to suggest he has an advantage is like comparing him to the british cycling team and their equipment and he doesnt have anywhere near there advantage now does he.

 

[Panda Claws]

Oscar Pistorius can keep doing whatever he does as long as he doesn't win.


BUT

If he were to be very bad, then people would start questioning his place there.

Should he win though, then people would immediately complain about mechanical doping and start questioning his place there.


Even now, people are questioning his place there. He can never win.

 

[Franklin]

Oscar Pistorius can keep doing whatever he does as long as he doesn't win..

Which is a good reason why he shouldn't be allowed to compete.

 

[BroDeal]

But judging from the results, there was absolutely no advantage gained. He finished with the 23rd fastest time of 24 participants. I see no advantage.

Just because he sucks does not mean he has no advantage. With normal legs he would do even worse.

 

[spalco]

Just because he sucks does not mean he has no advantage. With normal legs he would do even worse.

No way of knowing that.

 

[Rockets160]

I'd say the walking isn't a fundamental part in golf. Same for gunmen. If a gunmen has no legs he sure should be able to compete.

The swimmer without a foot is a complete red herring, as she simply has lost a propellant, which she didn't replace with a flipper.

Oscar is a different kettle of fish though as the key point is very different. The fact that his start and cornering is slower and his straights are faster show that it's fundamentally different than "normal" running.

I would love to see it be possible to have him compete fairly but in this case it's simply to different.

I'm going out on a limb here and going to say that apparantly you've never walked a round of 18, have you? It's anywhere between 3-7 miles. Try carrying a bag that weighs about 30 pounds on your shoulder for 4 miles and then tell me your legs have nothing to do with the golf swing. The hips and legs generate the power for the swing. Walk 4 miles with a 30 pound bag and your swing will not be as good as when you ride. Unless you drink beer while playing, then it doesn't really make a difference. The beer to miles walked relationship is about the same-one beer for two holes= 1mile walked.
Why the golfer hate?

 

[twothirds]

He can win. A large reason to why there this issue is being thrown about is the lack of transparency in his camp in even allowing the ability to determine if he's at an advantage, and if there is/isn't, to what degree. He's submitted dodgy research/manipulated findings in his favour, as well as impeded and blocked the submission of research by anyone outside of his camp through legal means.

To get rid of the questions you have to figure out his advantages and disadvantages. Then you seek to equal these out as much as you can to normal human parameters, such as the swing time/turnover rate . Obviously some things will be highly individualized, as his unique situation warrants tailoring these things specifically for what he's up against and what he can bring to the competition.

To move away from the physical and pose this in a physiological manner, what if an athlete who wants to compete was born with a condition that only allows him to naturally achieve a 20% hematocrit. Do you allow this athlete to take EPO to make him competitive, and if yes, then how much is an acceptable hematocrit? Or if an athlete had Pistorius' condition and wanted to compete in the High Jump? How do you tune these - http://www.skyrunneraustralia.com.au/ , to make an acceptable Prosthetic without offering a competitive advantage?

 

[spalco]

One thing that bothers me about Pistorius though is him competing in both the regular Olympics and the Paralympics. I think he should have to choose one or the other.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

One thing that bothers me about Pistorius though is him competing in both the regular Olympics and the Paralympics. I think he should have to choose one or the other.

He's doing both? Wow, what a joke. Might as well let Bolt run the 100 and 200 in the Paralympics then.

 

[Franklin]

I'm going out on a limb here and going to say that apparantly you've never walked a round of 18, have you?

First of: I assume that was unintentional? The best puns are unintentional

I did a few times I suck at golf though, so I prob walked more than others.

Try carrying a bag that weighs about 30 pounds on your shoulder for 4 miles and then tell me your legs have nothing to do with the golf swing. The hips and legs generate the power for the swing. Walk 4 miles with a 30 pound bag and your swing will not be as good as when you ride.

They have caddies

Sorry, walking 5-7 miles is hardly strenuous. I could just as easy maintain it helps your swing due to the low intensity helping calm the stress.

Being drive around doesn't fundamentally change the sport. Using springs does change it... as someone said it's okay as long as he doesn't win. That in itself shows it's wrong.

And I'm not hating Golf players at all! Deep respect and I love to play (bit expensive though as a non-member).

 

[Paco_P]

I don't see what the mockery is. If he's quick enough to compete, let him run. It's not like he's using a an electric wheelchair or something.

He should be made to run in a separate race, the same way those using mechanical wheelchairs are made to race separately in 10Ks. A basic premise in any kind of racing is that the technical conditions are the same for everyone competing.

 

[Paco_P]

Everyone debates whether the prosthetics give him an advantage in a given race (I think they do), but no one seems to talk about whether they give him an advantage in a series of races. His prosthetics don't suffer from fatigue, and that would seem to matter in a series of qualifying heats.

 

[sittingbison]

...His prosthetics don't suffer from fatigue, and that would seem to matter in a series of qualifying heats.

metal fatigue?

 

[noddy69]

That's not entirely true. The CAS didn't make the ruling this way because nobody ever did the research that way, which is a major oversight in itself. Without rehashing the entire process, what happened is that the IAAF conducted research which strongly suggested an advantage, and it centered around 2 things - reduced energy cost of running, and completely different mechanics of running.

The Pistorius research then, was perfectly primed because all they had to do was cast doubt on the IAAF research. It's a pretty farcical state of affairs for the science, but anyway.

So what they did in the Pistorius research is to put him on a treadmill and make him run at a series of slow speeds (the fastest he ran was 15km/hour, before he fatigued after 5 minutes) and measure his oxygen use. They did this for Pistorius and a number of other sprinters.

Result - Pistorius used 17% less oxygen, which is important because oxygen is a barometer for metabolic energy use. The way the science was unfolding (PIstorius' lead scientist is a guy who gets big money from Ossur, the company who make the carbon fiber blades), this discovery that Pistorius was so radically different is known as an "OH $H#T finding". So what they then did is go along and look for studies that they could use, and they decided that they'd compare Pistorius to elite and sub-elite DISTANCE runners.

When they did this, then suddenly Pistorius' oxygen use started to look a little more "normal". It was still higher, but close enough, so they concluded that he was "Similar to able bodied runners". This was one of the key scientific findings, astonishingly, to compare a sprinter to a distance runner and say it's normal. Even though five other studies on sprinters show massive differences when compared to Pistorius.

Then came the mechanical data - one of Pistorius' own scientists came out with a paper where he said that the advantage was enormous. He made some mistakes in trying to estimate how large the advantage was, and that was in the end a foolish thing to do, but understandable. Point was, Pistorius is not really even "running" in the way that we understand it. His legs move faster than any runner ever seen, his forces are lower than any runner seen. And so what you have is a theory, proven by the finding, and then explained by the mechanics.

CAS of course didn't consider this, because the scientist who thought there was an advantage did not get a chance to go to CAS and present it. It was all about disproving the IAAF study, so an incomplete science question.

So to answer you, CAS didn't make this judgment. And no, it's not obvious. The mistake you're making is to try to imagine that there is an advantage compared to legs. Don't imagine, just read the evidence...

Ross

Yet he is slower than the able bodied athletes, suggesting that you are interpreting the figures and how they apply to overall performance when applied to the human body in the wrong way.

 

[GJB123]

Yet he is slower than the able bodied athletes, suggesting that you are interpreting the figures and how they apply to overall performance when applied to the human body in the wrong way.

No, it just means Oscar sucks as an athlete and the blades are compensating for a large part of that. Put the blades on someone with actual athletic talent and things will be different. That is what he is saying, I think.

The problem offcourse is that saying that a disabled person might actually be cheating in this way is like beating up on a disabled person/little kid/kitten/puppy/etc. (insert anything people automatically feel sympathy for) and as critic you have already lost the discussion before you even started it.

Regards
GJ

 

[noddy69]

No, it just means Oscar sucks as an athlete and the blades are compensating for a large part of that. Put the blades on someone with actual athletic talent and things will be different. That is what he is saying, I think.

The problem offcourse is that saying that a disabled person might actually be cheating in this way is like beating up on a disabled person/little kid/kitten/puppy/etc. (insert anything people automatically feel sympathy for) and as critic you have already lost the discussion before you even started it.

Regards
GJ

I doubt he sucks as an athlete, in fact thats the easy way to dismiss the argument that the figures are being misconstrued when applied to human performance.
The lack of nerves and movement in the leg has to be telling, there are a myriad of arguments as to why it is not as good as a human leg when applied to the body but when only focusing on one side of a debate you lose perspective on the overall.

 

[GJB123]

I doubt he sucks as an athlete, in fact thats the easy way to dismiss the argument that the figures are being misconstrued when applied to human performance.
The lack of nerves and movement in the leg has to be telling, there are a myriad of arguments as to why it is not as good as a human leg when applied to the body but when only focusing on one side of a debate you lose perspective on the overall.

No, you are losing sight of several facts by simply stating that he must not have an advantage because he is slower than able bodied athletes. TSoS is posting a very well argued post with several valuable references as to why the CAS-case has scientific relevance and all you come back with is that Pistorius is still slower so there must be no advantage. That's like putting met in the fastest available F1-car and if do not win (which I won't, I would probably just crash it) state that the car must not yield any benefits.

Regards
GJ

 

[noddy69]

No, you are losing sight of several facts by simply stating that he must not have an advantage because he is slower than able bodied athletes. TSoS is posting a very well argued post with several valuable references as to why the CAS-case has scientific relevance and all you come back with is that Pistorius is still slower so there must be no advantage. That's like putting met in the fastest available F1-car and if do not win (which I won't, I would probably just crash it) state that the car must not yield any benefits.

Regards
GJ

No Im stating if you read correctly that any advantage seems to be in a way nullified by reason that it it not a natural part of his body. Whatever advantages it gives it also loses many more,that cannot be denied, and seems to come through in performance. The arguments given are like it is fixed to a robot,human performance doesnt quite work like that as I am sure you know.

All I would like to see in those against him competing is the full picture. When showing an advantage also show the disadvantage and what he loses.

 

[noddy69]

No, you are losing sight of several facts by simply stating that he must not have an advantage because he is slower than able bodied athletes. TSoS is posting a very well argued post with several valuable references as to why the CAS-case has scientific relevance and all you come back with is that Pistorius is still slower so there must be no advantage. That's like putting met in the fastest available F1-car and if do not win (which I won't, I would probably just crash it) state that the car must not yield any benefits.

Regards
GJ

And in fact a great example on the f1 car. What you put in the car that had advantages actually was outweighed by the negatives. Well done.

 

[eric_vv]

No Im stating if you read correctly that any advantage seems to be in a way nullified by reason that it it not a natural part of his body. Whatever advantages it gives it also loses many more,that cannot be denied, and seems to come through in performance. The arguments given are like it is fixed to a robot,human performance doesnt quite work like that as I am sure you know.

All I would like to see in those against him competing is the full picture. When showing an advantage also show the disadvantage and what he loses.

Your basic assumption seems to be that Pistorius is a top level athlete who would be competing in the olympics if he had his natural legs. What if he isn't good enough to be an olympic athlete but only makes it because of his artificial legs? There's no way to know what his "natural level is", maybe he should be making semi's on national level, maybe not even that.

How can you conclude that any advantage is nullified if you don't know his "natural level"? The science seems to say he has an advantage and I haven't seen anything that contradicts it. The fact that he's not winning doesn't mean there's no advantage.

All this shouldn't matter anyway, because of the simple fact he shouldn't be in the same event regardless of any (dis)advantage. It's a complete different way of movement. It's like someone doing the butterfly in a backstroke competition, it's just not the same event.

 

[GJB123]

And in fact a great example on the f1 car. What you put in the car that had advantages actually was outweighed by the negatives. Well done.

Indeed the disadvantage I have is that I suck at F1-driving. The disadvantage Pistorius has, is that he ..... well you understand the analogy.

Regards
GJ