do you think double amputee should be able to compete for a spot in the olympics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter carb0nblueceli
  • Start date Start date
C

carb0nblueceli

Guest
Double amputee sprinter Oscar Pistorius. The Court of Arbitration for Sport overturned a ruling by the International Association of Athletics Federations that barred the 21-year-old runner from the Olympics and any other able-bodied competition because of his prosthetic racing blades.

Do you think its fair? Do you think he has less of a chance to win? Do you think he has a better chance to win?

One thing I want you to keep in mind is while yes he doesn't have 2 full legs to use, he doesn't have to worry about the fatigue and pain or cramping of some very important muscles used in sprinting in the gastrocnemius muscles aka the calves. Other sprinters have all the muscles in both legs to help. So who has the best advantageous and if it is the amputee why?
 
The muscles, tendons and joints of the lower leg act like a spring when a person is running.
Modern synthetic materials, such as those used in Pistorius' legs, can be much, much springier than a human leg could ever be. Unless we could establish a standard range for the spring action of a real human leg and make Pistorius prove that his synthetic legs don't exceed this range, I don't think that he should be allowed to compete.
Yes, I'm saying that a double amputee might have an advantage in a sport against able-bodied people.
There are other reasons why I don't think he should be allowed to compete, all of them about an unfair advantage that he might have, but this is the biggest one.
 
...

No, I don't have an answer, I ponder the same question as you do.

It appears that the blades actually provide more forward impetus than what human legs can do.

Which is not to say that it's not a tragedy that he lost both of his legs, and given the choice, I think it goes without saying he'd have his natural over the artificial.

I don't know if the ancient games allowed for or prohibited any kind of prosthetic or other performance enhancing device . . . or drug. Both ancient and modern games certainly allow for nations to provide their competitors, whether right or wrong, with the best of training conditions to prepare for the competition.

Ostensibly the modern Olympics have been games that have prohibited chemical performance enhancers.

If Oscar Pistorius had no chance of competing in the Olympics, this would not be an issue, of course.

But now that it is, my question is, what are the limits?

Clearly the line has been drawn in the sand against drugs. But what about other electronic performance-enhancing devices? I'm not saying that the future Olympics will feature solely bionic men and women. But why not? What's to keep that from happening?

I suspect this will be a moot point. I believe Oscar has yet to make his national team.

Interesting question, that's all I can say. Thank you!

Regards,

Running_Dad
 
Back
Top