[paulg]

 jonottawa, on 2012-August-27, 12:53, said:

"Conclusion

So, when you add it up, you get a runner who has light-weight, spring-like legs that allow for more efficient movement, and a reduced requirement of force production. The question is therefore not whether he possesses an advantage but how much of an advantage is unfair."

I believe that CAS, who forced the IOC to accept him, ruled that the net advantage was minimal - presumably the net advantage over 400m, given slow start etc.

[jonottawa]

Awesome was the kid at my high school who had polio as a young kid and hobbled around on his crutches, up and down stairs, whatever. He was not what you'd call handsome and had a big hairy mole on his face. He always seemed to have a positive attitude (I didn't know him well, but always greeted him with RAAAAAVI-OLI.)

I just googled him Real Hero

But to each his own.

[onoway]

 paulg, on 2012-August-27, 14:53, said:

I believe that CAS, who forced the IOC to accept him, ruled that the net advantage was minimal - presumably the net advantage over 400m, given slow start etc.

Consider how advanced this technology is over the wooden leg. And then consider how advanced the technology is likely to be in another few years. Then what, when the advantage is no longer minimal?

The news today said that officials were looking out for various methods of cheating going on in the paralympics - such as competing with a full bladder. That must be somewhat difficult to prove is intentional. "I told you to go before we left the athlete's village!"?

[Cyberyeti]

 onoway, on 2012-August-27, 23:31, said:

Consider how advanced this technology is over the wooden leg. And then consider how advanced the technology is likely to be in another few years. Then what, when the advantage is no longer minimal?

He is being allowed to compete now because (on appeal, the first judgment did not go his way) it is ruled that he has no advantage, so if the technology improves so he does have an advantage, he won't be able to use it.

[phil_20686]

 lalldonn, on 2012-August-27, 14:45, said:

I think it's totally absurd that he was allowed to compete. It has nothing to do with his 'natural' running advantages such as being lighter, that's just luck of the draw (unlucky in life of course but lucky in running) just as if a weight lifter has naturally huger muscles than everyone around him. Ie it's not an unfair advantage, it's a fair advantage. The problem is he is being allowed a device that gives him an advantage. Sorry if that rubs you the wrong way. Even moreso given that he was allowed to compete in the paralympics, which seems (to me?) obviously intended for people who have no chance to compete in the regular olympics.

I have no idea how anyone believes "no unfair advantage" can every be sensibly determined. Lets give Stephen Hawking a go: what velocity would his motorised wheel chair be limited too in order to give "no unfair advantage" when racing usain bolt? Say limit it to bolt's fastest ever recorded performance?

[billw55]

We had better ban corrective eyewear while we're at it. No fair!

[gwnn]

If corrective eyewear got sufficiently advanced (say, involving a zoom function), then yes, in shooting and some other sports corrective eyewear should be banned. Everything needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. billw55 seems to think it's a big wtp but I have no idea why, the best argument I've heard was 'come on, he has no legs! WTP?'.

Say a few years from now someone on a prosthetic leg would break the world record by 1 second, in that case I assume everyone would understand that it is not just his natural ability that helped him. But how are you ever going to tell the difference? And how will you ever decide up to the certainty of "WTP"?

[Cyberyeti]

 gwnn, on 2012-August-28, 07:22, said:

Say a few years from now someone on a prosthetic leg would break the world record by 1 second, in that case I assume everyone would understand that it is not just his natural ability that helped him. But how are you ever going to tell the difference? And how will you ever decide up to the certainty of "WTP"?

It won't happen unless the athlete is that good, the prosthetics will be tested before they can be used in top level sport, and if they confer an advantage will be prohibited.

[gwnn]

Maybe I'm ignorant, but how do they test them? I assume if they gave me those prosthetics, I'd run much slower than without them (if indeed I would manage to complete the lap somehow). They'd need to give them to someone and compare his best time with them and his best time without them somehow? Of course they can also just compare various physical characteristics of the prosthetic with those of a real leg but that does not seem practical to me (I would think there are prohibitively many relevant physical characteristics).

[billw55]

Also, diabetic athletes should be forbidden insulin, because it is performance enhancing? Perhaps joint braces and tape are out too?

To me there is a big difference between corrective measures for physical handicaps, and artificial enhancements for otherwise healthy athletes. I feel strongly that Pistorius' prosthetics fall under the former. Difference of opinion obv.

[mike777]

 billw55, on 2012-August-28, 09:01, said:

Also, diabetic athletes should be forbidden insulin, because it is performance enhancing? Perhaps joint braces and tape are out too?

To me there is a big difference between corrective measures for physical handicaps, and artificial enhancements for otherwise healthy athletes. I feel strongly that Pistorius' prosthetics fall under the former. Difference of opinion obv.

In fact there is basically no difference as even so called healthy athletes have physical handicaps.\


That indeed is the failed logic of all of this stuff about banning performance enhancing chemicals.

In any event if we want to limit this stuff to only those with a doctor's note which notes some physical/medical handicap....I can live with that since we all have those...

In fact Armstrong had Cancer which leads to all sorts of handicaps. At the very least he should be allowed drugs that help his muscles recover and increase his endurance.

Again we can just limit this stuff so people with some handicap can go back to work at a level that they used to do. In this case so Armstrong can go back and compete at his old level of work.

[lalldonn]

 billw55, on 2012-August-28, 06:15, said:

We had better ban corrective eyewear while we're at it. No fair!

It's fair, just like athletic tape etc., because everyone is allowed to wear it. Is Usain Bolt allowed to attach springs to his legs like this guy? On a different note, of course glasses help you if you can't see well, but they don't literally make you run faster. You are focusing too much on "advantage" and totally ignoring "unfair".

There was an NCAA wrestler who recently won a national championship who has one leg. Some people thought it was unfair because he can more easily be low to the ground, and because to make the same competition weight as his competitors all the other parts of his body can be larger and stronger than theirs. I think that's crap and it's totally fine because he wasn't allowed any artificial advantage that wasn't available to the other competitors. If his birth defect gives him some physical advantages that help in wrestling, good for him, but don't let him use a device that no one else is allowed to use!

[Cyberyeti]

 mike777, on 2012-August-28, 09:05, said:

In fact Armstrong had Cancer which leads to all sorts of handicaps. At the very least he should be allowed drugs that help his muscles recover and increase his endurance.

Again we can just limit this stuff so people with some handicap can go back to work at a level that they used to do. In this case so Armstrong can go back and compete at his old level of work.

While under treatment and before he came back, he WAS allowed to take all the illegal stuff. I don't know the exact details for cycling, but I believe in athletics you have to re-register yourself as an athlete, and be subject to testing for a while before you're allowed to compete in that circumstance.

[billw55]

 lalldonn, on 2012-August-28, 10:00, said:

It's fair, just like athletic tape etc., because everyone is allowed to wear it. Is Usain Bolt allowed to attach springs to his legs like this guy? On a different note, of course glasses help you if you can't see well, but they don't literally make you run faster. You are focusing too much on "advantage" and totally ignoring "unfair".

I do not believe that the prosthetics are an advantage compared to normal leg muscles. Ergo I believe that Pistorius is at a disadvantage - not any kind of advantage at all, fair or otherwise.

[ahh]

for what it is worth as I am diabetic injecting Insulin I required to obtain a Therapeutic Use Exemption certificate to be allowed to participate in the recent World Mind Sports Games in Lille as part of the Scottish open team .

[lalldonn]

 billw55, on 2012-August-28, 11:33, said:

I do not believe that the prosthetics are an advantage compared to normal leg muscles. Ergo I believe that Pistorius is at a disadvantage - not any kind of advantage at all, fair or otherwise.

It doesn't matter whether his legs + the prosthetics are better than normal legs because he doesn't have normal legs. It matters whether his legs + the prosthetics are better than his legs alone, which obviously is true.

And not that it matters, but you are obviously wrong anyway to believe he is not at an advantage. See post 58.

[Cyberyeti]

 lalldonn, on 2012-August-28, 16:32, said:

It doesn't matter whether his legs + the prosthetics are better than normal legs because he doesn't have normal legs. It matters whether his legs + the prosthetics are better than his legs alone, which obviously is true.

And not that it matters, but you are obviously wrong anyway to believe he is not at an advantage. See post 58.

A more balanced write up of the science is http://sportsillustr...pics/index.html it's not clear whether he has an overall advantage, he does at the end of the race, but a disadvantage at the beginning.

And your premise is also wrong, you get into the same argument as the one with the golfer who had a leg problem that meant that he could play, but not walk the course. He asserted his right to use a buggy even though it was specifically outlawed in the rules of the PGA tour, and won in court. http://www.nytimes.c...ces-affirm.html

[Stephen Tu]

 lalldonn, on 2012-August-28, 16:32, said:

And not that it matters, but you are obviously wrong anyway to believe he is not at an advantage. See post 58.

As far as I can tell, some scientists have published papers arguing he has an advantage, but other scientists have published rebuttals saying that he doesn't. Until stronger scientific consensus emerges, I think benefit of the doubt should be given to allowing the athlete to compete. Revisit the subject when more conclusive studies come in, or if competitors are starting to say they are considering voluntary amputation so they can win?

[lalldonn]

Ok I'll mea culpa on saying it was obvious he has an advantage (it sure looks to me like he does but what do I know). I still very much believe the "not that it matters" part, which will of course teach me to interject that extra comment that I didn't think mattered.

Of course the analogy of the golfer is off for several reasons. It's not clear whether or not walking between shots is actually a part of "golf", and also the PGA tour was his workplace, which is in fact why he won in court. Neither of those things could be said in this case.

[mike777]

I think until a standard of measurement is agreed the debate is mute.

the next point will be so they have an adv...so what......?