Good news for the cyborgs in the crowd: the ruling by the International Association of Athletics Federations that
barred double-amputee sprinter Oscar Pistorious from a shot at the Olympics has been overturned by the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Detractors from Oscar's entry into the Olympics have cited a suspect study that says Oscar could be using as little as 25% of the energy of other sprinters, thanks to the mechanical advantage of his "Cheetah" prosthetics, which basically act as springs. Others feared that this could set a dangerous precedent for the entry of bionics into athletic competition, but the ruling was rather tightly worded, and if related cases come up they will be tried individually. Of course, Oscar still has to qualify, and his personal best in the 400 is about a second off the qualifying time for Beijing. Even if he can't make it, he plans try for the world championships and the London Olympics in 2012.
posted May 17th 2008 3:15PM
+1 again... Well stated. Please let this post serve as a voice of reason for those who are on the fence on this issue...
I don't believe he should be running with conventional athletes. There is no way that artificial legs such as his can be designed to give exactly the same performance as a normal human leg, and where is the line drawn between enabling him to run, and artificially boosting his performance beyond what it would have normally been? It seems unfair to me to place him with the 'standard' athletes in a race.
On the 'cyborg' note, was it just me that took that as a humorous joke aimed at characters like the six million dollar man? To look at the announcement in a slightly over the top and silly way, the announcement is a step towards enhancements like that being an allowable form for racing in. A small joke towards the science fiction enjoying readers of engadget rather than abuse towards anyone with disabilities and a reliance on enhancements like Oscar's to live a normal life...
I wonder if this means I can enter the Olympic 400m on a motorbike?
By the way, for all those brought up on the British education system: America has it's own dialect of English and we'll spell whatever words we use, however we like. Thank you.
The word here is "its," but I'm just being anal.
The issue here is not whether someone with a prosthetic advantage should be allowed to run. From the beginning it has been "Does his prosthetic give him an advantage?" If it does, no run. If it doesn't, go for it. The Olympic committee did not make the decision by posting it on a blog and reading viewer comments from people at their computers giving opinions.
@Bill:
(quote)Oh, and for the 30 or so people who claim that these prosthetics give him no advantage - are you some sort of physiology master? Mechanical engineers? By your inability to reason, I'm guessing you're most likely in HR, psychology, education, or some other flaccid specialty. (endquote)
And you are? None of us here are physiology masters or mechanical engineers (I assume). But guess what--I bet the Olympic committee hired some. This decision was not made lightly--and it's safe to assume that they know what they're talking about. Obviously they determined, no doubt through good research, that he was not given an advantage. They weighed the advantages (no lactic acid, etc.) against the disadvantages (bad start, all work given to upper legs, etc.) and determined that he was not given an unfair advantage.
So sit back and call our reasoning "muddle-minded PC mush", but yours is no different. The committee made their choice based on months of deliberation--who are we to say it was rash?
I find it ironic, Bill, that you say we should not make decisions based on feelings--yet that's what you're doing. Your reaction to posters as illiterate "PC" users (FYI--unless you are on an ENIAC you are at a Personal Computer--so you are using a PC as well) is completely subjective--what makes your opinion fact and ours opinions? Again, we can argue all we want but those with the expertise have made the decision.
Might want to check out what your logic books say about that.
Engadget tip--don't accuse people of not having degrees if you don't have said degree yourself.
It seems you are debating everything EXCEPT the actual issue. You go on about how hard the Olympic chimps must have worked (must have!) even though you have no idea, really. You go on criticizing everyone else's methods.
What you fail to address is how this can possibly be fair. You only write that Smarter People Assure Us that it's fair. That's not even an argument, it's the worst aspect of religion.
Because mechanical apparatus is essential* to his performance, there are only two possible outcomes: He doesn't get a medal, and is proven "fair". Or that he gets a medal, and is proven "unfair". Those are the only logical possibilities.
And they both suck.
@MichaelD
I believe when he says "PC" he is referring to the phrase, "politically correct," not "personal computer"...
I agree with you that the committee probably did not take this decision lightly. However, I believe that because this person is differently abled (regardless of being at an advantage or disadvantage), he should not be allowed in the games as it is against the spirit of fair competition that the games promote.
I know this is a tech blog, but come on, he obviously meant Politically Correct, not Personal Computer Users (wouldn't that be PCU?)
It does not matter whether or not his artificial legs are an advantage or a disadvantage. What matters is that it is not an "apples to apples" comparison, and that's all a race is: a comparison. For that reason, he should not be allowed to compete. Like someone else said. This opens up a very slippery slope. Sure, they're not necessarily an advantage now, but in 10 years they sure-as-hell will be. So what then? Athletes will start amputating things just so they can go faster, jump higher, etc. It will be the EXACT same mentality as steroids, which have been frowned-upon countless times.
If you think he should be able to run, it is like saying that everyone should be able to take tons of anabolic steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs. It is the same exact thing. Using technology to alter one's body for the sake of beating people without similar enhancements.
It's like someone being able to use aim hax in a FPS tournament because they are missing a couple fingers and can't use a mouse as good. Perhaps the aim hax totally suck right now and pro FPS players are better, but give it time and the hax will outperform what is humanly possible.
We bar people from sports for steroids, ban people from servers for hax, but let amputees with performance-altering prosthetics compete in the Olympics?
That being said, I watched a video of him running the 400 on youtube, and it cheered me up. I know that no matter what happens to my lower legs, there will be very good prosthetics out there that can help me lead a mostly normal life, and that includes running.
Anyway, nothing personal, it's just that this would set a dangerous precedent. However, it would definitely advance the field of prosthetics by leaps and bounds.... so either way things should work out in the end.
"...muddle-minded PC mush..."
How about "muddle-minded Mac mush"? It's got a great ring to it, wouldn't you say?
*facepalm*
PC = Politically Correct... moron...
Well, the problem I see with this is that in the future, if fake legs become better than real ones, this would give people with amputated legs an advantage. Remember, fake legs don't get tired like real legs too. And if you aren't really moving your legs, the breathing is easier too while you are running.
I told you they weigh less..."The mass of each prothesis is about 2.2 pounds, which is 13 to 17 pounds less than a human lower leg," says Tucker. Thats an advantage right there. I say though, let him run, just put an asterisk next to the result. its not really one on one is it. I mean if he gets the gold( silver whatever) people will want to will simply discount him and look to the person one step below. Its really not like it means anything but national pride. And if SA wants to brad that there guy with cyborg legs or whatever beat other guys and thats what makes them feel good let them go for it.
First of all, this guy never had legs. He was born without the fibula in either of his legs. His legs end halfway to his ankle. Second, the prosthetics extend the legnth of what his legs would have been. Third, the IAAF assigned Peter Brüggemann from the German Sport University to examine Pistorius' blades. He concluded that "returned energy more efficiently to the legs than a normal human ankle joint, allowing Oscar to coast at high speeds and expend less energy than other sprinters."
Did you see him run the 400 in Rome?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Zv46b0NULFs
"He was in dead last for most of the race, until about 70 meters to go, and seemed to run the second half of the race as fast or even slightly faster than the first half, gobbling up his competitors in the final strides."
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/david_epstein/05/16/Pistorius/index.html
Feet win on corners, but he has a clear advantage on straightways.
And who is offended by the term cyborg? When I hear cyborg I think of a bad ass who could easily whoop my ass, just as this guy would.
What you saw with him running faster at the end was not so much the fancy prosthetics. It is what's known in track as "kick". Some people just have more of it than others. Also, a lot of it is determination, and this guy has more than enough of that. Yet another contribution to how much "kick" someone has at the end of a race is if they did not run as fast as they otherwise could have earlier in the race, usually due to not pacing themselves perfectly.
I ran track for 3 years in HS, and I used to always have too much energy at the end of the 800m. Over time, I became more consistent and managed to get faster times at a more even pace. I'm not a professional runner or anything, but I think this guy could get an even faster time if he paced himself a little faster earlier on, so I think he can reach the qualifying time necessary.
That being said, I don't think the Olympics should allow people with prosthetics to compete in the normal events. That just opens too many opportunities for abuse, and could become much like what steroids are today: a way of cheating.
There are people with hormone deficiencies who have to take steroids, etc, and they are not usually allowed to compete. It's the same thing with this.
Excellent closing point, d840. You just made up my mind for me.
I will never not say things just because they offend someone and no one else should either
Dude, you'd make a crappy politician.
As an Engadget lurker for a long time, I am finally taking the time to respond to an article, and doing it from Iraq in between regular warfighting duties.
First of all, I, too, believe that this man should not be allowed to compete - whether or not this "Cheetah" device imparts an advantage or not, it does open up the Olympics to a "possible" precedent in allowing others in the future with possibly more enhancing body parts. If Oscar does make the team, and then win, the win will be "tainted" by technology and always doubted.
However, on the flip side, technology has already been used to give teams advantages that other teams and competitors do not have. The countries with more money have the ability to research these new technologies and give them the advantage. Look at bobsleds, pole vault poles, etc..., and this year, it is the swimsuit:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/04/11/lzr.record.breaking.ap/
Second, experts were surely consulted in this decision. I am not one of them, and can make no claim as to whether the "Cheetah" is enhancing or not. But surely those experts did make informed choice, and I will support their decision, though I don't agree.
Also, something else that folks have failed to mention is the "clause" in the ruling: " but the ruling was rather tightly worded, and if related cases come up they will be tried individually." This leads me to believe that cases will be tried individually. So, I trust that we are OK this year, and if someone else comes along with robotic hands to play ping pong in 2012, we'll play that one by ear then.
Until then, I look forward to an entertaining and competitive Olympics, and am hoping that my old student at West Point, Chris Abalo, makes the Rifle Team.
Cheers (from Iraq)
Chris
Good to see more opportunity being given to those in a pradicament. It means we can still compete and get involved in activities even if we are made disabled.
There was a swimmer with 1 leg competing on the news.
Okay, yeah, I should have figured out PC=politically correct. I just am used to people accusing others of "just sitting at their computers" (which they are obviously doing as well). Sorry.
@Bill (and others) I am not criticizing you because we disagree. I myself am on the fence in this issue. I take offense because Bill stated that anyone who thinks he should compete is deciding not on fact but on emotion. He accused posters of being unfit to talk because they weren't educated in the technical areas. My point is that the committee that made the decision surely was.
(quote)It seems you are debating everything EXCEPT the actual issue. You go on about how hard the Olympic chimps must have worked (must have!) even though you have no idea, really. You go on criticizing everyone else's methods.
What you fail to address is how this can possibly be fair. You only write that Smarter People Assure Us that it's fair. That's not even an argument, it's the worst aspect of religion. (endquote)
I think it is safer to assume that they have done their homework. This is their job! Why do we need constant proof that they know what they are doing? The worst aspect of much modern thinking is assuming that no one knows what they are talking about except us. Each and every single judgment must be made individually instead of trusting what others have said.
The moral side, yes, we are all equally fit to judge and should do so. But as for the technical side--why is it so hard to let the experts choose? It is not sheepish or irrational to trust someone educated in that field. And if you don't believe the committee consulted experts, then why trust them about anything? Why even watch the Olympics if it is run by a bunch of "chimps" with no credentials? For all we know they could doctor the results anyway.
If my doctor tells me something about my health, is it foolish and backward of me to believe him? On a serious issue yes, I will get a second opinion. But in any case, I think it is safe to trust his education. In this case he is more fit to judge than me, because he is the expert and I am not.
Like I said, the moral issue we all must decide for ourselves. But no one sitting here can say they know for a fact that he does or does not have an actual advantage. The people we trust to make such decisions have discovered that it does not.
As for setting a precedent, as the article says they will judge new cases individually, determining whether an advantage is given.
That said, I am still unsure whether he should be allowed to compete. Obviously in any sporting event you cannot say everyone is completely equal. If they were every race would be a tie. Some have more training, better genetics, or more resources for training. But this maybe going too far, since obviously without the prosthetics he couldn't race.
Whether or not he should race, I don't know. But don't accuse people ho have a different opinion of making it solely on emotion or bias. And certainly don't claim to have more authority in the matter than the experts.
Yes I am going to be really insulting here I am sure to some but
HOW HOT IS THIS GUY OMG
No honey leave tha cheetahs on.. bow chick'a wowow. Dayum..
You know that leverage is going to be an issue :D
so we couldn't use the N word, and now the C word is taboo as well? PC has gone from personal computers to Political Correctness
Well, where does it end? At this moment the specified prostetics doesn't give the person an advantage over 'normal' runners, but what if he shows up with new prostetics which would give him an advantage.. where does it end? IMHO these people should not be allowed to enter the normal olympics since it's not their own complete body (I know it might sound harsh, but it isn't, there are more people in the world who can't join some competition because of some disability, just learn to live with it (as most have)).. Personally I don't give a ratsass about sports (and I would prefer NOT to have it shown on TV as it normally would interfere with regular programming), so I couldn't care less if they use drugs/special prostetics to enhance their performance...
After reading about this I decided to do some searching. The ruling stated that the is no scientific evidence that the prosthetics gives him an unfair advantage. However, on the flip side there is no scientific evidence that it does not give him an unfair advantage. This is not like a legally blind swimmer (I when to university with one) or similar athlete.
I find the ruling wrong because it is not possible to determine if whether or not his prosthetic gives him an unfair advantage. Part of running is using your legs and feet. It is sad that he has lost he feet, but other runners do not have his prosthetics. Swimming suits have been band because they gave swimmers unfair advantages because of the swimming suits design. Additionally, through research it is possible for the manufacture of the prosthetic to improve the performance of the device.
Let's wait until a guy who lost his feet gets 5 wheels (which would look alot like roller blades) under his shins and run marathon. Of course, he will be using his own energy...
Can I use a Bike to run? I am using only my own energy, 100%. Course not!
I am thin, so can I use bags of sand and mechanical limbs because i want to fight on a heavy-wheight competition? NOT!
My IQ is low, can I use a computer to do a admission test to work for Nasa? No way.
Life was unfair with me: i am weak and slow. And so what? But I can do other things!
I dont have legs but I cant aford a Cheetah: can I sue the Government? Are u kidding?!
People all over the world have limits, we have to accept our handicaps.
Deficients or not, people are equal: they deserve respect and oportunities.
Thats why categories exist! They exist to make a thin win a fight fighting with other thin guys, a woman win a race running with other females and also a deficient compete with others, and win.
Nobody have to be punished for the disabilities of other people.
At some point "physically challenged" will become "physically advantaged" and then what?
Grande Oscar !!!!!
I find this just as bad as steroids. He did not work for his legs; he bought them. Presumably. They could have been given to him. I do not know. If he had built the legs himself it would be one thing, but to use someone else's legs is anti-competitive. Other athletes have to learn to walk, then build muscle to become competitive. There needs to be more than a monetary hurdle to overcome to become better.
He was not just given these legs.. amputees go through long processes to have their prostheics fitted and make sure that they are working properly.
Also,
if he had so much of an advantage he would be blowing away the qualifying time... but he isn't
In two minds about this one. On the one hand it is good to see discriminatory barriers being broken. On the other I distinctly remember reading some reports stating that they did some tests on this runner, I presume monitoring his heart, breathing rate, oxygen intake etc on a treadmill, against an able bodied athelete with similar times in the races that they run. The athelete with the prosthetic limbs significantly used less oxygen etc., not slightly but significantly I believe. This can only be down the the prosthetic limb - bear in mind in an able bodied athelete the foot, ankle and knee and the assorted ligaments/muscle body tissue all require oxygen and blood.
They all produce lactic acid which causes the muscles to tire and hence become less efficient. In the case of this athelete the design of the prostheic mimics (and possibly betters the design of the ankle and knee) otherwise he wouldn't be able to run. As it is artificial it has none of the constraints of lactic acid buildup so in effect he will have an advantage.
It was only a matter of time before the technology available, low weight and flexible composites allowed this. Quite amazing really.
As I said it is a testament to the fact that barriers are breaking down, This runner is obviously very determined and probably could run rings round half of us - he is obviously fairly good. How good though? Will he qualify, since after actually winning the right to compete on a even playing field he should then be offered NO further advantages. If he starts whining that because he has prosthetics his starting blocks should be closer to the start than all the other atheletes then he would have to be stopped from competing.
On a related note on the same level of anti-discrimination I look forward to seeing able bodied atheletes being able to compete in the Para-Olympics - its got to come otherwise it would be hypocritical.
This is yet another situation where people are getting offended for somebody when I bet if Oscar himself read this headline he would chuckle. I'll get offended when Oscar gets offended, till then, ha ha cyborg.
Second, I highly doubt those work better than real legs. I thought I remembered you only get 50% of the energy return out of prosthetics like that compared to real legs.
THis is so entirely wrong...if he is allowed to participate...how unfair is that to the true olympians...this is totally about commercialism, next companies are going to be making better and faster prosthetics and advertising their products...olympics and sport should be about the human body and what IT can accomplish, not prosthetics...let him rule the olympics for handicapped, but keep him out of the real deal. J
it's funny that no one here has even thought of the fact that there is already an olympic event for these people. SPECIAL OLYMPICS. No one would even be discussing this if he was there competing.
You know what else is funny? People *have* already brought it up. They also noted that Special Olympics is for the mentally disabled, and he already competed in the Paralympics (which does apply to him).