| Posted By |
Message |
Ophelia
she's baaccckkkk ;)
Member since 5/06 23378 total posts
Name:
remember, when Gulliver traveled....
|
what's your take on this?
I think it's ridiculous.
Oscar Pistorius vows to fight Olympics ban
(John Giles/PA)
The ruling today said the "cheetah" blades were technical aids in clear contravention of IAAF rules
Jonathan Clayton
Johannesburg
Oscar Pistorius, the South African double amputee dubbed “the fastest man on no legs”, has vowed to fight a decision barring him from competing at next summer’s Beijing Olympics.
A report commissioned by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), released today, concluded that carbon fibre “cheetah flex-feet” prosthetics used by the 21-year-old athlete gave him a significant advantage over able-bodied runners.
Pistorius, known as “Blade Runner” for his achievements with his state-of-the-art false limbs, was unavailable for comment.
Three days ago, however, after he was informed of the decision, a downcast Pistorius, who won gold and bronze medals at the 2004 Athens Paralympics, denied the sickle-like blades gave him “an unfair advantage” and vowed to challenge the ruling.
Related Links
Pistorius banned from Olympics
Pistorius Olympic hopes hit by report
‘Would I want my legs back? I’d have to sit down and think about it’
Nightmare visions of athletes using all sorts of mechanical aids to improve performances prompted the IAAF to amend its rules last year. The IAAF banned technical devices incorporating “springs, wheels or any other element” giving athletes an advantage over their competitors.
Pistorius, who wanted to realise a lifetime ambition of competing against able-bodied athletes, decided to test the new regulation. Last July, the young South African ran in the 400m B race at the Golden Gala in Rome, finishing second. Two days later he finished last in wet conditions in Sheffield, Britain, and was then disqualified for running out of his lane.
A study, carried out by Professor Peter Bruggeman at the German Sport University in Cologne on behalf of the IAAF, compared Mr Pistorius with five able-bodied athletes of similar ability.
“Pistorius was able to run with his prosthetic blades at the same speed as the able-bodied sprinters with about 25 per cent less energy expenditure,” the report concluded. It said the returned energy from the prosthetic blades was close to three times higher than the ankle joint.
“It is evident that an athlete using the Cheetah prosthetic is able to run at the same speed as able-bodied athletes with lower energy consumption,” the report added.
The findings of the report have been unanimously endorsed by the IAAF’s ruling council which decreed that Mr Pistorius should not be allowed to run in Beijing or in any other meeting sanctioned by the world governing body.
Pistorius, whose legs were amputated below the knee when he was 11 months old because he was born without fibulas, last week condemned the report’s findings as “premature and highly subjective” and pledged to continue fighting to realise his Olympic dream.
An IAAF official said the world governing body had been concerned about the implications of prosthetic aids. “It’s for the future,” he said. “It’s about what might happen in 20 or 30 years.” However, Peet van Zyl, Pistorius’ manager said his charge had competed more against able-bodied athletes than disabled.
Mr Van Zyl said the appeal would be based on advice from experts in the United States who had told them the Bruggeman report “did not take enough variables into consideration”.
The IAAF does not ban all prosthetics and athletes have completed marathons with artificial legs or feet. Its decision last year to tighten the rules upset many disabled athletes.
The latest ruling looks likely to spark a furious debate over what is fair to both sides given technological advances.
“It may sound ludicrous to say it, but a man with no legs could have an advantage over able bodied athletes and what would happen if those same athletes start using similar technical aids - the whole issue is a mine field,” said a South African sports writer sympathetic to both sides.
Pistorius is a hero to many in sports-mad South Africa who have watched his struggle against adversity with admiration.
The double-amputee is a world record-holder for the 100 metres, 200 metres and 400 metres. Last year, he won a silver medal in the 400 metres at the South African able-bodied championships. His personal best of 46.34 sec would have been fast enough to have won gold at every Olympic Games before 1932.
Although a few tenths outside the qualifying standard for this year’s Games in Beijing, he was confident that he could bridge the gap and become the first athlete to make an unprecedented transition from Paralympics to Olympics.
That was before today's ban. Now, not for the first time in his life, he is staring at almost insurmountable odds.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Posted 1/14/08 2:31 PM  |
| |
|
Long Island Weddings
Long Island's Largest Bridal Resource |
Blu-ize
Plan B is Now Plan A
Member since 7/05 32475 total posts
Name:
Susan
|
Re: what's your take on this?
i've got volumes to stay about this, but there are really only two points.
It takes 15x the energy to walk with a prosthesis..I can't imagine how much more energy it would take to run. I don't know where they got that info about less energy, it's just incorrect.
Not having his legs means he works out differently and trains differently. He tries harder than any other athelete has to. it's really a smack in the face. I've seen the prosthesis and while it is impressive, it take different muscles to use it than a regular leg.
It's crap.
|
| Posted 1/14/08 2:43 PM |
| |
|
headoverheels
s'il vous plaît
Member since 6/07 42079 total posts
Name:
LB
|
Re: what's your take on this?
Posted by Blu-ize
i've got volumes to stay about this, but there are really only two points.
It takes 15x the energy to walk with a prosthesis..I can't imagine how much more energy it would take to run. I don't know where they got that info about less energy, it's just incorrect.
Not having his legs means he works out differently and trains differently. He tries harder than any other athelete has to. it's really a smack in the face. I've seen the prosthesis and while it is impressive, it take different muscles to use it than a regular leg.
It's crap.
i would agree with this, but the IAAF found that he was able to run just as fast while expending LESS energy than "normal" runners - which gives him an unfair advantage. it would be the same thing as taking a drug that allowed you to utilize less oxygen and run as fast as other competitors - you might not be able to run faster, but you could compete for longer amounts of time without having to reserve your energy.
in this SPECIFIC case, i agree with the ban. i think each case should be reviewed individually.
|
| Posted 1/14/08 3:03 PM |
| |
|
Blu-ize
Plan B is Now Plan A
Member since 7/05 32475 total posts
Name:
Susan
|
Re: what's your take on this?
their testing is flawed. This is incorrect. It takes much more energy. although I was not there when they tested him, there is no way that a person with an artifical limb could expend less energy. It takes so much more.
|
| Posted 1/14/08 3:12 PM |
| |
|
Ophelia
she's baaccckkkk ;)
Member since 5/06 23378 total posts
Name:
remember, when Gulliver traveled....
|
Re: what's your take on this?
Posted by headoverheels
Posted by Blu-ize
i've got volumes to stay about this, but there are really only two points.
It takes 15x the energy to walk with a prosthesis..I can't imagine how much more energy it would take to run. I don't know where they got that info about less energy, it's just incorrect.
Not having his legs means he works out differently and trains differently. He tries harder than any other athelete has to. it's really a smack in the face. I've seen the prosthesis and while it is impressive, it take different muscles to use it than a regular leg.
It's crap.
i would agree with this, but the IAAF found that he was able to run just as fast while expending LESS energy than "normal" runners - which gives him an unfair advantage. it would be the same thing as taking a drug that allowed you to utilize less oxygen and run as fast as other competitors - you might not be able to run faster, but you could compete for longer amounts of time without having to reserve your energy.
in this SPECIFIC case, i agree with the ban. i think each case should be reviewed individually.
Lacne Armstrong's chemo left him with the ability to do so. and look how far he went.
regardless of how much "engery" is expended, the legs are not attached to his body.
his brain is not attached to those legs. he doens't feel with those legs.
they are still attached to him, every day.
He still managed to get his velocity up, with feet that look about has graceful as flippers.
I think all told, the energy "benefit" is cancelled out here.
if they legs had a motor attached, I could see it...
|
| Posted 1/14/08 3:14 PM |
| |
|
GoldenRod
10 years on LIF!
Member since 11/06 26792 total posts
Name:
Shawn
|
Re: what's your take on this?
Posted by headoverheels
i would agree with this, but the IAAF found that he was able to run just as fast while expending LESS energy than "normal" runners - which gives him an unfair advantage. it would be the same thing as taking a drug that allowed you to utilize less oxygen and run as fast as other competitors - you might not be able to run faster, but you could compete for longer amounts of time without having to reserve your energy.
in this SPECIFIC case, i agree with the ban. i think each case should be reviewed individually.
I agree. If they have done tests, and shown that he expends less energy, then the ban should stand. If the test is inaccurate, or needs to be revisited, that's a valid argument. All Olympic sporting events have rules to keep things fair. If the fake legs give him an advantage, how is that fair to everyone else? I need a bicycle to keep up with most runners, and a car for marathon runners.
Prosthetics that rival or surpass "normal" limbs are a new topic. The IAAF is doing it's best to keep up with changing technology and methods. It's not an easy position to be in, but judging bodies in all sports go through this on a regular basis.
|
| Posted 1/14/08 3:18 PM |
| |
|
Ophelia
she's baaccckkkk ;)
Member since 5/06 23378 total posts
Name:
remember, when Gulliver traveled....
|
Re: what's your take on this?
even if the limbs...the prosthesis..are in fact "better" than human arms or legs..
there is still the human factor. the fact that there is no neurons sending information to the brain from prosthetic limbs...there is no biological connection to brain or body.
that in and of itself seems to be an EXTREME handicap to overcome.
so this athlete does it. he overcomes it and finds a way to have his total body come together in a way that makes him a contender with other total body (ie able bodied) athletes, and he is rejected b/c he utilizes his prosthesis to the fullest advantage?
that hardly seems fair. at all.
|
| Posted 1/14/08 3:23 PM |
| |
|
GoldenRod
10 years on LIF!
Member since 11/06 26792 total posts
Name:
Shawn
|
Re: what's your take on this?
I think most of the disagreements are on the testing portion of the argument. I was basing my opinion on what the test results gave. I have no way of knowing how the tests were done, or what the true results are. I can only go by what is published. If he isn't getting a mechanical advantage from his limbs, then he should be able to compete, but the testing needs to be agreed to by various parties, and there still needs to be guidelines for future athletes.
|
| Posted 1/14/08 3:25 PM |
| |
|
Blu-ize
Plan B is Now Plan A
Member since 7/05 32475 total posts
Name:
Susan
|
Re: what's your take on this?
Posted by Ophelia
even if the limbs...the prosthesis..are in fact "better" than human arms or legs..
there is still the human factor. the fact that there is no neurons sending information to the brain from prosthetic limbs...there is no biological connection to brain or body.
that in and of itself seems to be an EXTREME handicap to overcome.
so this athlete does it. he overcomes it and finds a way to have his total body come together in a way that makes him a contender with other total body (ie able bodied) athletes, and he is rejected b/c he utilizes his prosthesis to the fullest advantage?
that hardly seems fair. at all.
I totally agree. I see what my brother goes through with wearing his artificial leg. He's exhausted after wearing it and can't wait to take it off..it becomes heavy and annoying, not to mention that the stump always remains somewhat sensitive.
Ok, so I am adding some of the volumes I mentioned.
|
| Posted 1/14/08 3:26 PM |
| |
|
GoldenRod
10 years on LIF!
Member since 11/06 26792 total posts
Name:
Shawn
|
Re: what's your take on this?
Posted by Ophelia
even if the limbs...the prosthesis..are in fact "better" than human arms or legs..
there is still the human factor. the fact that there is no neurons sending information to the brain from prosthetic limbs...there is no biological connection to brain or body.
that in and of itself seems to be an EXTREME handicap to overcome.
so this athlete does it. he overcomes it and finds a way to have his total body come together in a way that makes him a contender with other total body (ie able bodied) athletes, and he is rejected b/c he utilizes his prosthesis to the fullest advantage?
that hardly seems fair. at all.
If he had an arm-powered bicycle, and he had the gearing set up so he could travel twice as fast as the fastest person on legs, would that be OK to use? The bicycle isn't a part of him, but it would be a huge mechanical advantage, and would defeat the entire purpose of the Olympics. Mechanical advantage is potentially a big issue, which is why we keep inventing mechanical advantages to help us out.
|
| Posted 1/14/08 3:29 PM |
| |
|
Ophelia
she's baaccckkkk ;)
Member since 5/06 23378 total posts
Name:
remember, when Gulliver traveled....
|
Re: what's your take on this?
Posted by GoldenRod
Posted by Ophelia
even if the limbs...the prosthesis..are in fact "better" than human arms or legs..
there is still the human factor. the fact that there is no neurons sending information to the brain from prosthetic limbs...there is no biological connection to brain or body.
that in and of itself seems to be an EXTREME handicap to overcome.
so this athlete does it. he overcomes it and finds a way to have his total body come together in a way that makes him a contender with other total body (ie able bodied) athletes, and he is rejected b/c he utilizes his prosthesis to the fullest advantage?
that hardly seems fair. at all.
If he had an arm-powered bicycle, and he had the gearing set up so he could travel twice as fast as the fastest person on legs, would that be OK to use? The bicycle isn't a part of him, but it would be a huge mechanical advantage, and would defeat the entire purpose of the Olympics. Mechanical advantage is potentially a big issue, which is why we keep inventing mechanical advantages to help us out.
the difference here is what is powering the device.
in this case, the MAN is powering the artificial limbs foward. there is no additional propulsion source.
If there was, it would be a different story.
|
| Posted 1/14/08 3:31 PM |
| |
|
GoldenRod
10 years on LIF!
Member since 11/06 26792 total posts
Name:
Shawn
|
Re: what's your take on this?
Posted by Ophelia
the difference here is what is powering the device.
in this case, the MAN is powering the artificial limbs foward. there is no additional propulsion source.
If there was, it would be a different story.
I still think we're arguing the same point from different sides. You disagree that there is mechanical advantage in artificial limbs. I would definitely agree with this, except for the fact that the IAAF supposedly tested these particular limbs, which are not "standard" limbs, and in this particular case, they determined that there was a mechanical advantage. That advantage is similar to my arm-powered bike analogy. The bike is only powered by the human, but by the way it is built and designed, it gives an advantage. I agree with you 100% about it being much harder to use an artificial limb for the average amputee, but I am making my statements solely on what the IAAF results came out with.
|
| Posted 1/14/08 3:37 PM |
| |
|
Ophelia
she's baaccckkkk ;)
Member since 5/06 23378 total posts
Name:
remember, when Gulliver traveled....
|
Re: what's your take on this?
Posted by GoldenRod
Posted by Ophelia
the difference here is what is powering the device.
in this case, the MAN is powering the artificial limbs foward. there is no additional propulsion source.
If there was, it would be a different story.
I still think we're arguing the same point from different sides. You disagree that there is mechanical advantage in artificial limbs. I would definitely agree with this, except for the fact that the IAAF supposedly tested these particular limbs, which are not "standard" limbs, and in this particular case, they determined that there was a mechanical advantage. That advantage is similar to my arm-powered bike analogy. The bike is only powered by the human, but by the way it is built and designed, it gives an advantage. I agree with you 100% about it being much harder to use an artificial limb for the average amputee, but I am making my statements solely on what the IAAF results came out with.
I see.
and they are full of sh1t.
|
| Posted 1/14/08 3:38 PM |
| |
|
GoldenRod
10 years on LIF!
Member since 11/06 26792 total posts
Name:
Shawn
|
Re: what's your take on this?
Posted by Ophelia
Posted by GoldenRod
Posted by Ophelia
the difference here is what is powering the device.
in this case, the MAN is powering the artificial limbs foward. there is no additional propulsion source.
If there was, it would be a different story.
I still think we're arguing the same point from different sides. You disagree that there is mechanical advantage in artificial limbs. I would definitely agree with this, except for the fact that the IAAF supposedly tested these particular limbs, which are not "standard" limbs, and in this particular case, they determined that there was a mechanical advantage. That advantage is similar to my arm-powered bike analogy. The bike is only powered by the human, but by the way it is built and designed, it gives an advantage. I agree with you 100% about it being much harder to use an artificial limb for the average amputee, but I am making my statements solely on what the IAAF results came out with.
I see.
and they are full of sh1t.
I'm not going to argue with you on that point.....  
|
| Posted 1/14/08 3:41 PM |
| |
|
bird382
.
Member since 7/07 1712 total posts
Name:
|
Re: what's your take on this?
On an emotional level it seems ridiculously unfair.
But looking at it objectively, if the testing proves scientifically and conclusively that his prosthetics give him an energy advantage over other runners, then he should be disqualified.
|
| Posted 1/14/08 3:44 PM |
| |
|
Blu-ize
Plan B is Now Plan A
Member since 7/05 32475 total posts
Name:
Susan
|
Re: what's your take on this?
if it's so much better to have these artifical limbs and you can run faster with less energy, then why isn't everyone doing it?
I'll tell you why..
because it's not true. They haven't developed the testing necessary to tell if the energy expenditure is more or less. They are using old testing on new technology.
These are not bionic Lee Major artifical limbs, they are great technology that allows amputees to function as they did before. Some of them run marathons and sprints and some of them just walk. These limbs can't cure cancer or fly to the moon, they are just better than the old technology.
Do you think they would give a rats azz if he wasn't winning medals?
|
| Posted 1/14/08 4:00 PM |
| |
|
headoverheels
s'il vous plaît
Member since 6/07 42079 total posts
Name:
LB
|
Re: what's your take on this?
Posted by Blu-ize
if it's so much better to have these artifical limbs and you can run faster with less energy, then why isn't everyone doing it?
I'll tell you why..
because it's not true. They haven't developed the testing necessary to tell if the energy expenditure is more or less. They are using old testing on new technology.
These are not bionic Lee Major artifical limbs, they are great technology that allows amputees to function as they did before. Some of them run marathons and sprints and some of them just walk. These limbs can't cure cancer or fly to the moon, they are just better than the old technology.
Do you think they would give a rats azz if he wasn't winning medals?
i think i get how you feel b/c of your brother but if i understand correctly, your brother does not have a "high-tech" lightweight prosthesis that would enable him to run long distances, like the man referenced to in this article. i am not saying you are wrong AT ALL, i am just saying in this case, i think it's two different things. depending on the style of his prosthesis, this man may not be exhausted at all when he goes home at night - it may, in fact, be conserving his energy, which is what i think the IAAF is arguing.
on a side note, how is your brother?
|
| Posted 1/14/08 4:13 PM |
| |
|
GoldenRod
10 years on LIF!
Member since 11/06 26792 total posts
Name:
Shawn
|
Re: what's your take on this?
Info on the Cheetah prosthetics:
http://ossur.com/?PageID=6741
I read somewhere during my searching that these limbs are about $15k to $18k each. They are only used for running, and not good for typical use (walking, climbing stairs, etc).
|
| Posted 1/14/08 4:18 PM |
| |
|
Blu-ize
Plan B is Now Plan A
Member since 7/05 32475 total posts
Name:
Susan
|
Re: what's your take on this?
Posted by headoverheels
Posted by Blu-ize
if it's so much better to have these artifical limbs and you can run faster with less energy, then why isn't everyone doing it?
I'll tell you why..
because it's not true. They haven't developed the testing necessary to tell if the energy expenditure is more or less. They are using old testing on new technology.
These are not bionic Lee Major artifical limbs, they are great technology that allows amputees to function as they did before. Some of them run marathons and sprints and some of them just walk. These limbs can't cure cancer or fly to the moon, they are just better than the old technology.
Do you think they would give a rats azz if he wasn't winning medals?
i think i get how you feel b/c of your brother but if i understand correctly, your brother does not have a "high-tech" lightweight prosthesis that would enable him to run long distances, like the man referenced to in this article. i am not saying you are wrong AT ALL, i am just saying in this case, i think it's two different things. depending on the style of his prosthesis, this man may not be exhausted at all when he goes home at night - it may, in fact, be conserving his energy, which is what i think the IAAF is arguing.
on a side note, how is your brother?
if he was an athelete he would be fitted for a leg that would allow him to do everything he did before and insurance would pay for it. It takes a while for people to get used to prosthetics and there is no substitute for having your own leg. Not a doubt in my mind that it's MUCH harder to do anything with a prosthesis.
I've had lots of exposure to this and I've seen many amputees over the last 9 months. Without knowing who decided to enforce the ban personally, I can only say that they should have their legs cut off and be forced to function with articial limbs. They will find out how easy it is.
My brother is having issues..but that's to be expected. Thanks for asking.
|
| Posted 1/14/08 4:26 PM |
| |
|
bomb-blast
bye bye
Member since 11/06 1327 total posts
Name:
Leo
|
Re: what's your take on this?
On a purely athletic basis, you cannot compare someone who has full use of their limbs to someone who does not. They are two different 'creatures', so to speak. This is why men and women compete separately. Men and women have different physical mechanics...just like this very special athlete.
I feel terrible for the guy in the article, but the fact of the matter is that there truly is not a place for people like him in the Olympics, at least not right now. Maybe sometime in the future, when there is more information available, things will change. But for the moment, I'm afraid it will be difficult to change the IAAF's mind on this.
Message edited 1/14/2008 4:52:45 PM.
|
| Posted 1/14/08 4:51 PM |
| |
|
