Where's the equality in creating a special rule just for Oscar Pistorius? The guy has the misfortune to have no lower legs. Personally, I have the misfortune to be shit at running. Should I too be allowed to use any mechanical device that helps me propel myself around the track about a second off Olympic pace (which in my case would be something along the lines of a small motorbike)? Does the line only get drawn when I start to threaten the leaders? You can't say that Oscar with blades is no faster than Oscar with real legs would be, because we have no Oscar with real legs to perform that experiment with, so the comparison is being made with other athletes. If one of those other athletes shaves half a second off the world record (not likely, given that no one can get within half a second of it most of MJ's time anyway, but for the sake of argument) does that mean that OP then gets to add another inch to the Flexfoot? Or add another few pounds of spring? Just to bring himself up to within a few seconds of winning, but never nearer? That to me sounds like contrived and intolerable cruelty. The Olympic games are about identifying the strongest, the fastest, the best. They discriminate. That's the point of them. If they didn't, why would we watch? If the cry for Oscar is "let him run!", then I demand that the cry also be taken up for me: "let him ride a small motorbike!" [As soon as I saw it come in I thought 'What a lovely leg for the race!']
I just don't understand how you can say you believe in equal treatment but that disabled athletes don't belong in the Olympics. Separate but equal does not exist. Equal treatment does not mean equal results. All athletes should be given equal treatment. That is precisely my point. Not allowing blades for any athlete is not about discriminating against an athlete because he is disabled. It is about preserving the whole point of the race. Running is about running. It is not about technology. It is minimally affected by what athlete has the best equipment. Indy, Nascar, and F1 is hugely affected by technology, but we are talking about track. I would not oppose prostectic devices that were not so intertwined with the point of the sport. I would have no problem with a race car driver using an artificial leg. Disabled athletes are welcome to compete and they can even excel. Jim Abbott had a fine career in the major leagues, despite not having a right hand. I think that is great. However, I would be opposed to permitting a disabled pitcher, who is missing his pitching hand, to use as artificial arm/hand/jai alai basket to pitch. The CAS decision is akin to allowing a disable athlete to use an artificial arm/hand/jai alai basket, as long as his pitches are slower than the fastest in the league and his breaking ball breaks a few inches less than the best pitcher. Does the line only get drawn when I start to threaten the leaders? That's the way I read it. From the press release: "Finally, the CAS Panel does not exclude the possibility that . . . the IAAF might in the future be in the position to prove that the [blades] provides Oscar Pistorius with an advantage over other athletes." This is also my reading of paras. 83 and 99 of the decision. They had scientists to [meaningfully compare the relatively simple devices to the shin/calf/ankle/foot]. My original point is not refuted by the Panel opinion. The decision stated my point in paragraph 96: "it appears impracticable to assess definitively whether the [device] acts as more than, or less than, the human ankle and lower leg, in terms of 'spring-like' quality." The sides tried to prove or refute an "unfair advantage." How do you prove what is fair and unfair?
Why don't we do this. At the Belmont Stakes coming up soon, we run a field half filled with horses, and the other half with greyhounds. Except the greyhounds, because they are smaller, get to use a special device which makes each one of their strides roughly equal to that of Big Brown. Does anyone think this is going to happen? Of course not. Why? It is not because greyhounds should not be allowed to race, rather, it is because greyhound racing is a different sport, and it is only through technology that the two sports can be melded. Paralympic racing, that is racing with specialized prothesis, is a sport seperate from able bodied racing. When Pistorius runs against other paralympians, each uses or at least has access to the same technology. They have the same condition. They all approach the race and their training the same way. Able bodied racers do all of this differently. While there are similarities between able-bodied and paralympic racing, at its heart, they are completely seperate (ie., using legs as propulsion v. using aids as propulsion). Pistorius's event is more similar therefore to cycling then to able-bodied racing. He should be kept seperate not because of an unfair advantage gained, but rather because it is mixing two distinct events.
The sides tried to prove or refute an "unfair advantage." No, they have to prove an overall advantage in a race. No such advantage has been proven. Evidence exists based on the metabolic tests that he has no advantage. Evidence exists that Pistorius has an advantage in part of a race, but that he has a disadvantage in another part of the race. CAS wants to see evidence of a net advantage. The scientist agreed that a more effective experiment accounting for the advantages and disadvantages of the legs could have been designed. IAAF chose not to do that, so they lost for now. The idea that everything is excluded unless proven that it has no advantage is backwards because it would have to apply to everything, including shoes, shorts, shirts, earrings, and jewelry.
As long as we're dueling analogies, what if Pistorius was deaf and required a hearing aid to hear the starter's gun? If that's OK because it's a mechanical aid that conveys no advantage to Pistorius over other runners, why can't he run if his blades are ruled scientifically to convey no mechanical advantange over other runners?
No, they have to prove an overall advantage in a race. No such advantage has been proven. Evidence exists based on the metabolic tests that he has no advantage. "Advantage" has the same problem whether it is modified by "unfair" or not. What does it mean? I believe that it means "faster" which should be determined by a race, not by an arbitration. What relevance does metabolic tests have to do with the issue? I do not care if one runner burns calories faster or not. I do not care if a Tour de France cyclist has a larger lung capacity or slower heart rate than Lance Armstrong. It is whether they can run faster or ride faster. The blades change the meaning of run, and give Pistorius an advantage. Evidence exists that Pistorius has an advantage in part of a race, but that he has a disadvantage in another part of the race. He was faster in the second half and slower in the first half. The idea that everything is excluded unless proven that it has no advantage is backwards because it would have to apply to everything, including shoes, shorts, shirts, earrings, and jewelry. The idea that everything should be excluded unless all athletes have access to it and could choose to use it or not. The decision was clearly limited to allow only Pistorius to use the blades. As long as we're dueling analogies, what if Pistorius was deaf and required a hearing aid to hear the starter's gun? As I originally wrote "It is about preserving the whole point of the race. Running is about running." Hearing aids should be fine in a track meet, not fine in a hearing contest. Artificial legs should be fine in an Indy race or hearing contest, not fine in a running race.
There are no (meaningful) degrees of hearing the gun. You hear it or you don't. I'm aware that some people hear better than others, but I think we're getting into spurious territory if anyone reckons hearing the gun better will confer a significant advantage in a 400m race. The running of the race though is something where the degree of better or worse is observable and measurable. It's something where some people do it better than other people, and identifying the people who do it better is part of why they race. To say it's OK for anyone who's not as good as the others to be mechanically aided to within a second of being as good seems entirely contradictory to the point not only of the race, but also of their endeavor. On preview, much more succinctly put by Aardhart when he says "hearing aids would be fine in a track meet, not fine in a hearing contest".
As long as we're dueling analogies, what if Pistorius was deaf and required a hearing aid to hear the starter's gun? If that's OK because it's a mechanical aid that conveys no advantage to Pistorius over other runners, why can't he run if his blades are ruled scientifically to convey no mechanical advantange over other runners? Hearing is not the central facet of the race. Running, with legs, is. The question of whether an advantage is gained or not is not the issue here, or at least I contend it should not be. Cycling, over a short distance like 100m, would not likely be any faster than a top runner, because of the difficulty in starting on a bike. But no one would ever suggest that a person be allowed to use a bicycle in the 100m dash, because cycling uses a different means of propulsion than does running. It is a differnt event. Paralympians use a device to allow them to move. Paralympians like Pistorious are incredible athletes, but Pistorious is attempting to compete against people in a different sport from that he intends to frame himself in.
A couple of decades ago there was a world class breast-stroke swimmer in Australia, who was almost totally deaf. Her name was Cindy-Lou Fitzpatrick, and I think she made the Olympic team on a couple of occasions. Back in those days, there weren't any waterproof hearing aids, so at race starts, she used to watch the other swimmers on the blocks, and note their legs tensing and body position to follow the "Set, Go" commands. It's probably not relevant, but an interesting story. And I think she used to win by half a pool length in the disabled events.
Hearing is not the central facet of the race. Running, with legs, is. That's your definition. Why is your definition more credible than the CAS, a body much closer to the issue that has at this stage decided he can compete? Sports bodies decide all the time in Olympic sports which equipment is permissible and which isn't. If blades are ruled permissible when the process has run its course, I do not think that the events he is in will cease to be running. To say it's OK for anyone who's not as good as the others to be mechanically aided to within a second of being as good seems entirely contradictory to the point not only of the race, but also of their endeavor. So if he's as good as the others, it proves he had an unfair advantage, but if he isn't as good then it was fair? Catch 22.
While I'm probably on your side of the argument, rcade, and not with the folks arguing that handicapped people are awful and should be put down like dogs, I think that's an uncharitable framing of the argument: if Oscar weren't good, this would never come up.
Why is your definition more credible than the CAS, a body much closer to the issue that has at this stage decided he can compete? The case was decided by three prestigious lawyers, not by anyone with specialized track knowledge. David W. Rivkin (of the big New York law firm of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP) was on the panel. There was also a British member and a Swiss member. (Profiles are available on the CAS website.) I don't think any panel member was deeply involved in track or was a scientist or engineer. They were essentially jury members who are probably very good lawyers. I'm pretty sure I am qualified to say that running is an essential part of a 400-m track race and that running depends on legs. More of my reasoning is above. A sports body that actually decided the issue, the IAAF (the International Association of Athletics Federations), ruled that the blades were not allowed. the folks arguing that handicapped people are awful and should be put down like dogs Yerfatma, will you ever stop beating your wife? if Oscar weren't good, this would never come up. No one disputes that Oscar is good or that his achievements are remarkable. The only question is whether "running" with mechanical legs should be permitted in the Olympic running events. The answer from the CAS seems to be: yes, as long as he cannot beat the other Olympic runners. Regardless of other metabolic tests mentioned in the decision, "advantage" seems to come down to overall time.
So if he's as good as the others, it proves he had an unfair advantage, but if he isn't as good then it was fair? That seems to be the CAS's position! That's part of the reason I'm having trouble with this. If the basis for deciding what's permissible and what isn't comes down to time, then Oscar, and anyone else who follows using mechanical aids, seems condemned to be permitted to run on the blades until he becomes a threat, and then they'll make them illegal. I don't see any benefit there either for him or the sport. The biggest problem with this discussion mind you seems to revolve around the notion that to say "Oscar shouldn't run" is tantamount to saying that handicapped people are awful and should be put down like dogs. Knowing yerfatma, I'm presuming his tongue was firmly in his cheek when he expressed it that way, but it strikes a fundamental truth of this discussion. It's OK to identify difference here. It doesn't make you a Nazi to say that strapping 18 inches of carbon fibre onto the end of whatever you were blessed (or cursed) with by way of legs shouldn't be allowed in a running race. I can't reconcile the American ruthless inability to accept a draw in sport with its seeming desire not to impose the role of "loser" on anyone. Oscar lost the physical lottery when it came to legs. That's a tough break, but the sorrow I feel for his plight and the admiration I have for what he's done to conquer it aren't sufficient reason to put him in the race. Athletics has plenty of problems at the moment already with spectators never being quite sure if what they just saw was valid because no one knows who is juicing and who isn't anymore. It's going to a whole new level if, after Oscar wins a race, they have to go and weigh his legs to make sure he's not been cheating.
I can't reconcile the American ruthless inability to accept a draw in sport with its seeming desire not to impose the role of "loser" on anyone. Oscar lost the physical lottery when it came to legs. That's a tough break I think at least a bit of it* is born of a guilty feeling about all those kids coming back from Iraq with prosthetic limbs. We'd like to believe a full and happy life awaits them. * For me, anyway.
I'd like to think so too, but I'd question the notion that one has to compete in the Olympics to lead a full and happy life.
A sports body that actually decided the issue, the IAAF (the International Association of Athletics Federations), ruled that the blades were not allowed. What's the point of the boldface? If you're trying to suggest that the IAAF is sports related while the CAS isn't, the name of the group is the Court of Arbitration for Sport. I fail to see why you give credence to the IAAF but you deny it to the CAS. That makes no sense.
I fail to see why you give credence to the IAAF but you deny it to the CAS. The CAS is not a sports body. It is an arbitration body. The panel that made this decision consisted of three prestigious lawyers with expertise in law and arbitration and, as far as I can tell, had no expertise in track, biomechanics, or sports. The IAAF Council is actually a sports body that regulates track. It's members clearly have expertise in running. I am not the one that first invoked the expertise of a sports body, you were, rcade. Your point that the CAS is "a body much closer to the issue" is not true. The panel listened to more evidence, but I do not think the panel has significant track expertise. The IAAF Council, on the other hand, does. If you want to invoke the expertise of a sports body in this issue (which you did), the IAAF is the only sports body that can credibly be invoked. If you're trying to suggest that the IAAF is sports related while the CAS isn't . . . Yep. That's pretty much it. Check the profiles of the CAS panel. Check the profiles of the IAAF Council. Which one has a track & field world record holder and another Olympic gold medalist?
If you want to invoke the expertise of a sports body in this issue (which you did), the IAAF is the only sports body that can credibly be invoked. A sports body that's subjected to the judgment of the CAS. The court was established in 1984 by the International Olympic Committee to provide impartial judgments on sports-related matters like the one we're discussing here. Attacking the authority of the CAS is a dodge. The claim it isn't a sports organization is absurd. My position is that Pistorius deserves a fair hearing up through all the processes available to him, and the fact that he's won this round under the CAS should be given as much credence as the original IAAF round barring him. Excluding an athlete from the Olympics because of the prosthetic he uses sends a message to all other athletes who compete in sport with similar aids at all level of sports. Before Pistorius is excluded, the proof of unfair advantage should be rock solid. The idea that he should be excluded simply because his blades don't meet some arbitrary definitions of "running" is a crying shame. Sports wrestle with mechanical issues all the time. It's like claiming that golf stopped being golf when they stopped using gutta percha balls.
One more question ... I'm pretty sure I am qualified to say that running is an essential part of a 400-m track race and that running depends on legs. I'm not clear on why you'd consider your personal definition of running more relevant than the judgment of the bodies that decide this matter. If the IAAF had found no unfair advantage in Pistorius' blades, would you support its decision even though it doesn't fit your definition of running?
The claim [that the CAS] isn't a sports organization is absurd. What sports expertise does Professor Martin Hunter, Mr. Jean-Philippe Rochat, or Mr. David W. Rivkin have? How else did CAS's sports-ness affect the decision. The arbitrators' lack of sports expertise might be a good thing. That is the theory of why we have juries made up of peers rather than criminal or legal experts. However, the claim that we should defer to the CAS decision because of its superior sports knowledge is baseless. The IAAF clearly screwed up repeatedly. It drafted an ambiguous rule and commissioned a "scientific study" for "evidence" to exclude Pistorius, rather than just confront the issue theoretically. However, it is unpalateable to make the decision without "scientific evidence." It makes you look like you hate the disabled. If the IAAF had found no unfair advantage in Pistorius' blades, would you support its decision . . . . No. I still don't know what "advantage" means. (The IAAF screwed up using that term in relation to other athletes. An athlete cannot win a race without a biomechanical advantage over the other athletes. Therefore, Pistorius cannot run in the Olympics if he can win. But he cannot win, or even qualify, so he therefore has no advantage over other athletes, and he can be permitted to participate.) And I'm done with this thread. Peace.
What sports expertise does Professor Martin Hunter, Mr. Jean-Philippe Rochat, or Mr. David W. Rivkin have? How else did CAS's sports-ness affect the decision. A better question - what expertise would they need to gain your admission of authority? I don't see the IAAF suggesting it's a body that is to be ignored. I would suggest that CAS is doing the job it is supposed to. I still don't know what "advantage" means. (The IAAF screwed up using that term in relation to other athletes. An athlete cannot win a race without a biomechanical advantage over the other athletes. Therefore, Pistorius cannot run in the Olympics if he can win. But he cannot win, or even qualify, so he therefore has no advantage over other athletes, and he can be permitted to participate.) That sounds particularly confusing, and admittedly, I'm not sure that this is the rubric. The point is simply that the blades, according to this decision, provide no unfair advantage in the running of the race. I take this to mean that they are muscle driven and provide no extra spring-like propulsion. You would appear to take 'advantage' as conceptual and apply it such a fashion as to reach the above conclusion. I don't think it's that difficult.
