Aardhart’s profile

It looks cool, but I'm not sure I understand the value. You (a) play the beer barrel polka and the players move randomly (for hockey goal-scoring purposes although tied to the piano keys), or (b) you use the piano keys to try to play hockey (with great great difficulty) and get random noise that is like a 7-year-old jumping on bag-pipes. Am I missing something? Oh. It's ART! OK. I would prefer the traditional bubble hockey with the Boo button to most pieces of art. Unless I could trade the piece of art for bubble hockey, money, and a bag of used pucks. But this does look cool.

posted at 09:54 AM on July 11

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.

posted at 09:54 AM on May 21

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?

posted at 05:13 PM on May 20

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.

posted at 09:43 PM on May 19

Americans have always tolerated, even enjoyed, a minor degree of cheating in sports at all levels. I agree with Mark Bowden that this is true, and I think it is a shame. My pet peave is that almost no major league baseball player stands inside the batter's box. Next season, the league should enforce the rules it has and call all the batters out if their back foot is out of the batter's box. Minor issue, but rules are rules. Aren't they?

posted at 08:54 PM on May 19

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.

posted at 02:23 PM on May 19

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?

posted at 03:16 PM on May 18

" . . . the CAS panel has considered that the IAAF did not prove that the biomechanical effects of using this particular prosthetic device gives Oscar Pistorius an advantage over other athletes not using the device." Translation: His devices do not make him faster than other athletes. If he did win a race, that would be proof that he has an advantage over the other athletes, so his devices would not be allowed. Running with devices would have to be a separate event, as the wheelchair marathon is. The "biomechanical effects of using this particular prosthetic device" does not mean anything. It means that he is not faster. You cannot meaningfully compare the relatively simple devices to the shin/calf/ankle/foot. Let him run, as long as he cannot win? That sucks. But I'm sure you're more acquainted with the issue of cheating in sprinting moreso than the IAAF. . . . Oh wait - No you're not. The IAAF ruled he could not compete.

posted at 09:27 AM on May 17

If the prosthetics give him an unfair advantage, through lengthening his stride or whatever, it shouldn't be all that hard to prove scientifically. Prove what scientifically? Pistorius' strides with the devices are longer than without. Pistorius' whatever with the devices is faster than without. Carl Lewis' fast is faster than my fast. Pistorius' fast with the devices is faster than my fast. Pistorius' fast without the devices might even be faster than my fast. I don't think science can prove fair or unfair. And some shoes are specially made for a runner and no one else can buy those shoes. I would support requiring Nike, Reebok, Adidas, and any other major shoe maker to make all their shoes available to any qualifier for the right to have their product used in the Olympics. One more thing to keep in mind: The world record for running a marathon is about 2 hours, 5 minutes. The world record for a wheelchair marathon is about 1 hour, 18 minutes. Wheelchair marathoners are faster, therefore it is an unfair advantage? Pistorius is not yet faster, therefore it is not yet an unfair advantage? This distinction is arbitrary. This distinction is unfair.

posted at 02:52 PM on May 16

The burden of proof has to be on the agency that chooses to exclude the athlete. The way I see it, the athlete was not excluded, his devices were. If he could compete in an event without mechanical devices, he would be allowed to try. I vaguely recall an amputee competing in archery or shooting of some kind, but I could be mistaken. They made the assertion that his blades gave him an unfair advantage. As I wrote, "The devices certainly give Pistorius an advantage. Pistorius with the devices can run faster than Pistorius without the devices." The question becomes, what is unfair? Is it fair for the fastest man to win the race? My answer is yes. Should some slower athletes be allowed to use some mechanical devices that give them an advantage? IAAF answered no. CAS answered yes. My answer is no. On the other hand, is it fair that I am not fast enough to be in the Olympics? Otherwise they could ban people for whatever reason they wanted to, fair or otherwise, and the innocent would suffer. Pistorius was "banned" because he could not "run" (unaided by mechanical device, as the word has always been understood) fast enough.

posted at 01:43 PM on May 16

Relative to the world's fastest man, doesn't every other human have "certain disadvantages" in a race? I disagree with the decision and disagree with putting the burden on the IAAF to show that a prohibited device gave an unfair advantage. I think that the burden should have been on the athlete to show that only disabled athletes were prohibited from using mechanical devices or otherwise unfairly discriminated against. The devices certainly give Pistorius an advantage. Pistorius with the devices can run faster than Pistorius without the devices. The question traditionally has been whether Runner A can run faster than Runner B. The question is now whether Runner A with certain devices (and with what kind of devices) can run faster than Runner B without devices. I do not think that this question should be resolved in the Olympics. Races are contests to find the fastest. They are not primarily public accommodations or employment opportunities. Races, by there very nature, discriminate against the slow. A public track should be required to be opened to athletes with these devices, but I do not think the Olympics should be required to allow them in races.

posted at 01:20 PM on May 16

it would not be able to adjust itself to account for the differences in each batter (top/bottom). Sure it could. It would just need to be adjusted between batters. They do it on TV for replays in some big games. I have not designed and tested the system, but it is definitely possible. Many things would have to be resolved including the design and functioning, whether all 6'0" players have the same strike zone, or if crouching makes it easier to get a BB, etc. Hell, MLB umpires are currently being audited somehow. How is the performance standard measured? There could be a sensor that judges whether or not the bat actually crossed home plate. That would not be enough. A checked swing from the back of the batter's box has to be the same as a checked swing from the front of the box. (Although I know that every batter stands with his back foot several inches outside/behind the batter's box.) I could not picture a way that would be consistent with current standards, and I'm not exactly sure what the formal nominal standard is. I think automating check swings would be harder and more invasive that automating balls and strikes. But if there was a reliable consistent system, I would support it. ---------- Aardhart, please, please never let them automate the ball and strike calls. Howard_T, I don't have a vote or a veto. I'm also not aware of any serious discussion of this at any level (management, media). But if I could start one, good. Baseball is played by humans and should be officiated by humans. Do you oppose instant replay to overturn obviously blown calls in other sports? I think that players should decide the game, not the officials. I could never understand the merits of bad calls because they are "part of the game." Part of the game is for the players to adapt to the difference between umpires. I do not think that this has to be or should be part of the game. Argue/whine in the second to hope to get a call in the eighth? Making it harder for a rookie than a veteran to get a call on the exact same pitch in the exact same spot? Not good for the game in my view. As long as there is consistency . . . Just as long as there is not TOO MUCH consistency? [I think that this topic is relevant to the article, and not thread hijacking.]

posted at 03:24 PM on May 04

I have not read the whole article, but it seems to support my desire to see balls and strikes automated in baseball. Have some sensor/computer system beep when the ball is in the zone. Tennis does it with serves. Baseball has a lot more money. Let the game be about the players rather than umpires. Don't let crucial games be decided on a bad call if it is preventable. Replay is used in different sports on this principle.

posted at 11:58 AM on May 04

If Cuban buys the Cubs, they will certainly lose their label "Lovable Losers." Cubs fans will hope that it is because they start winning, but they will lose the label regardless.

posted at 07:41 PM on July 13

The things he said ... That should be "the things he allegedly said." It has not yet been decided if he actually said all the things Jennings accused him of. A trial has not been held yet. The trial court said even if he did everything he was accused of, he wouldn't be liable, so no trial is necessary. On appeal, a panel of the appeals court agreed affirmed that. Then a bigger panel of the appeals court overturned it. NOW there will be a trial to determine if he actually did anything he was accused of. there's a specific context for "hostile environment" that gives it a specific meaning. No there's not. The meaning is not specific. No one actually knows when a workplace crosses the line into a "hostile environment." If you think there is a specific meaning, you can read the 21 pages holding that something is a hostile environment, the 35 page concurrence that concluded there may have been a hostile environment but Jennings still couldn't win her lawsuit, and then the first appellate opinion (39 pages plus a 17 page dissent) where they "conclude that no reasonable jury could find that Dorrance's remarks during Jennings' two-year tenure on the team were sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a sexually hostile educational environment." All of these diverging opinions are written by people who not only know what a hostile environment is, they are people who define the term.

posted at 12:49 PM on April 14