Olypian With No Feet - Oscar Pistorius

[mechtech2]

I was so happy for, and proud of this guy when I saw him run, and run well!

But second thoughts were about if there was an advantage for him with his million dollar 'legs'.
Is he now taller than before - Yes.
A spring advantage, or other mechanical advantage of leverage? Seems so. Hard to believe they were designed to be less efficient!
Able to take steroids or other banned drugs legally because of his situation/ rehabilitation, and now has their benefits? Who knows - it's sure possible to me.
Weight advantage? Certainly.

This is kinda like the wrestlers who are leg amputees, who can then compete in a much lower weight class [with a huge upper body advantage].

 

[Spazdog]

They couldn't keep "Po' Little Tink Tink" down.

 

[dparm]

I think he should've been in the Paralympics.

 

[Win]

There's no clear cut evidence it gives him any advantage.

Looking at him run, it seems he's at a disadvantage in the acceleration phase, but does pretty well when he's up to speed. A normal runner has feet, and calves, in addition to the upper legs, to contribute energy. He only has his upper legs. Even if his prosthetics are a "spring", a spring only returns a certain percentage of the energy stored in it.

He seems to be at a substantial disadvantage compared to other elite class sprinters.

There's a Fordham ( I think ) law review article called "Should Oscar Run?" ( I think, been awhile since I read it ) that discusses his legal dispute with the IOC and the evidence for and against him having a competitive advantage, as well as the application of the Americans with Disabilities Act to participation in sporting events.

There will be many more like him so it's an issue that needs to be straightened out.

 

[dparm]

Originally Posted By: Win
There's no clear cut evidence it gives him any advantage.



Agreed, but that's why he should be in the Paralympics with similarly-abled athletes.

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: dparm
Originally Posted By: Win
There's no clear cut evidence it gives him any advantage.


Agreed, but that's why he should be in the Paralympics with similarly-abled athletes.


But they're not similarly abled. His times are in the low end of the elite class. He may get a little faster in the next few years, he's only 25 or so.

 

[Spazdog]

"If you're a hater, the last place you wanna' be in a footrace is behind the guy with no feet." Katt Williams (sanitized heavily for this forum)

 

[KrisZ]

Originally Posted By: dparm
Originally Posted By: Win
There's no clear cut evidence it gives him any advantage.



Agreed, but that's why he should be in the Paralympics with similarly-abled athletes.


Why is that?
He can clearly keep up with elite runners, so the fact that he doesn't have legs should not be a deciding factor. The reason for Paralympics is to give disabled people a chance to compete at their level since they could never even qualify for Olympics from their performance point of view. This guy clearly can, so why can't he compete with top athletes?

In my opinion having prosthetic limbs does not make a person disabled, it's what they can and cannot do that does. The majority of obese American population would not even be able to qualify for Paralympics, but are they called disabled? They should be.

 

[andrewg]

No individual with non-human appendages should be allowed to compete in the Olympics with all-human endowed athletes. A standard must and should be adhered to. It's not about 'feeling good' or trying to make those that have injuries feel 'accepted'. The Olympics SHOULD be about competition between athletes, starting with a basic standard....and those that achieve or improve THROUGH that standard into something extraordinary. Allowing an athlete with non-human appendages DOES NOT stick to a basic standard and would allow for all kinds of issues. For instance...it is a known fact that among elite swimmers, having large feet improves ones propulsion (kinda like a swim fin). Of course, many other factors come into play, but that is a major one. So say you've got an athlete that does not have feet....yet he wants to use prosthetic feet to compete in a swimming event. How large should his prosthetic feet be? Size 9? No...too small. How about a size 12 or larger? Now how would something like that be dealt with? There are literally hundreds of other reasons and examples that I could list as to why those that are not using all human limbs should be allowed to compete in the Olympics.
Stick to a standard....hold to it...and do not change it for whatever reasons.
My opinion.

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: KrisZ
The majority of obese American population would not even be able to qualify for Paralympics, but are they called disabled?


Ironically, it is these very same obese Americans who bash and put down many endurance/speed sports in the Olympics as "not being real sports" while ONLY watching their 'stick and ball' sports, and downing 3-4 six packs, and inhaling 4 bags of pork rinds.

I guess they are trying to qualify for the ("real sport") Type 2 Diabetes team??

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: andrewg
No individual with non-human appendages should be allowed to compete in the Olympics with all-human endowed athletes. A standard must and should be adhered to. It's not about 'feeling good' or trying to make those that have injuries feel 'accepted'. The Olympics SHOULD be about competition between athletes, starting with a basic standard....and those that achieve or improve THROUGH that standard into something extraordinary. Allowing an athlete with non-human appendages DOES NOT stick to a basic standard and would allow for all kinds of issues. For instance...it is a known fact that among elite swimmers, having large feet improves ones propulsion (kinda like a swim fin). Of course, many other factors come into play, but that is a major one. So say you've got an athlete that does not have feet....yet he wants to use prosthetic feet to compete in a swimming event. How large should his prosthetic feet be? Size 9? No...too small. How about a size 12 or larger? Now how would something like that be dealt with? There are literally hundreds of other reasons and examples that I could list as to why those that are not using all human limbs should be allowed to compete in the Olympics.
Stick to a standard....hold to it...and do not change it for whatever reasons.
My opinion.


Michael Phelps is a human oddity. He is 1 inch taller than I am, (6'4") but his inseam is 6 inches shorter than mine (30"...this is heavily discussed by the commentators when he competes)
Should he be banned from competition for his exagerrated physical differences?

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog

Michael Phelps is a human oddity. He is 1 inch taller than I am, (6'4") but his inseam is 6 inches shorter than mine (30"...this is heavily discussed by the commentators when he competes)
Should he be banned from competition for his exagerrated physical differences?

Yup. And while we're at it, we should ban all athletes with fake teeth and those who may have fake boobs as a result of an earlier mastectomy. These non-human appendages should be banned.

 

[mechtech2]

Well, less weight is a clear cut advantage.
And the millions spent on the devices were specific to ENHANCE, not to attenuate, running performance.
Spring loading on the rebound can be tuned precisely.
These alone are clear cut examples of advantages.

Don't get me wrong... I was proud of Oscar -I clapped out loud. It is only after the euphoria that I considered the realities of fairness.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Let's put it this way... they will let him compete in the regular olympics for as long as he does not start to win on a continuous basis. If he does, they'll find a way to have him removed.

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Let's put it this way... they will let him compete in the regular olympics for as long as he does not start to win on a continuous basis. If he does, they'll find a way to have him removed.


...or to weigh down his devices, and de-tune his springs.

 

[Vikas]

What prevents regular athlete from wearing million dollar shoe to replicate the "springs"? Are their running shoes regulated by the Olympic committee?

Funny thing is that the first time I heard wheelchair guy had faster time in the Boston marathon than the winner of the regular marathon, I was surprised. So a handicapped athlete *can* beat non-handicapped athlete!

 

[andrewg]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: andrewg
No individual with non-human appendages should be allowed to compete in the Olympics with all-human endowed athletes. A standard must and should be adhered to. It's not about 'feeling good' or trying to make those that have injuries feel 'accepted'. The Olympics SHOULD be about competition between athletes, starting with a basic standard....and those that achieve or improve THROUGH that standard into something extraordinary. Allowing an athlete with non-human appendages DOES NOT stick to a basic standard and would allow for all kinds of issues. For instance...it is a known fact that among elite swimmers, having large feet improves ones propulsion (kinda like a swim fin). Of course, many other factors come into play, but that is a major one. So say you've got an athlete that does not have feet....yet he wants to use prosthetic feet to compete in a swimming event. How large should his prosthetic feet be? Size 9? No...too small. How about a size 12 or larger? Now how would something like that be dealt with? There are literally hundreds of other reasons and examples that I could list as to why those that are not using all human limbs should be allowed to compete in the Olympics.
Stick to a standard....hold to it...and do not change it for whatever reasons.
My opinion.


Michael Phelps is a human oddity. He is 1 inch taller than I am, (6'4") but his inseam is 6 inches shorter than mine (30"...this is heavily discussed by the commentators when he competes)
Should he be banned from competition for his exagerrated physical differences?


Wow! Did you even read and have an understanding of what I posted? I don't think you did. I spoke of non-human parts. Having an unusual but NATURAL body structure has NOTHING to do with what I posted and has no relation to my comment. No person should be banned nor prohibited because of that. But having an ARTIFICIAL arm, leg, foot....or whatever it is that COULD enhance (or alter ones athletic performance) is what I was trying to get across. Geesh.

 

[andrewg]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: Spazdog

Michael Phelps is a human oddity. He is 1 inch taller than I am, (6'4") but his inseam is 6 inches shorter than mine (30"...this is heavily discussed by the commentators when he competes)
Should he be banned from competition for his exagerrated physical differences?

Yup. And while we're at it, we should ban all athletes with fake teeth and those who may have fake boobs as a result of an earlier mastectomy. These non-human appendages should be banned.

Once again.....those specific prosthetic devices have no relation to performance...nor does your statement here contain any common sense. But alas....I knew somebody would say exactly what you did. So, I guess glasses or contacts as well? So ok then...lets just allow for anybody to compete no matter how the artificial limb (or whatever it is they have) may effect performance. We should all feel so sorry for those folks and just forget any sort of standard.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: andrewg
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: andrewg
No individual with non-human appendages should be allowed to compete in the Olympics with all-human endowed athletes. A standard must and should be adhered to. It's not about 'feeling good' or trying to make those that have injuries feel 'accepted'. The Olympics SHOULD be about competition between athletes, starting with a basic standard....and those that achieve or improve THROUGH that standard into something extraordinary. Allowing an athlete with non-human appendages DOES NOT stick to a basic standard and would allow for all kinds of issues. For instance...it is a known fact that among elite swimmers, having large feet improves ones propulsion (kinda like a swim fin). Of course, many other factors come into play, but that is a major one. So say you've got an athlete that does not have feet....yet he wants to use prosthetic feet to compete in a swimming event. How large should his prosthetic feet be? Size 9? No...too small. How about a size 12 or larger? Now how would something like that be dealt with? There are literally hundreds of other reasons and examples that I could list as to why those that are not using all human limbs should be allowed to compete in the Olympics.
Stick to a standard....hold to it...and do not change it for whatever reasons.
My opinion.


Michael Phelps is a human oddity. He is 1 inch taller than I am, (6'4") but his inseam is 6 inches shorter than mine (30"...this is heavily discussed by the commentators when he competes)
Should he be banned from competition for his exagerrated physical differences?


Wow! Did you even read and have an understanding of what I posted? I don't think you did. I spoke of non-human parts. Having an unusual but NATURAL body structure has NOTHING to do with what I posted and has no relation to my comment. No person should be banned nor prohibited because of that. But having an ARTIFICIAL arm, leg, foot....or whatever it is that COULD enhance (or alter ones athletic performance) is what I was trying to get across. Geesh.


Haters can't stand a winner.

I guess he does have an advantage. He never gets cramps in his calf or a high ankle sprain.

Don't take it so seriously.

 

[andrewg]

I know...you're right. I'm having a bad day. All around me are idiots (I'm at work). LoL....