BookTalk.org

I've been following Oscar Pistorius's story since I first heard about it last year. He's a 20-year-old, born without fibulas, who has been competing in the Paralympics. He's handily set records in the 100, 200 and 400 meter Paralympics World Cup. His intention was to compete in the Olympics in Beijing, but the IAAF ruled today that Pistorius could not compete in any able-bodied competitions, as his prosthetics give him an unfair advantage.

Here's a good article about the situation that I read a while back in the New York Times, before the decision was made.

When I first heard about this, I thought, "My god, the guy doesn't have any legs and he's competing at the elite world level." Then I heard talk about how the Cheetah prosthetics, with their spring action, could give the runner an unfair advantage. And I thought, "Yeah, but the guy doesn't have any legs and he's competing with world class athletes." Plus the spring is meant to mimic the energy consumption and propulsion that the body naturally creates with its joints

My opinion is that I don't really know what the hell the modern Olympics is supposed to be about, so I don't know how to judge a case like this. If it's just about physical excellence, like the original Olympics were, then the decision would make a certain amount of sense. It would be, by nature, biased against people with physical handicaps, yes, but that was just the nature of the beast. If, on the other hand, they're just about international unity, as the modern Olympics were (I think) intended, then I'm not sure what difference it makes. But as it stands, I think the Olympics have deviated from both intentions, and I'm not sure there's any real consensus as to what they mean.

Then I heard about the purity of competition, and how essential it is to safeguard against even the slightest chances of advantages.

This strikes me as untrue. Athletes who are supported so they can train regularly, with top notch equipment, with all the best gear, have a great advantage over athletes who don't have this support.

If they are so worried about advantages, every athlete should use the same make and model of skis, bobsleds, skates, etc.

Jan.

This strikes me as untrue. Athletes who are supported so they can train regularly, with top notch equipment, with all the best gear, have a great advantage over athletes who don't have this support.

If they are so worried about advantages, every athlete should use the same make and model of skis, bobsleds, skates, etc.

There is a subtle difference between the advantages you're pointing out and the advantage that Pistorius has been ruled to have. Those advantages are about getting the most out of an athlete's body, whereas the prosthetic limbs in question add a propulsive force. That's different to, say, a bike that reduces the effect of wind resistance due to streamlining. That adds no force to the athlete's effort, but reduces an outside force. The IOC seems to be saying that his prosthetics are more like adding a motor to the bike.

Mad wrote:If it's just about physical excellence, like the original Olympics were, then the decision would make a certain amount of sense.

Something that I read, and it might be in The New York Times article, actually addressed this. Someone made the argument that the reticence to permit Pistorius was based on the bias that a world athlete

haha slightly humorous title, is this an onion story or what??