Handicapped entry in the olympics

[pockyD]

this

I find this absolutely preposterous... People might call it prejudice or whatever, but the olympics are meant to honor and recognize athletic ability in a particular field. Sure, this is impressive, but Pistorius's feat (no pun intended) is different from what everyone else in the same races will have to be performing, and it is unfair to judge them directly against each other.

What if he wins? (he won't)

The committee decided that his prosthetics did not give him an advantage, but who's to say they won't be modified/improved by the time these olympics roll around, or even by the time London 2012 comes up? (the article suggests that he is pre-emptively cleared for these events too)

I feel that they have started down a slippery slope, and either at some point they will have to say no (which will incite a huge outcry from the supporters of whatever "athlete" they reject, who will point to this case) or eventually half-bionic competitors will replace the ones we have today

 

[snex]

i see nothing wrong with people being allowed to compete with such prostheses. i also see nothing wrong with allowing the use of steroids to gain a competitive advantage. athletes are consenting adults (for the most part) and should be allowed to make their own choices on how to gain a competitive advantage.

if you are willing to cut your own legs off so you can have special running legs installed, more power to you.

 

[Crimson King]

As with Barry Bonds, steroids may allow him to hit harder, but he still has the skill and talent to hit the ball better than anyone else on steroids.

He's not a cyborg. He lost his legs, trained hard, and now can run a sprints on them. That is a lot more than many of the other athletes can say.

 

[pockyD]

i see nothing wrong with people being allowed to compete with such prostheses. i also see nothing wrong with allowing the use of steroids to gain a competitive advantage. athletes are consenting adults (for the most part) and should be allowed to make their own choices on how to gain a competitive advantage.

if you are willing to cut your own legs off so you can have special running legs installed, more power to you.

If you don't define rules for a sport, then it just becomes completely unentertaining.

For example, if you apply an "anything-goes" rule to track and field, it becomes simply a match of who can design the best rocket-pack.

My point is that olympic events, especially track and field, are designed to test the particular skillset.

Do you think it's acceptable to simply run in the "speedwalking" competition? (which btw is a ridiculous event already, even though it is physically much more demanding than even the marathon)

Edit: and I'm all for people doing what they can to gain an advantage within the context of the rules; for example, steroids are fun and all and if they weren't banned by MLB, then more power to them, I support its use by people who really want to risk it, but given that there's an explicit rule against their use, I can't understand how it would be a legitimate way to gain an advantage

As with Barry Bonds, steroids may allow him to hit harder, but he still has the skill and talent to hit the ball better than anyone else on steroids.

He's not a cyborg. He lost his legs, trained hard, and now can run a sprints on them. That is a lot more than many of the other athletes can say.

Good for him, but I don't find that to quite the same thing as a traditional 100 m dash or whatever

Let's say a perfectly healthy athlete decides to start augmenting his legs with such prosthetics (I was awful at track but I imagine there's some sort of spring-loaded contraption someone can use to gain an advantage); can you safely outlaw that while still allowing this guy to compete? exactly how much leg do you have to have in order to be allowed to use the prosthetic?

Will the committee have to reconvene and reinspect his apparatus before every single event? What if "enhancements" are made?

 

[snex]

of course you need rules in place, but professional sports leagues and the olympics are about who the best is. i dont think watching sprinting events would be any less entertaining (not that its entertaining in the first place) if every runner had robot legs.

if you wanted to create a league that was for "all natural" humans only, then you could do so - the question is whether or not anybody would want to watch it. does anybody want to watch women's basketball? ultimately, these decisions should not be in the hands of a few rich goofballs who dont know what the public wants, but the public themselves.

 

[pockyD]

of course you need rules in place, but professional sports leagues and the olympics are about who the best is. i dont think watching sprinting events would be any less entertaining (not that its entertaining in the first place) if every runner had robot legs.

if you wanted to create a league that was for "all natural" humans only, then you could do so - the question is whether or not anybody would want to watch it. does anybody want to watch women's basketball? ultimately, these decisions should not be in the hands of a few rich goofballs who dont know what the public wants, but the public themselves.

I believe the intention of the Olympics was for "all-natural" humans, despite not explicitly stating it (since they haven't really needed to up to this point

And when people don't like women's basketball (including me), the correct result is to scrap it completely, not to allow men to play in the league

 

[snex]

I believe the intention of the Olympics was for "all-natural" humans, despite not explicitly stating it (since they haven't really needed to up to this point)

but there is no such thing as an "all-natural" human anymore. we all eat foods with synthesized ingredients, and athletes take legal supplements. they also train under unnatural conditions, such as mechanical exercise equipment. youre trying to draw an arbitrary line in the sand.

 

[pockyD]

Sure I'll bite; let's assume I am, and that arbitrary line to me is augmenting the body externally with mechanical appendages. if there is NO arbitrary line at all, then we should all just hop in our formula 1 racecars and go compete in the olympics

And how an athlete prepares is completely up to them; if they want to train with springs on their shoes and a rocketpack on their back, more power to them, but ultimately the competition itself should be within boundaries

A rocketpack race would indeed be fun, but it should not replace a traditional 100 yd dash just because they happen to be traveling the same distance

 

[SkylerOcon]

this

I find this absolutely preposterous... People might call it prejudice or whatever, but the olympics are meant to honor and recognize athletic ability in a particular field. Sure, this is impressive, but Pistorius's feat (no pun intended) is different from what everyone else in the same races will have to be performing, and it is unfair to judge them directly against each other.

What if he wins? (he won't)

The committee decided that his prosthetics did not give him an advantage, but who's to say they won't be modified/improved by the time these olympics roll around, or even by the time London 2012 comes up? (the article suggests that he is pre-emptively cleared for these events too)

I feel that they have started down a slippery slope, and either at some point they will have to say no (which will incite a huge outcry from the supporters of whatever "athlete" they reject, who will point to this case) or eventually half-bionic competitors will replace the ones we have today

Your logic falls apart once you assume that we have the technology to turn prosthetic limbs into rocket packs. We can't build a cyborg. We can't create some magical device that will give somebody who doesn't even have legs an advantage over somebody who has legs.

These are a disadvantage. He's not going to put in hundreds of thousands of dollars into prosthetic research just so he could have an advantage over runners with legs. That doesn't even make any sense. If he does do this, or if he just flat out cheats, he'll be removed. Simple as that.

Before you say that the IAAF originally disallowed him from competing because of the carbon fiber legs, I have to ask you -- do you actually think they work in the same way that actual legs do? It'll be much harder for him to run simply because he doesn't have the same amount of control over his feet that runners that have to real legs do.

And even while Pistorius is allowed to compete, he has yet to make a run fast enough to qualify for the Olympics. 10.91 in the 100m, 21.58 in the 200m, and 46.56 in the 400m really aren't that fast. I've seen some high schoolers hit the 100 and 200 meter time, and the 400 meter time is commonly seen in Colleges.

 

[pockyD]

my issue is exactly that this guy has no realistic chance of winning, and I believe that played a huge role in the committee's decision

If he had been a legitimate competitor, you can bet there would be much closer scrutiny. My problem with it is that by allowing this, they are opening the door for people who will be better able to abuse the system to destroy the competition

And do you really think we lack the technology to design a prosthetic leg that would perform better than an actual human leg (even if not now, in the very recent future)? What if he just rides a motorcycle out there? I don't actually know anything about cars, but I wouldn't find it hard to believe at all that there exists some motorized contraption that would not only cost less than his prosthetics, but allow him to move faster than them

 

[SkylerOcon]

my issue is exactly that this guy has no realistic chance of winning, and I believe that played a huge role in the committee's decision

If he had been a legitimate competitor, you can bet there would be much closer scrutiny. My problem with it is that by allowing this, they are opening the door for people who will be better able to abuse the system to destroy the competition

And do you really think we lack the technology to design a prosthetic leg that would perform better than an actual human leg (even if not now, in the very recent future)? What if he just rides a motorcycle out there? I don't actually know anything about cars, but I wouldn't find it hard to believe at all that there exists some motorized contraption that would not only cost less than his prosthetics, but allow him to move faster than them

Yeah, and they totally won't notice a motorcycle.

You suggested in your OP that the reason you didn't want this to happen was because he could have had a mechanical disadvantage.

 

[pockyD]

Yeah, and they totally won't notice a motorcycle.

It was clearly an example to illustrate how badly the situation could escalate. Surely, they notice his prosthetic legs now, right? what if he gradually strengthens the springs until he's eventually taking 15m steps? at what point should you have stopped him? Or should that be legal?

You suggested in your OP that the reason you didn't want this to happen was because he could have had a mechanical disadvantage.

I don't think I did, but if for some reason I came across this way, I apologize and would like to clarify.

I don't care if his current setup gives him no advantage (or even gives him a disadvantage). I care that, given that what he has is legalized, it will become increasingly difficult to draw the line as far as how much "help" a prosthetic can provide for a person. The time to stop it is now, before it starts.

 

[Kur]

The olympics is a competition of human strength, speed, endurance, skill, and balance. As such things that are not naturally human should not be allowed. This includes prosthetic legs, arms, heads, and whatever else. This also includes steroids. Steroids are made from horse testosterone, not human. Not only that but it is an unfair advantage given that some of the poorer countries can not afford steroid programs for their competitors.

And what good is crowning somebody the worlds best runner or jumper or whatever if they can't actually do the event without first injecting themselves with some kind of performance enhancer? And an athlete whos heart explodes in the middle of a triathlon isn't much good is he?

If steroids or prosthetic limbs are legalized, the olympics becomes a competition between which country can make the best roids and prosthetic limbs. The poor athletes become nothing more than vessels for the latest drug or machine.

 

[Mic_128]

but there is no such thing as an "all-natural" human anymore. we all eat foods with synthesized ingredients, and athletes take legal supplements. they also train under unnatural conditions, such as mechanical exercise equipment. youre trying to draw an arbitrary line in the sand.

Well there is a difference between training on sprins and running a race on springs.

while I'm all for treating those differently abled the same, something like this is one of the things that a line should be drawn. As said, what do you do when prosthetics can allow someone to move faster than a human who has all their legs?

 

[McCloud]

The committee made the right decision the first time. The guy's a good athlete, sure, but the prosthetics in the end don't suffer the same wear and tear that human flesh does. Does it suck that he was born without good legs? Yeah. But it sucks that athletes who have legs have to run against mechanized limbs.


But if there is no clear evidence that his prosthetics give him an advantage over other runners, then he should be allowed to compete.

 

[SkylerOcon]

He should be allowed to compete.

However, he won't be able to compete. As I've said before, his times would probably make him the best in a High School.

 

[pockyD]

He should be allowed to compete.

However, he won't be able to compete. As I've said before, his times would probably make him the best in a High School.

What a compelling argument; you have completely won me over

 

[SkylerOcon]

I've already made my argument before. And you've seen my argument (protip: you replied to it).

This was just in response to McCloud's post

 

[pockyD]

But if there is no clear evidence that his prosthetics give him an advantage over other runners, then he should be allowed to compete.

That's the problem; who's to say the guy wouldn't run a 20-second 100m if he had real legs? it's entirely possible that the prosthetics ARE in fact giving him a huge advantage, which is merely hidden by the fact that he might not be a great athlete previously (this is obviously an exaggeration, but it's certainly possible that the prosthetic shaves a half second off of his true time)

 

[Crimson King]

So, nothing mechanical or inorganic? What about pacemakers and artificial hearts? Those are mechanical things that give them an advantage: life when they would have died. They also are in direct opposition to your:

Sure I'll bite; let's assume I am, and that arbitrary line to me is augmenting the body externally with mechanical appendages. if there is NO arbitrary line at all, then we should all just hop in our formula 1 racecars and go compete in the olympics

Also, turn your sig off in all your previous and future posts.

 

[pockyD]

Sorry

And sure, I'm fine with that. Ban pacemakers, "artificial hearts" (I don't know what these are anyway), and even those random metal plates in peoples' heads or rods in their legs if that's what it takes to keep the sport from being "corrupted"

Better to ban one worthy competitor than effectively ban all of them by forcing them to turn to external help to gain the necessary competitive edge

 

[SkylerOcon]

Sorry

And sure, I'm fine with that. Ban pacemakers, "artificial hearts" (I don't know what these are anyway), and even those random metal plates in peoples' heads or rods in their legs if that's what it takes to keep the sport from being "corrupted"

Better to ban one worthy competitor than effectively ban all of them by forcing them to turn to external help to gain the necessary competitive edge

You apparently haven't even done enough research to have any chance in this debate.

Pacemakers and artifical hearts are used to either replace or help the heart to operate the flow of blood in the human body.

And secondly, WE COULDN'T FIND OUT IF HE COULD RUN A LESS THAT 20 SECOND 100 (which, by the way, a third grader could do) SO IT DOESN'T MATTER IF HE COULDN'T.

There's no advantage (once more, his times aren't even GOOD enough for him to make the Olympics) in the artificial legs, but good job for him for trying. That's an actual disability and he's trying to do his best to overcome it.

 

[pockyD]

You apparently haven't even done enough research to have any chance in this debate.

I've actually done no research =\

Pacemakers and artifical hearts are used to either replace or help the heart to operate the flow of blood in the human body.

Yes I know what a pacemaker is, and while I had never heard of an 'artificial heart' being used, I didn't have much trouble guessing what it was, despite its confusing name

And secondly, WE COULDN'T FIND OUT IF HE COULD RUN A LESS THAT 20 SECOND 100 (which, by the way, a third grader could do) SO IT DOESN'T MATTER IF HE COULDN'T.

There's no advantage (once more, his times aren't even GOOD enough for him to make the Olympics) in the artificial legs, but good job for him for trying.

I don't know where the caps rush came from, but
1) I actually explicitly qualified that it was an exaggeration (even though I figured it'd be implicitly obvious, some people don't catch on, though I guess my explicit statement didn't fix that either)
2) I feel I've already addressed this when I stated that I would rather DQ one worthy competitor than destroy the sport by forcing everyone to take those drastic measures. I realize that this isn't gospel or anything, but it's my opinion and it's based on this thought (which, if you want to debate it, I'm open to) that I believe that the 'potential' that the artificial legs are helping his time is enough to merit a ban

That's an actual disability and he's trying to do his best to overcome it.

I think people are getting lost in the "feel-good" aspect of it and subconsciously overlooking the underlying issue.

Seriously, what if he wins by a half a second (a HUGE margin)? What do you think everyone's reaction will be?

I simply don't buy "he's not a threat" as an argument because if you allow him, eventually someone will come along who IS a threat with the mechanical parts (whether from superior parts, or just superior ability to use them), and you will have no recourse to turn him or her away because he/she has this precedent to refer to

 

[McCloud]

The problem with the argument you're trying to make, pockyD, lies in the fact that you're assuming people are seeking these things as tools to purposely gain an advantage. It'll be a cold day in hell before any healthy athlete lops off his own legs or undergoes heart surgery in order to compete. This is just a random occurrence in a long history of sport. Does it mean that new athletes won't necessarily be all human? Yes. Does it mean that we're looking at the bionic age of sporting events? Nope.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

The problem with the argument you're trying to make, pockyD, lies in the fact that you're assuming people are seeking these things as tools to purposely gain an advantage. It'll be a cold day in hell before any healthy athlete lops off his own legs or undergoes heart surgery in order to compete.

That's a remarkably naive statement.