Oscar Pistorius, a South African sprinter, has personal records of 46.34 for the 400meters, 21.58 for the 200meters, and 10.91 for the 100meters. These times all stack up against the best in the world, even if they are not medal worthy at the Olympics. What is truly amazing about Oscar is that he runs without lower legs and uses special prosthetic legs called “Cheetahs”. He was born without fibulas and with other defects in his feet, so his legs were amputated below the knee at 11 months old. Given his personal records in the short sprints, Oscar could easily win Olympic medals in the Paralympics, however, his recent goal was to be able to compete in the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games as an able-bodied athlete and not in the Paralympics.
To achieve this goal, Pistorius petitioned the International Association of Athletics Federation, the governing body in track and field, to decide whether or not he could compete. The main objective was to decide whether or not his prosthetics gave him an unfair advantage over able-bodied athletes. Biomechanical tests revealed that the “Cheetah” prostheses resulted in “only about 80 percent of the energy absorbed in each stride, while a natural leg returns up to 240 percent” (Longman 2). Researchers also disproved the belief that his prosthetic legs would provide an extended stride length beyond a normal stride by analyzing gait kinematics that revealed a normal stride pattern and length. In addition, kinematic analysis demonstrated that it takes Pistorius about 30meters longer than able-bodied athletes to get up to full speed. In short sprints, initial acceleration to reach maximum speed is crucial for performance.
Despite the research that demonstrated Pistorius did not have an unfair biomechanical advantage in using the “Cheetahs,” the debate did not diminish. Even though the IAAF ruled that he could not compete in the Olympics, the Court of Arbitration for Sport overruled this decision on May 16, 2008. These two rulings reflect the two sides of the argument, with prosthetics lower legs, Pistorius doesn’t have the same lactic acid that reduces performance as other runners. In addition, the Cheetahs do not require the same amount of energy to maintain top end speed, Gert-Peter Bruggemann of the German Sport University in Cologne looked into Pistorius situation on behalf of the IAAF. He found that he expended 25% less energy than able-bodied athletes running at the same speed and that "from the prosthetic blade is close to three times higher than with the human ankle joint in maximum sprinting” (qtd in Espn’s IAAF Rules…). So what should be done? Obviously the answer to whether or not he has an advantage is ambiguous depending on the biomechanical, mechanical, or physiological perspective, but this type of situation is becoming more and more prevalent; as biotechnology improves, so do the extents to which humans are aided by technology.
Sources relevant to my post:
Associated Press. "IAAF rules Pistorius' prosthetics give him unfair advantage." ESPN. 14 Jan. 2008. Web. 24 Oct. 2009.
Longman, Jere. "An Amputee Sprinter: Is He Disabled or Too-Abled?" The New York Times. 15 May 2007. Web. 24 Oct. 2009.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
In athletic sports, it is crucial that people do not have an “unfair advantage.” While this does not mean that naturally talented human beings must forfeit their extraordinary abilities, it does mean that players may be aided outside sources. If steroids qualify as unfair boosters for performance, than it is no surprise that people would question artificial limbs as unfair advantageous. However, if the limbs do not provide any sort of advantage, is it unfair to use them to perform in competitive sports?
In Oscar Pistorius’ case, his “Cheetahs” apparently did not give him any sort of mechanical advantage. While this could allow him to qualify for the Olympics, the IAAF was still uneasy, and rightfully so. While the Cheetah’s did not give him a mechanical advantage, they did in fact give him a chemical advantage. Without calves and with the Cheetahs, Pistorius would have less lactic acid buildup and therefore would have an easier time maintaining higher speeds. This is indeed a major advantage that could put other able-bodied runners at an unfair disadvantage.
While I would question the reasoning for which the IAAF denied Pistrius’ entry into the Olympics, since they seemed to have evidence that he had no advantage, I do agree that he had an unfair advantage since he would have much less lactic acid build-up.
So, to answer Melissa’s question about what should be done, I think the pat answer would be, “make it fair.” Obviously this is not such an easy feat, but perhaps one would design prosthetic limbs that would let him use his own natural potential. If there was some possible way to make him equal to the others in terms of lactic acid buildup and mechanical ability, then I would say that it is fair for him to compete. However, even while I answer the question in such a way a new question comes to my mind: how equal does he have to be? In other words, in attempting to make the competition more fair by giving him prosthetics that resemble the average person, for example, would he actually be put at a disadvantage, and would his natural abilities actually be hindered.
These are indeed difficult questions to answer. I think that the heart of the issue is that when innovative technologies are used to better or enhance a person, the line between the person’s own talent and technology’s ability is blurred. This makes it difficult to distinguish a person’s own abilities from the technologically enhanced abilities.
Although my natural inclination says that Oscar Pistorius should be able to compete in the Olympics, the fact remains that the Olympics are a competition of human accomplishments. I do not want to say that Oscar is not 'human' but his "cheetahs" should not be allowed in the Olympics. Even if Oscar used prosthetic legs that were exactly identical to real legs in every possible way it would still be an unfair advantage. They would not be natural and the Olympics are a stage to honor natural talents. The starting point for every athlete has to be physically the same. This does not mean the same as in they are given the same opportunities and are the exact same athletes, but in a sport that is based primarily on one's legs, the introduction of fake legs would unfair and create a slippery slope for the introduction of other things onto the field.
It is also important to recognize the difference between equipment and unfair advantages. Bringing shoes or aerodynamic sunglasses onto the track is completely different from bringing a set of non human legs. The point of the race is that you bring yourself to the field and that is all you need to succeed. The point of the Paralympics is to allow people who have these disadvantages to still compete within their own physical category.
Unfortunately when Oscar was born without legs, a door closed on the events that he could participate in. And although we want to give Oscar the same opportunities as everyone else, it is not possible. We must also factor in the the fairness to the athletes who have been working to make their legs stronger and move through the lactic acid build up.
Post a Comment