The number one recommended read on the Track And Field News Web Site today is a blog post written by NNHS alum Noah Jampol arguing the case for why Oscar Pistorius should not be able to compete at the 2011 World Championships in Daegu.
Noah, a contributor to the Bleacher Report web site, is always worth reading, but this piece is one of the best I've seen on the question of whether "Blade Runner" should be competing against the best in the world at the World Championships and Olympics. Noah isn't overly distracted by the minutiae of the scientific evidence that Pistorius' prosthetics provide a biomechanical advantage over able-bodied runner, but explores why we have competitions in the first place.
I have been contemplating writing (and may yet write) an article arguing the exact opposite, but Noah's argument for banning Pistorius is compassionate without flinching from the conclusion that allowing prosthetics to compete against legs is a fundamental shift in how we think of track and field.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Can't agree with Noah on this one. There is no proof of an advantage. The conclusions of the 2 professors is questionable not just because they changed it, but they claim" the publishing process made them keep their conclusions confidential". Don't know what means. Noah makes the purest argument that no artificial means should be allowed, but we should also not discriminate against runners with physical disabilities, as long as their "adjustment" doesn't give them a proven advantage. We allow runners with asthma to use inhalers and other adjustments for those at a disadvantage because of a disability.
A few years ago allowing the golfer(in the famous case) to use a cart while the others had to walk the miles gave him an advantage. that can't be shown in this case. He should be allowed to run and rewarded for his tremendous motivation.
I think it may be impossible to make Noah's argument bulletproof. Where do we draw the line between what constitutes and unfair advantage and what doesn't? Using the term 'technology' is a bit of an artifice. Should everyone run barefoot (how much of a difference do/can shoes make?) How about diet. Some drugs are banned. Designer vitamins? Should runners who live at altitude be treated differently? What about the use of hyberbaric chambers?
While I have a suspicion that Pistorius does not match the fitness of the most elite in cardio-vascular terms and that the levers give him a bit of a boost, I can't really find a clear line to count him out....or in. I wouldn't want to be the one to have to make this decision.
I have to side with Noah here. The feeling of lactic acid buildup in the legs is tremendous in a 400m race. Not having to deal with this is a tremendous advantage. I really admire Pistorius' ambition he has to compete in the Olympics but when the IAAF makes a decision it must be based on science and not out of fear for being labeled discriminatory. Allowing Pistorius to compete could make science impossible to control in the near future. Imagine a high jumper with springs for feet. You have to draw a line in the sand.
To Chris' point about lactic acid build up, Pistorius has 2 legs above the knees which are still subject to lactic acid build up. Maybe as much as if his legs were whole. We don't know. Regarding jumpers, there would be no problem showing a springing advantage. Draw the line where there is an acknowledged advantage. Otherwise let runners be all they can be.
It is proven that the legs provide an advantage, however.
Ross Tucker, a PhD from the great website Scienceofsport, wrote this
"For carbon fibre limbs, the evidence is clear. It was initially theoretical, because no testing had ever been done. But the mass of the limbs, the stiffness of the limbs and the fact that carbon fibre never fatigues was teh reason for the advantage. Then, when the IAAF tested Pistorius in 2007, they confirmed this - he ran with this significantly lower oxygen cost of running. His running was described by one of the world's leading biomechanists as a "bouncing locomotion" unlike any running ever seen. These energetic factors would predict an advantage."
The less oxygen argument is interesting, but a counterpoint would be that his body also needs less oxygen than someone his size that has legs.
It's tough to say where to draw the line in terms of things like prosthetics, but I agree with Noah's argument about a level playing field. The science may never prove conclusively whether or not he gets an advantage, but his running mechanics are not truly the same as his competitors.
Thanks so much, Jon. I didn't even know TF&N had it there, but that's great.
I understand coach's empathy for Pistorius and others with disability. You can hold the "proven advantage" position, but unfortunately we'll probably never be able to build a prosthetic so similar to real legs that a world class athlete wouldn't have disadvantages and compensatory advantages. IMO, it's most sensible to take external means out of the equation and make it the best athletes period. I don't like the idea that Pistorius could be the 6'th best, 1000'th best, or even greatest of all time based on something out of his control.
ZLBDAD brings up a counterpoint I thought about, but I think the difference between external additions, and things like diet is pretty stark. Spikes have thus far been regulated to a satisfactory degree. If there emerges a spike similar to the Beijing swimsuits, the onus would be on the IAAF to do the right thing and ban it. Most athletes can shape their diet to some degree, and we don't have a "secret vitamin supplement" that has been demonstrated to enhance performance. Drugs which have (EPO etc.), are banned and I think for the correct reason- to maintain a level playing field. Altitude of course you can't ban, and I find it refreshing that nowadays most runners that would like to train at altitude have the option to do so.
Hyperbaric chambers? Those are a bit more iffy I'll agree. Enforcement of a ban of those would be difficult. In a perfect world, I think they would be banned because of their prohibitive cost and the lack of access for everyone. Still, a hyperbaric chamber doesn't come with you in the race. It doesn't necessarily hold advantages beyond those that can be enjoyed at altitude. We can't say with certainty that someone's chamber is why they are toeing the line, much as we can for Pistorius' prosthetic.
Mr. Waldron on holiday?
Post a Comment