Here’s what you need to do. Next time you go for a run (assuming you run), I want you to get some of those weights that you can wear around your ankles, maybe 2kg each, and run with them. I guarantee you that by the time you reach the corner, your legs will be tired. Why? Because you are carrying extra weight in your lower legs and your muscles around your hips will have to pick that weight up every single stride. Now consider Oscar – his lower leg weighs probably 1 kg. Yours weighs maybe 10 kg. Imagine you run with 9kg extra around your legs. That’s the difference.

You need to take the emotion and sympathy right out of this – I agree that Oscar has courage, I agree that he is an inspiration. But an Olympic athlete – no way. There are loads of physiological arguments, and it seems as though you (and Oscar) have not even bothered to look into them. Instead, you are all about the emotion and ‘feeling’ and you speak from a completely uneducated view, which you at least acknowledge. This is not an issue about whether he has courage and determination, it’s an issue of science, and I agree 100% with Ross, this is wrong.

Cheers

Thank you for your reply. I must just re-iterate that I was in fact contacted, though this is not the thrust of my points. But to clear up the confusion, I was emailed for the first time in 2005 by a man claiming to be Oscar Pistorius’ manager. This is not Peet van Zyl, who I know is managing Oscar now. I then had email correspondence with this man for a period of about one month, a period that included a few phone conversations and emails with a representative from Finland who works for Ossur. If either of these people, whose names unfortunately escape me, was not representing Oscar Pistorius, then I apologise for the presumption. However, as I have pointed out, this is not material to the argument, it makes little differenc whether I have or have not had direct contact. I do not claim to have special insight because of this – my insight and opinion are based on scientific training, theories and coaching experience.

And what I am emphasizing is that research is required, and this research must be done properly in a controlled fashion. I make no assumptions without also acknowledging the counter-view, as you will see from the various articles I have written on the subject. This is the very reason we need to do the research. However, there is a very clear perverse incentive to prove that the legs do not work – the reaction of most people is clear evidence for this, because people cannot possibly conceive that the legs might provide an advantage.

However, my point is that they MIGHT – not that they do, and so becoming aggressive in response is not required. I cannot commit to either view point, as a scientist and athletic coach, until the evidence allows it.

So the problem is that there are seemingly two separate opinions – claims made by the Pistorius group that the legs are passive, that oscar has less blood etc. are all possibly true, but you are failing to acknowledge the possibility that there might exist an alternative or counter-argument. The research will establish this, but until then, it is my earnest opinion to be more circumspect with ‘facts’ – let science work out what the ‘facts’ are, evaluating the arguments of both sides.

This is, in effect, the same message that Caron Gilbert is sending – “make certain”, either way. But at the moment, the message that is being heavily emphasized is that the legs are passive. Yet this is being done without any evidence – it is your opinion. Mine is that they MIGHT not be 100% passive, and there is substantial evidence that this is the case. Now that first needs to be addressed, without becoming personal, and then we can move forward. But what I am doing is just pointing out what the issues are – these issues have not been directly addressed. Instead, a personal attack and denial were initiated, and the theories completely ignored. I do apologize if my tone caused offence – this was not my intention. My intention is to point out that there is a possibility, which has yet to be examined, that the legs may confer an advantage.

Kind regards
Ross Tucker

Henke Pistorius.

1. The athelte must lose the limbs and hence be on the prosthetic limbs almost from birth. If one were to lose a limb in an accident for example, having already learned to walk, it would be very close to impossible to relearn the motor patterns required in order to sprint. So the question is how many athletes are there who have been on prosthetic limbs since they learned how to walk?

2. In this group of athletes, you then need to have enough money to afford the limbs. So that means probably 50% of the world’s amputees are excluded because they cannot afford to buy the equipment necessary.

3. Finally, the person has to invest substantially in physical therapy from a young age, which I am led to believe that Pistorius did. But most would not, and the end result is that there are probably only a few people in the world with the opportunity to run.

Now, this alone makes Pistorius remarkable. And I’m certainly not disputing this. I think it is incredible what he has achieved, and he deserves the attention he is receiving now. But I do not think that it should extend into running against able-bodied athletes, because whether we like it or not, the limbs may confer an advantage and we need a NEUTRAL source to analyse them. That means Pistorius or the IAAF should not be the drivers of this process.

Ross