A couple of days ago, I pointed out that the IAAF is trying to add a rule that specifically prohibits certain prosthetics. I was not really sure how I felt about the rule, but I have since made up my mind. In the comments, Ima disagreed with the rule and had this to say:
Let me get this straight, the persons commenting and you Blaine, seem to believe there is an advantage to being disabled or having mechanical limbs replacing original equipment?
Perhaps a mile in their shoes would help you to understand the discomfort they may be feeling on a day to day basis. Perhaps understanding that they will never again be considered whole in many peoples minds.
The last time I checked competition was designed to test yourself against others, regardless of their limitations.
I would suggest perhaps concerning yourselves with your own preparations and less about their “advantages”.
Next thing you know there will be restrictions for those who have had joint replacements! “No fair, he has a metal hip!”
Trying to decide on how I would respond to this comment has cemented in my mind that the specific devices named should in fact be banned.
Now, I fully recognize that being an amputee is not a disability that I would care for. A broken ankle and running injuries such as stress fractures and tendonitis don’t even come close to letting me see what it is like to be an amputee. I do know what it is like to be blind, and to not have the use of my eyes. In the end, though, walking a mile in their shoes is not really that important and has no bearing on the situation. When I have gone blind during a race, I should not have been allowed to cut the course; I just had to make do with what I had left to myself.
Anybody that reads this site on a regular basis knows my thoughts about performance enhancing drugs. If I argue against allowing somebody who uses steroids being allowed to compete, then how I can argue for somebody wearing a prosthetic that gives them an advantage?
When I run a road race, I sometimes race against folks in wheelchairs and hand-cycles. Most wheelchair and hancycle athletes can beat me quite handily. Their race times are not mixed in with folks who run the race. If somebody incorporates prosthetics or even just shoes that have wheels or springs and that can allow them to traverse a given distance faster than they could without the device, how is that any different other than through a matter of degree?
What a disabled athlete feels on a day to day basis does not change what advantages or disadvantages that they might have on a specific day at a specific time in a specific competition. Competition is designed to test yourself against others regardless of limitations, but it is not designed to give some athletes an artificial advantage over others. Age group categories, weight class categories, and even equipment categories are designed to provide a level playing field.
Concerning myself with my own preparations is always my primary focus, but I fail to see anything wrong with discussing a proposed change in rules for international competition. This is a subject that people should feel divided over, and it is not something that can be easily decided. I am not one to bury my head in the sand and not pay attention to what is happening in my sport. I fully respect Ima’s opinion, and I can certainly see the validity of that opinion. However, at this point I think that I have to disagree.
I’ve come to the same conclusion (prosthetics should be disallowed in international competition), but there’s always going to be a item on the edge of dispute. Particularly once prosthetics become body enhancement devices, rather than simply replacing missing body parts.
Here’s the main issue with Oscar Pistorius that everyone seems to forget. Nobody has proven that he has a longer stride length, that he gets greater propulsion from his devices than a natural leg, or that the devices give him any advantage at all.
The IAAF is making this rule because “people say that” he has an advantage, or “we’ve heard his stride length is longer than humanly possible.” But have they tested it? Not according to Oscar. And he argues it’s all untrue.
In fact, he argues he gets only 80% impact response from his devices, whereas the human leg can produce well over 100%. And he says he’s as tall with his devices on as his wingspan is long (the common measure for judging someone’s height who has no legs, as most people are roughly similar in these two dimensions).
If he’s getting an advantage, it should be measurable. Until they prove it, it seems a bit lame to ban him from competing. Maybe he’s just a world-class sprinter who had the misfortune of having no lower legs. Maybe he’s still held back from being as fast as he could be by his devices.
I disagree with the rule change not because I know the rule to be bad, but because they haven’t proven the rule to be necessary.
Bryan
Bryan, I agree, they should do real testing with this athlete and others. But, I don’t know how you can get an accurate measurement. If he does have an advantage, do they dial back his prosthetics? How much? At what point are they limiting his ability?
These are questions that I think they should study and try to answer. But, I am not sure there will be enough conclusive evidence. And if there is, then great. Deal with that when we have absolute proof.
I just have to wonder why is this coming up now? Shouldn’t this have already been a rule in the books?
There are two separate discussions to be had here. One is whether a rule change is necessary at all (I believe it is); the second is whether Oscar Pistorius is deriving an unfair advantage from his current prosthetics (it has not been demonstrated that he is).
Whilst there may be no indication that he or any other athlete may try to take advantage of prosthetics in the future, surely it makes sense to cater for such a possibility in the rules.
I don’t pretend to know or understand how a physically challenged athlete feels. There are PC athletes out there that fit into my small cadre of idols. I just know that racing on prosthetics is not the same as racing without them. That’s about as far as I’ll ever get 🙂
The discussion about whether a rule change is in order is perfectly valid. But the current discussion can’t be separated from the situation in which it is coming about.
This isn’t a “hey, have you seen the new shoes Nike’s making…we might want to consider a rule change regarding acceptable technology” discussion. This is a “there’s no way any disabled guy could be doing this without an advantage” discussion, followed by a “we gotta stop this!” reaction.
People in the IAAF have seen what Oscar is doing and they are proposing a rule change in response–without proving its necessity. It’s reactionary and it’s a dangerous precedent/approach to fulfilling their responsibilities.
I’ve said on my blog that if they prove he has an advantage I’ll agree with the rule. I’m not opposed to putting a limit on technology on principle. But I am, on principle, very much opposed to the reactionary way this rule is being pushed through.
In response to DPeach, I don’t know what they should do. It would depend on where he gains an advantage, I suppose. Maybe they would have to ban prosthetics with a certain spring load. Maybe they’d have to require prosthetics of a certain height.
The interesting question is what do they do if they find a small advantage in one area and a small disadvantage in another? My guess: avoid dealing with the issue by banning him outright. It would fit the IAAF’s m.o.
BTW, I like your blog, Blaine. Good work.
If prosthetics makes you faster, where can I go to get my leg chopped off?
I tend to agree with Bryan. Prove that the device gives a person a measurable advantage, then move to ban the device.
To me the notion that this makes someone faster is laughable. If it did, wouldn’t there be all sorts of world class times coming out of the paralympics?
Sorry but any reasonable arguement is lost as soon as you throw in the comparison of those racing wheelchairs and handcycles to prosthetics.
Reseach indicates the prosthetics in question return approx 30% of a normal leg/foot combination. To compare is foolish and in my view biased.
I would have to agree with John that if an advantage is gained there are many people out there waiting to line up.
Of course those are probably the same ones looking for artificial enhancements to increase performance.
But please, don’t cheapen the argument by comparing wheelchairs to prosthetics.