Should Oscar Pistorius be allowed to compete in the Olympics?

Part of me thinks he shouldn't. When you see him run, his "legs" look springy and seem to give him an advantage. But then at the same time I think, how can having no legs be an advantage in a running race? It's a tough one, but I think he should settle for the Paralympics.

Would the debate be any different if he played a different sport? For example, do you think people would be having this debate if he did Archery? Taekwondo? Or Gymnastics?

Part of me thinks he shouldn't. When you see him run, his "legs" look springy and seem to give him an advantage. But then at the same time I think, how can having no legs be an advantage in a running race? It's a tough one, but I think he should settle for the Paralympics.

 

 

Would the debate be any different if he played a different sport? For example, do you think people would be having this debate if he did Archery? Taekwondo? Or Gymnastics?

It would be ludicrous if he were allowed to compete. He has completely different 'equipment' to any other competitor. Could he use a ten foot version to step over the high jump?

Yes he has done amazingly well and respect to him for over coming his disability - but you cant pretend its possible to recreate an even playing field.

Of course he should be allowed to compete - BUT there should be rules governing the "abilities" of his prosthetics. In golf there are rules limiting the characteristics of both ball and club and the same principles could be applied here. I'm sure some crazy scientist could work out the dynamics somehow. He definitely shouldn't be able to compete with an unfair added advantage though

of course not

no, he should not end of.

I have total respect for him and what he strives for as an athlete, but the simple scientific fact is that an athlete with legs has several dozen different working parts to those of Oscar. Evry part of the body needs to function to perfection in a race.

Of course Oscar has performed astonishingly well, but in this instance it is the "equipment" that is different.

Could I turn up to play cricket with a special compound synthetic cricket bat? No

No he shouldn't.

How can he possibly be allowed to use springed legs. It's just stupid.

I have a disadvantage that I have a beer belly . Can I use my car?

Yes he should be allowed to compete.

BUT, he shouldn't be allowed to use the artificial limbs.

Having done a lot of research and specifically on Oscar I’d say no, limits to inclusion and how far we can let ‘technology’ be involved. Even the likes of Tammy gray Thompson are against the idea, with her being one of the main faces of Paralympic sport...

In a nut shell it will also make the Paralympics be as grade ‘B’ competition, with those not being good enough for the Olympics having to settle for the Paralympics, that being in its simplistic form.

Well I'm going against the grain and say Yes.

Why? Simple, they give no advantage over legs. Its a bit like running shoes, some are better than others, so going by all your arguements, why allow differences? Everyone should run with the same shoes, or barefoot?

The Paralympics were set up to give a platform for disabled men and women to compete on a level playing field as they couldn't compete against able-bodied people head to head. But, now they can with whatever handicaps they have. Its not like they woke up one morning and thought ''right, I'm not fast enough to run, so I'll chop my legs off and gain an unfair advantage?''. In Oscar's case, he's had no legs since the age of 11.

He's not the first disabled competitor at the Olympics either, and won't be the last. In 1982, New Zealander Neroli Fairhall won gold in Archery at the Commonwealth games, and competed at the Olympics in '86. People complained because she was sitting in a wheelchair, after being paralyzed from the waist down after a motorbike accident, when some rivals suggested she had an advantage in shooting from a sitting position. The controversy waned when, asked if that were so, she replied: "I don't know. I've never shot standing up.

Its the same for Oscar.

Simple question is, does he need those type of prosthetics to walk? No. I have an uncle with a false leg (drove lorry over a land mine). His false leg looks like.... well a false leg. If OP was able to run fast using that type of prosthetic I would say let him run.

But have you ever seen anyone walking down your local high street with the sort of false leg and foot he races in? No, because they are specifically designed not just for routine movement but for speed. And much as his natural body may be at a disadvantage, that gives him an unnatural advantage.

I do sympathise with his situation but a line has to be drawn. If they (the artificial running limbs) are allowed then why not a motorised wheelchair.? Could a basketball team of midgets using "flubber" soled shoes be refused? Paralympics are, sadly for him, where he belongs.

And there's the female swimmer, Natalie du Toit. I suppose some might argue that, because she's only got one leg, there's less water resistance?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalie_du_Toit

Wiki informs me that there are quite a few paralympians who have also competed at the Olympics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_athletes_who_have_competed_in_the_Paralympics_and_Olympics

From the looks of it in that photo, he has a longer stride than his normal legs would have......And no. No way.

If he were to win anything in the 'normal' Olympics there would be outcry from all the other competitors, their national Olympic organisers, governments etc. Even if he won on genuine tallent and his legs didn't give him an advantage, it would still be a massive scandal. Basically he wouldn't be allowed to win, be it outright or just a medal, so there would little point in taking part.

No, I don't think he should. Of course, all credit to him for over-coming his disability and being a class paralympete (is that a correct word?), but, it makes it a non-level playing field if he competes.

Ben Johnson had a disadvantage, he was slower, he took something to help him and won ...

What about this scenario then?

Athletes in the past have had a mutation in the gene that codes for the receptors that regulate the release of the hormone erythropoietin which controls the number red blood cells in your blood, increasing them where oxygen is sparse and decreasing when it is plentiful.

Some athletes in the past have had a mutation that basically means that they continuously have high levels erythropoietin which means they have tonnes of red blood cells which means more oxygen transportation which means they are able to go on for longer with comparative ease. (People have taken drugs in the past to replicate this effect and promptly been banned.)

Is that fair? That athletes body is different, just not in such a visible way. I just think all our bodies are different and if he is good enough to compete at the Olympics, then good on him.

I just think all our bodies are different and if he is good enough to compete at the Olympics, then good on him.

Yes but what about the bleeding obvious? That he isnt good enough to compete at the Olympics without mechanical aids. I'd be a cert for the rifle shooting with a 20x telescopic sight for a start - not those piddly iron V sights they usually use.

Yes but what about the bleeding obvious? That he isnt good enough to compete at the Olympics without mechanical aids. I'd be a cert for the rifle shooting with a 20x telescopic sight for a start - not those piddly iron V sights they usually use.

That's different though. I would never be able to run like Usain Bolt even if I had been trained from birth by the best in the business. The fact is that I'm just not built for it. For whatever genetic reason, that's just the way it is.

We are all different, and sometimes those differences mean we have 'advantages' in certain sports and sometimes elsewhere.

That's different though. I would never be able to run like Usain Bolt even if I had been trained from birth by the best in the business. The fact is that I'm just not built for it. For whatever genetic reason, that's just the way it is.

 

We are all different, and sometimes those differences mean we have 'advantages' in certain sports and sometimes elsewhere.

jesus

What about this scenario then?

 

Athletes in the past have had a mutation in the gene that codes for the receptors that regulate the release of the hormone erythropoietin which controls the number red blood cells in your blood, increasing them where oxygen is sparse and decreasing when it is plentiful.

 

Some athletes in the past have had a mutation that basically means that they continuously have high levels erythropoietin which means they have tonnes of red blood cells which means more oxygen transportation which means they are able to go on for longer with comparative ease. (People have taken drugs in the past to replicate this effect and promptly been banned.)

 

Is that fair? That athletes body is different, just not in such a visible way. I just think all our bodies are different and if he is good enough to compete at the Olympics, then good on him.

What a complete load of böllocks you talk. Next you'll be saying it's not fair for people with long legs to compete because they don't have to take as many strides in running races or can jump hurdles easier.

Your body is your body, no matter what size legs you have, how big your muscles are, or how many red blood cells you naturally produce; It's a bit different to letting Zebedee spring his was along a 100m track.

jesus

I bet he was quick. Bronze medal in the 400m, maybe even silver I reckon.

What a complete load of böllocks you talk. Next you'll be saying it's not fair for people with long legs to compete because they don't have to take as many strides in running races or can jump hurdles easier.

 

Your body is your body, no matter what size legs you have, how big your muscles are, or how many red blood cells you naturally produce; It's a bit different to letting Zebedee spring his was along a 100m track.

And his body is his body and he has to deal with what he has been dealt. If he is good enough to compete, good on him. I'm glad you are getting into the spirit though... bar the last sentence, I'd agree with all of what you say.

Edit: and you seem to be confused... where was I arguing that if people have longer legs they shouldn't be allowed to compete?! I thought I was arguing that that is okay.

And his body is his body and he has to deal with what he has been dealt. If he is good enough to compete, good on him. I'm glad you are getting into the spirit though... bar the last sentence, I'd agree with all of what you say.

 

Edit: and you seem to be confused... where was I arguing that if people have longer legs they shouldn't be allowed to compete?! I thought I was arguing that that is okay.

No andy, just no.

How much conditioning work does he do on his achilles tendons? How much pain has he gone through with impact injuries to his metatarsals. How many hours a day does he spend working on his calf muscles?

Obviously he has different areas of the body that he must work on and he must go through the pain of that training. But THAT is the point, even the work he has to do is DIFFERENT to all the other competitors.

Why stop with Oscar? Let's build a gear system for a bike that Stephen Hawking can use in the tdf by blinking?

He (Oscar) is a hero and a role model for many many people, but this is the wrong thing for him to do

No andy, just no.

 

How much conditioning work does he do on his achilles tendons? How much pain has he gone through with impact injuries to his metatarsals. How many hours a day does he spend working on his calf muscles?

 

Obviously he has different areas of the body that he must work on and he must go through the pain of that training. But THAT is the point, even the work he has to do is DIFFERENT to all the other competitors.

 

Why stop with Oscar? Let's build a gear system for a bike that Stephen Hawking can use in the tdf by blinking?

 

He (Oscar) is a hero and a role model for many many people, but this is the wrong thing for him to do

You are taking it to ridiculous extremes though. Oscar Pistorius is still running... quite clearly, if he was in a device that did it for him, that would be different.

I cannot see how anyone can even consider his artificial limbs as being a level playing field with fully-limbed athletes.

So the answer has to be no.

Is there a limit on how big his springs are? If he wore massive springs it would be like watching the BFG. That would be unfair IMO.

I thought this thread was answering a hypothetical question. I didn't realise he has been allowed in!

He's running/bouncing later this morning

Just curious when the moment arrives when his technology allows him to run sub 9 seconds.

No, he absolutely shouldn't be allowed to compete.

His artificial springs give him a clear advantage; his split times are completely different to other 400m runners because of it. Most 400m runners blast out from the start and fade towards the end. Oscar is slow at the start, but because of his amputated legs he has far less lactic acid build up and is stronger in the last 100m.

Just because the net result is that he can run around about the same time as other 400m runners it doesn't mean it should be allowed. He is using significant artificial devices to enable him to run quicker. Therefore it obviously shouldn't be allowed, even if it does create a heart-warming story and reinforce what a role model he is.

Ah he is doing 400 meters

So what happens when his technology allows him to shave 10 seconds from the time

Ah he is doing 400 meters

 

So what happens when his technology allows him to shave 10 seconds from the time

The politically correct bulbs on here will be applauding his dedication and effort.

Yes he should be allowed to compete.

 

BUT, he shouldn't be allowed to use the artificial limbs.

Lol

Ah he is doing 400 meters

 

So what happens when his technology allows him to shave 10 seconds from the time

I would have thought at the very least, the IOC would make sure that his legs were 'weighted' (for want of a better word) the same as the other athletes?

I would have thought at the very least, the IOC would make sure that his lefs were 'weighted' (for want of a better word) the same as the other athletes?

So, we are now handicapping him like a racehorse?

Well he didn't win the heat so I guess the legs don't give him that much of an advantage if any.

So, we are now handicapping him like a racehorse?

Well no, but in the interests of fairness you would have thought that measures would have been taken? No-one would care about these artificial limbs if the IOC made it clear that he doesn't have an advantage.

Well he didn't win the heat so I guess the legs don't give him that much of an advantage if any.

Of course they give him an advantage. How quick would he be without them?

Would athletes with legs be allowed to use a modified form of his contraptions in the bottoms of their shoes if it made them run faster?

This is a good article on it

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/olympics/2012/writers/david_epstein/08/03/oscar-pistorius-london-olympics/

My Dad has just commented " If he wins, expect the chinese to start chopping of athletes legs next week"

I would suggest it is down to the authorities in the sport to look at the prosthetics, and do analysis of them compared to a 'normal' lower leg, to see how they compare in terms of their athletic merits. It's all very well to say 'it gives him an advantage' but that needs to be qualified and none of us are in a position to do so.

On the face of it I would agree they LOOK like they give him an advantage, but only by measuring the power transfer, their ability to flex, how much energy is transferred through them, leg speed etc, etc can an informed judgement be made.

The article above is one of the better ones I've seen and personally, I currently agree that there is still not enough know about it to allow him to compete just yet. So my short answer would also be: No.

No.

Whilst the guy is an incredible inspiration and I have nothing but respect for him I think the best compromise is let him race in the olympics as a 'wildcard' but make him ineligible for qualification to the latter rounds unless they can scientifically prove that Pistorius artificial limbs don't give him an advantage over other athletes (which I don't think is possible)

I have nothing but admiration for someone who has fought against his adversity to achieve what he has. If he is allowed to run by the IOC then i'll support him regardless of my personal view as to his inclusion.

My personal view is that he shouldn't compete in the able bodied races.

Without those limbs, he wouldn't be winning any races, it's not like taking away any other competitor's shoes.

What he can do is amazing and inspirational, and I have the utmost respect for him, but that's what the Paralympics were set up for, for people like him to be able to compete.

By letting him compete in the able bodied Olympics, it's like they're trying to pretend he doesn't have a disability, and saying "you're too good for the Paralympics".

Paralympics is short for 'Parallel Olympics,' and it's meant to be on an even footing with the Olympics, but the converse of the above is basically saying to all the other Paralympians that they're not good enough.

THAT'S the main reason I don't think he should be allowed to compete, the message it sends out about the Paralympics.

Paralympics is short for 'Parallel Olympics,'

Fo' real? I always assumed it was cos of paraplegics or whatever! I guess your way makes more sense!

Well he didn't win the heat so I guess the legs don't give him that much of an advantage if any.

Maybe he is a run of the mill club or county standard athlete who has been catapaulted to Olympic standard by his mechanical springs.

The Danish table tennis player Mie Skov was knocked out by Polish player Natalia Partyka. According to table tennis rules you have to throw the ball to a certain height during serve so the serve is more visible to the opponent. Partyka only has one arm, so she has had dispensation for her serve - after the game Skov complained that it was a huge advantage for the Pole that she was allowed these "masked" serves dut to her handicap.

Yeah yeah, sore loser, sour grapes, hiss boo, I know... the point was that even though Partyka didn't win the event, she got a small advantage over her opponents. And that's a slippery slope!

the point was that even though Partyka didn't win the event, she got a small advantage over her opponents. And that's a slippery slope!

Exactly. The gap between winning and coming fourth is often measured in hundredths of a second, so tiny differences count. You have to have a level playing field. Its why drugs are outlawed and why there shouldnt be any special dispensations.

No he shouldnt, full of respect forthe toil and graft he has put in to get to where he is but surely his artificial limbs are not strictly race legal.

For me its more PC ******** as surely in reality they just want to say no but in the interest of not getting a slapped wrist by the looney lefties they allow what IMO is an uneven

Playing field to carry on.

Just quickly thinking his limbs must be lighter, springier, less resistance, no lactic acid build up in the lower legs, no DOMS in lower legs etc

Where will it stop ?

Also why is he allowed to enter both competitions ?

if he can qualify then why not...

wot if bolt lost his legs, got springs and won the gold? would it be unfair then?

lol, jus read some of these posts, and u talk like he's the million dollar man. he's the same as every athlete from the knees up, no?