Should this guy be allowed in the Olympics?

[Joe Bob]

Originally Posted by Les Paul

Well Joe Bob you know it had certain parts tucked and has now gotten slower. That testosterone comes in handy till you get your peter and nut sack whacked off.

Don't think it had those hanging off the wings....she had an internal bomb bay.....

[ossiblue]

Originally Posted by drcoastline

Just to make it interesting, I can see where an argument could be made that running shoes aren't any different than his prosthetic and may create an unfair advantage. Or that one shoe may be more advantageous than another. They get strapped on and it creates a barrier between the body and the track surface

This is has already happened. Remember the incredible swim times clocked by Michael Phelps and others when they used the full-length polyester swimsuits? They are now banned in the Olympics because of the technological advantage they provided in reducing fatigue and increasing buoyancy. If a track shoe reduced fatigue (beyond other shoes, not bare feet) and increased spring, it too would be banned.

[Joe Bob]

Big diff between shoes and the suits dollar wise and impact wise.

High Schoolers back in the 70s were posting better times in in the sprints, mid and long distance events than the kids are doing today. Technology can be good but not always definitive. Better track surfaces, shoes and training are only realized at the elite level.

[widgeon13]

They can all wear the same shoes, they can't all wear prosthetics.

[lane912]

Originally Posted by possible

This is has already happened. Remember the incredible swim times clocked by Michael Phelps and others when they used the full-length polyester swimsuits? They are now banned in the Olympics because of the technological advantage they provided in reducing fatigue and increasing buoyancy. If a track shoe reduced fatigue (beyond other shoes, not bare feet) and increased spring, it too would be banned.

Nike is constantly improving the tech of running shoes and weight is the biggest deal. they are lighter than any other shoe every Olympics-

[Flieger]

I like racing when the cars are not equal, so I would be interested to see how he does against runners without prosthetics. I might actually watch the olympics then.

Run what ya brung.

[Racerbvd]

Originally Posted by Flieger

I like racing when the cars are not equal, so I would be interested to see how he does against runners without prosthetics. I might actually watch the olympics then.

Run what ya brung.

Like nascar.....

[BlueSkyJaunte]

How much less weight is he carrying around thanks to the lack of flesh/bone from the knee down? Do the prostheses provide him with a measurable weight advantage?

[romad]

He's a white guy...let him compete...if he wins, the prostheses are an advantage.

[mossguy]

Originally Posted by lane912

Nike is constantly improving the tech of running shoes and weight is the biggest deal. they are lighter than any other shoe every Olympics-

And they are available to everyone?

[drcoastline]

Originally Posted by ossiblue

This is has already happened. Remember the incredible swim times clocked by Michael Phelps and others when they used the full-length polyester swimsuits? They are now banned in the Olympics because of the technological advantage they provided in reducing fatigue and increasing buoyancy. If a track shoe reduced fatigue (beyond other shoes, not bare feet) and increased spring, it too would be banned.

I would venture a guess his posthesis isncreases spring over that of a natural limb?

[ossiblue]

Originally Posted by drcoastline

I would venture a guess his posthesis isncreases spring over that of a natural limb?

Even if it doesn't, the prosthesis will not get tired like a human lower limb.

[Flieger]

It's more springy but it's not muscle. Muscle can provide additional energy. Springs just store energy and release most of that stored energy back (some inefficiency).

[john70t]

Where is "the line"?

[ossiblue]

Originally Posted by Flieger

It's more springy but it's not muscle. Muscle can provide additional energy. Springs just store energy and release most of that stored energy back (some inefficiency).

Exactly, and that's one reason why the prosthetic leg should not be allowed. A human lower leg does not have a natural spring (compression/expansion) action, it requires an expenditure of energy and action by muscle and tendons to emulate the "bounce" of a mechanical spring. Not only does this eventually lead to fatigue but it creates a risk for injury. Though the prosthesis apparently gives no "spring" advantage in terms of amount of recoil, it does give an advantage in the area of fatigue and injury.

[Les Paul]

Not going to sniff the finals no matter what.

[ossiblue]

What this all comes down to, IMO, is the basic principle of the Olympics--to determine the greatest performance possible by the human body.

Originally, the Olympians were nude and the competitors had only their natural skills to carry them through. Obviously, the modern Olympics requires uniforms (thank you very much) and even allows some technological enhancements for all competitors (think starting blocks, and spikes in track shoes.) If the event requires a device like a bow or a pole, technological advances in the area of the device are sometimes permitted and records are broken.

What hasn't changed, but is constantly being challenged by drugs and other forms of cheating, is the principle that the only thing that separates the competitors from each other is their natural human development and any technology allowed (ie. shoes) does not significantly alter the nature of the event--human vs human. The full-length swim suit was banned because it significantly changed the nature of a human body in water so the competitions became somewhat of a human powering a vehicle (the suit).

By definition, the use of prostheses violates the principle of performance by the human body if those devices are necessary for competition. The Olympic spirit, as tattered as it may be, is to find the best the human body can do. A competitor who needs a prosthesis to perform does not fit the criterion.

Think of it like this. A competition is set up to determine the performance limits of V-8 engines. Someone wants to enter the competition with a four cylinder, turbo-charged car which meets all specifications, horsepower, and speed requirements of the other cars. Should it be allowed to enter the competition? No, not because it has any unfair advantages but because it does not meet the basic purpose of competition--to establish the limits of V-8 engines. It would prove nothing except that a turbo four banger can compete with V-8's on an equal basis. So the same with the prostheses. It would prove someone with artificial limbs can compete with those without, but that is not the purpose of this Olympic competition. If the purpose was to determine the level of human achievement in overcoming unforeseen obstacles, then he should be allowed to compete.

[URY914]

In the same vain, the turbine engine was banned at Indy in the '60. One of the augments is that all the racers would soon be driving turbine engine cars. USAC could not have that so it was banned or restricted to the point of being non-competitive.

Will the Olympics turn in to the Carbon-Fiber Games in four or eight years?

[Hugh R]

In the same vein, I have a friend with a 944 with an LS-6 engine. He competed at Willow Springs last season and won the series. A guy with a RUF (Porsche) who finished 2nd filed a protest arguing that my friend didn't have a porsche engine. My friend made the point that he went through tech inspection before every race and the inspectors saw the LS-6 engine every time. My friend also pointed out that he had a Porsche VIN, and the RUF didn't. In other words, the RUF is not technically a Porsche.

Point being, if you let him in, how about the next generation of prosthetics that are perhaps battery-assisted?

This maybe old, but a friend of mine use to drag race his Yamaha, he redesigned it so that he could put 300 psi of air in the frame and used the air pressure to actuate a pneumatic gear shifter. Slippery slope on rules. He was allowed to compete because at the time it wasn't prohibited.

[URY914]

Well he is in.......

Double amputee Oscar Pistorius will run in the Olympics after all

By Chris Chase
Despite failing to meet South African Olympic standards, Oscar Pistorius, the double-amputee runner who won a court battle to run against able-bodied athletes in international competitions, will compete in the 400 meters at the upcoming London Olympics.

Pistorius was selected for both the 400 and 4x400 relay by South Africa's Olympic committee in a surprise decision. He will become the first amputee to run at the Summer Olympics.

"Today is really on of the happiest days of my life!" he wrote on Twitter. "Will be in London2012 for both the Olympic and Paralympic Games! "Thank you to everyone that has made me the athlete I am! God, family and friends, my competitors and supporters! You have all had a hand!"

Pistorius had tried all year to get his second "A" cut in the 400, a time which would have given him an automatic berth to London under South African rules. When he failed to get the time on Friday, an individual Olympic berth seemed out of reach. But Pistorius still had the two fastest times of the year in the African country and that was enough to land him an individual spot. Tubby Reddy, Olympic committee chief executive, told the Associated Press that South African officials asked for permission to give Pistorius a bid despite his failure to qualify.

The South African 4x400 team will be defending a silver medal won at last year's world championships. Pistorius ran one of the legs in the heats and became the first amputee to win a medal at a major international competition.

His races will add interest to a London track program that's already overflowing with compelling storylines like the Usain Bolt-Yohan Blake rivalry.

Double amputee Oscar Pistorius will run in the Olympics after all | Fourth-Place Medal - Yahoo! Sports