Pistorius style tech threatens the Olympics’ integrity
Roar Rookie By Paul Roach, 7 Oct 2012 Paul Roach is a Roar Rookie
- Tagged:
- Athletics, London 2012 Olympics, Olympics, Oscar Pistorius, technology
Has Oscar Pistorius shot himself in the blade? (Image: AFP)
Related coverage
The dust has settled on the second best Olympics ever, but an uncomfortable question surely lingers. What was Oscar Pistorius, a disabled athlete, doing competing at the Olympics, the planet’s zenith of athletic endeavour?
Oscar’s name conjures up a thousand thoughts. His is an inspirational story of a disabled athlete competing at the Olympics and of triumph over great adversity.
But one also thinks of that unintentionally ironic complaint about his competitors in the subsequent Paralympics.
It’s not that Oscar, the Blade Runner, doesn’t have a great story to tell. We all know it. With both legs amputated, there exists the technology that allows him to compete at the highest level. And what a wonderful, heart-warming story it is.
But it does give rise to an inevitable head-on collision between technological advancement and political correctness. To cut to the chase: when does the assistance rendered by advancements in the kinetic ability of prosthetics become, well, performance enhancing?
There is no question that it is awe-inspiring for a human being who has lost part of his or her physical being to be able to acquire the means to mix it up with able-bodied athletes.
But with technology having allowed that achievement, where does it end? Surely the inevitability is that, having achieved the ability to compete against the greatest able-bodied athletes in the world, the next incremental advancement in this technology means that the disabled athlete can and will go faster than the able-bodied one.
Then, suddenly, technology will allow the Blade Runner to outrun Usain Bolt. The inevitable consequence is that one day the Olympic 100m final will be filled with the most technologically advanced disabled athletes the world has ever seen.
Where will that leave the Olympic motto? Higher, faster, stronger, better blades?
It is this absurdity that we need to guard against. While the Olympic movement bathes in the feel-good factor of an amputee being able to compete in an Olympic relay, the reality is set to become very messy.
With the technology that allows Pistorius to compete having been passed, the CSIRO, in partnership with the AIS, should be working out how to convert Australia’s limited stock of amputees into guinea pigs for the latest in Kevlar propulsion.
Amusingly, the fundamental issue surrounding Pistorius competing in the Olympics was best brought to life during the Paralympics, when, having lost the 200 metres to an athlete with longer prosthetic legs, he was quoted as saying “We aren’t racing a fair race”.
Poor old Oscar, beaten by better technology? Without some decisive action now, that will be the undoing of the Olympics.
Paul Roach hosts of ABC Grandstand’s More Than Just A Game radio show and podcast.
- Explore:
- Athletics, London 2012 Olympics, Olympics, Oscar Pistorius, technology
October 7th 2012 @ 7:22am
nicola fairhurst said | October 7th 2012 @ 7:22am | Report comment
i dont think you are correct. the point he is making about olivieras blades, is completely different to the issue he defended legally, and won, in respect of his blades used in the olympics. he is the only athlete whos qualifying times is anywear near to olympic qalification so you just cant say that this will open the flood gates to everyone and anyone.
October 7th 2012 @ 7:46am
RobCampbell said | October 7th 2012 @ 7:46am | Report comment
Second best?
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.
October 7th 2012 @ 8:22am
MickT said | October 7th 2012 @ 8:22am | Report comment
For mine the Paralympics story was certainly the Brazilian beating him in the 200m and how he carried on then back tracked. Agree that the IOC tried it with Oscar competing in both games and should scrap the idea. It’s interesting that as the para gets more and more support and dollars, that there seems to be a few more comments on the classification of Paralympics and how some are hard done by.
October 7th 2012 @ 9:20am
Ian Whitchurch said | October 7th 2012 @ 9:20am | Report comment
Swimming Australia has already decided technical enhancement is Just Fine. Esepcially when only Swimming AUstralia has the performance enhancing bodysuits.
October 7th 2012 @ 12:12pm
Emily G said | October 7th 2012 @ 12:12pm | Report comment
“Surely the inevitability is that, having achieved the ability to compete against the greatest able-bodied athletes in the world, the next incremental advancement in this technology means that the disabled athlete can and will go faster than the able-bodied one.”
Not only are you absolute in this claim, but it’s a slippery slope argument. No, that is not the inevitable outcome. I would argue that it’s not even a probable outcome. Since Oscar was only allowed to compete after rigorous testing determined that there was zero evidence his blades provided an advantage, why would they scrap that ruling and let someone compete on prostheses offering a clear advantage? How would that make sense, much less become “inevitable?” The only “ironic” thing about Oscar’s comments about longer blades being unfair is that you seem to have completely missed that he’s on your side: Paralympic/Olympic runners should not be allowed to use prostheses that ENHANCE performance. Both of you agree on that. Why not just agree to agree?
October 7th 2012 @ 12:29pm
Jack Russell said | October 7th 2012 @ 12:29pm | Report comment
If they don’t enhance performance, why can’t any other athlete wear them?
If any other runner rocked up with blades they’d be disqualified. That’s why it’s not fair – the rules are different for different athletes. This isn’t the Mickey Mouse games we’re talking about here.
October 7th 2012 @ 6:16pm
AndyMack said | October 7th 2012 @ 6:16pm | Report comment
JR you are missing the point. As Emily pointed out, Oscar had to undergo tests to show that the blades were not unfairly giving an advantage, eg length and strength of the blades. Anyone can do that.
October 7th 2012 @ 10:07pm
Jack Russell said | October 7th 2012 @ 10:07pm | Report comment
I’m not even sure how you can test that – you’re trying to compare 2 things of which 1 doesn’t even exist. Oh, I know – let’s see what he runs without the blades, and then compare that to his times with the blades. If there’s no difference, then there’s no advantage.
But I bet the test wasn’t that.
Unfortunately, most athletes don’t have the physical capacity to be able to compete on the world stage. Whether it be missing limbs, shorter legs, lower lung capacity, lack of ability, or a million other things which count against anyone being able to play whatever sport as well as the best. Why should one athlete be allowed to wear blades, yet someone that’s 2 feet shorter than Usain Bolt not be? How about allowing athletes without the lung capacity of others a 10 km head start on the marathon? Hell, why can’t I play with a cricket bat that’s 2 feet wide to compensate for my lack of cricketing ability? I can prove it’s not giving me an unfair advantage – just compare me with the wide bat to Chris Gayle with a normal one. I bet i’m still not as good.
October 8th 2012 @ 2:12am
pim said | October 8th 2012 @ 2:12am | Report comment
Must say your non de plume is rather fitting. All the examples you are mentioning is performance enhancing methods for athletes who are not in anyway physically disabled. All the e.g blades are doing is to enable someone that would otherwise be confied to non participation be able to compete like he could have if he did not have his limbs removed when he was a very young kid.
So are you saying that a person who applies for a job and has no arms but has mechanical limbs not be employed. because he can do the job beter than an able bodied person? So that person should only be employed by a company that only employs disabled people?
Maybe you should cut your legs off and get blades so you can run faster? Good luck !
October 8th 2012 @ 9:07pm
Jack Russell said | October 8th 2012 @ 9:07pm | Report comment
What the hell are you talking about? You think this is some sort of commentary on the blades themselves? The issue here is rules of the sport. You might want to stick to it instead of coming up with strawmen.
Would it be fair if Pistorius was denied entry into the Olympics? Who knows. But I know it’s no more unfair than denying anyone else the same thing because they weren’t physically capable of reaching the required performance levels.
October 7th 2012 @ 6:12pm
AndyMack said | October 7th 2012 @ 6:12pm | Report comment
So if a shooter or archer wear glasses it is clearly performance enhancing!!?? I guess it is inevitable that the final of the 10m pistol shoot will be a line of people with bionic eyes and “normal” people will be left out….
Can’t beleive you are making this argument. It is mean and cold hearted.
And your claim that his protest in the Paralympics is ironic, shows that you do not know the meaning of irony, or you dont understand the facts (i’d suggest an element of each in this case).
October 7th 2012 @ 10:16pm
Jack Russell said | October 7th 2012 @ 10:16pm | Report comment
Depends – are all shooters and archers allowed to wear glasses if they so choose? If so – then that’s a level playing field. Everyone can take advantage of the technology, irrespective of their eyesight.
‘Mean and cold hearted’ – what a load of rubbish. There are tens of thousands of hard luck stories on the road to elite sport. That you only see the success stories on TV doesn’t mean that everyone gets their dream fulfilled. The kid that’s not tall enough to reach the NBA, or not fast enough to play in the AFL, or not big enough to play for the Wallabies. Ian Thorpe had size 17 feet, do we allow every other swimmer that wasn’t lucky enough to have feet that big to wear flippers to compensate?
October 8th 2012 @ 6:53am
AndyMack said | October 8th 2012 @ 6:53am | Report comment
Im sorry JR but your arguments are ridiculous.
You are comparing someone without legs to someone who has small feet.
I guess you would be happy if people with disabilities just kept out of sight, or restricted themselves to competing with other disabled people only. God forbid they ever try to be part of everyday society.
October 8th 2012 @ 8:47pm
Jack Russell said | October 8th 2012 @ 8:47pm | Report comment
Knock it off, don’t turn it into a debate about the worthiness of disabled athletes. It’s not – it’s a matter of a level playing field. Track events should be about the fastest person, not the fastest person with artificial assistance. At the very least, if they’re going to allow artificial assistance (eg. spikes) the rules should be the same for everyone.
I’m not sure why you see no lower leg as being any different to smaller foot size in the context of the issue. They’re both physical characteristics that are, of varying levels, things that impact on performance. Why discriminate against one form of physical difference and not another?
October 8th 2012 @ 11:40pm
Steve said | October 8th 2012 @ 11:40pm | Report comment
A lot of the arguments that the blades merely restore Pistorius’ ability, or allow him to compete at his natural level seem to depend on the idea that he would be an Olympic contender if he still had both legs. The arguments against are equally dependent on the idea that he probably wouldn’t be in the line-up were it not for his unusual circumstances.
If Pistorius were not an amputee, but a ‘regular’ sprinter, could we still expect to see him in the Olympics?
October 8th 2012 @ 10:16am
dasilva said | October 8th 2012 @ 10:16am | Report comment
Here’s the thing
People ARE allowed to used performance enhancing drugs if they have a medical conditions
They can apply for therapeutic use exemption
People with asthma can take beta2agonist inhalers (ventolin) as well as inhaled steroids. Both are performing enhancing drugs
Beta blockers which is a blood pressure tablet are banned in specific sports such as golf because they are also can be used to treat anxiety for public speaking (slows down the heart and makes the person less nervous). Therefore the golfer are more likely ot handle high pressured scenarios. However people with high blood pressure or have heart conditions (considering how a lot of middle age men play golf) are allowed to take beta blockers.
Leo Messi – when he was a teenager had Barcalona paid for his treatment for growth hormones as he was deficient for that (he would have been much much more smaller without growth hormones)
Insulin is a performance enhancing drug and yet diabetics are allowed to used them.
Are you going to say that let say an asthmatic who takes beta2 agonist which can save their lives. Shouldn’t be able to compete sports because they don’t naturally have the physicue for thletics sports with out it.
The fact of the matter is I don’t see
There’s no double standard here. PErformance enhancing drug are iegal if they are used for medical treatment
Oscar used performance enhacning prosthetic as a treatment for his amputated leg. It’s just so happen that prosthetic is more visible medical treatment than taking medication
I agree that there needs to be regulation towards prosthetic but too outright ban them seems to be descrimatory and arbitrary deciding that its ok to be medically treated with performance drug but not ok to be medically treated with prosthetic limbs
October 8th 2012 @ 2:17pm
jameswm said | October 8th 2012 @ 2:17pm | Report comment
To the author
I must say I have been having the same thoughts. Pistorius made the Olympic qualifying standard over 400, then got beaten over 200 at the Paaralympics. Would the Brazilian guy’s blades have been approved for use at the Olympics?
As for whether they are performance enhancing, what the hell does that mean? Of course they are by definition, but then they’ll over time refine them into lighter, better shape, better shock absorption, better flexibility etc. There’s no reason to think that in 20 years they won’t be better.
Nothing against Pistorius. He’s been fantastic for both athletics (able bodied) and the Paralympics. But you have to wonder at some point about getting an advantage.
And don’t get me started on Semenya. Thank god she didn’t win the Olympics.
October 8th 2012 @ 7:48pm
Essar said | October 8th 2012 @ 7:48pm | Report comment
I say we embrace it. Athletes can amp up with whatever prosthetics, steroids and stimulants their countries’ sporting/scientific institutes can develop. If an athlete collapses, disintegrates or self-combusts as they cross the finish line, it’s all good, provided they break the world record and bring home gold.
October 8th 2012 @ 10:08pm
Paul Roach said | October 8th 2012 @ 10:08pm | Report comment
Some interesting thoughts here.
To distill it down to its essence, the point I am trying to make in the article is that we need to ensure that we don’t get distracted by the undoubtedly heart-warming humanity of a disabled athlete competing at the Olympics. The device that allows him to compete is ‘inevitably’ – and I use that word quite deliberately, knowing that pretty much anything ever produced throughout civilisation that has proven useful in some way shape or form is, spurred on by nothing more than human nature, the subject of continuous improvement – going to become a better and better device. And if you allow that not unreasonable possibility then it is also perfectly feasible that that rate of development will occur at a greater rate than the development of the sprinting capability of the best human body. Perhaps next year, perhaps next century, but that is not the point. We need to guard against encouraging the possibility of such an absurd scenario ever happening at all.
To the proponents of regulating these blades in such a way that will stymie their natural technical development, consider this: if you allow Pistorius – or anyone else for that matter – to run in blades that are definitively NOT good enough for him to win with, ie he has NO chance of winning….then what the hell is he doing there?
October 9th 2012 @ 8:03am
AndyMack said | October 9th 2012 @ 8:03am | Report comment
Ah the Olympic spirit summed up right there. If you cant win, dont bother.
October 9th 2012 @ 9:56pm
Paul Roach said | October 9th 2012 @ 9:56pm | Report comment
Andy, not quite. It’s a subtle but very significant distinction. In theory the athlete from some backwater country that struggled to register a qualifying time still has the chance to win at the Olympics, however improbable that might be. But if we give an athlete a mandated ZERO chance, I am inclined to question the worth of that. If you don’t mandate that, then you go back to the possibility of technological advancement getting us into the sticky situation I suggest.
Oscar, enjoy the Paralympics.