Pistorius style tech threatens the Olympics' integrity

I would like to know firstly which Olympics was the best one? As far as the prosthetic legs go I understand why the Author is questioning the advantages or disadvantages of these "blades" Coming to the 200 meters controversy with D'Oliveira, from what I understand there is only a guideline as to how long your legs can be, so I would suggest that the laws governing the length of the "blades" should be more strictly enforced. surely there is a way to extablish through science what the average is for humans and it can't exceed that. Competing against the able bodied athletes in my view was more goodwill than anything else, Oscar was 2 seconds off the pace from what I remember with his olympic qualitfying anyway and wasn't going to threaten for the medals anyway. Once again if diabled bodied athletes are going to be allowed to compete against able bodied athletes any prosthesis being used will have to be regulated as far as science can establish what will not give the athlete an advantage. The other fact is in some sports like swimming disabled bodied athletes don't need prosthesis to compete, hence in swimming it won't become an issue, case in point Natalie du Toit.

Ah the Olympic spirit summed up right there. If you cant win, dont bother.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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 !

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?

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.

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.

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).

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.

"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?

Swimming Australia has already decided technical enhancement is Just Fine. Esepcially when only Swimming AUstralia has the performance enhancing bodysuits.

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.