Amputees vs Non-Amputees
Gilbrod
Posts: 1,216 Member
So today I saw a double amputee run a 400m run against others. My wife, who was a state track star, went on to say how unfair that was. She went on to say how he won't have a chance to tweak an ankle, get a calf cramp, ect. What do you guys think. Do amputees have an unfair advantage when they go against someone who has none?
0
Replies
-
I saw that race and I heard about the controversy. Some also had an issue with him having extra "spring". He may not be able to twist an ankle, but he probably has more things to worry about than non amputees. I'm glad they allowed him to compete. I'm not sure how anyone can really think a double amputee would have an advantage in a running competition.0
-
im against it. whether or not this specific case gives that guy an advantage, lighter body weight, less chance of injury etc...there may come a time in the future where something like this will give that athlete an unfair advantage and the IOC wont react to it until the games are over.
like with the swimming suits in 2008. they were such an advantage that the IOC didnt anticipate they had to ban them afterward.
where its going to get tricky is in the future when we are able to regrow limbs. would having two freshly grown, possibly enhanced, legs be allowed?
what about DNA manipulation...we will soon be altering our DNA to improve ourselves. i can see resistance to that at first but as most of society begins to do it it will have to be allowed in the olympics.
as we approach the year 2100 athletes of the future will make today's athletes look like children.0 -
Your points are valid, Laces_Out. Are we really that close to regrowing our limbs??? If so, I want in line for some newly seeded knees!
MacPatti, I feel the same way you do, too. My instincts tell me that the double-amputee has more problems to worry about than advantages, perceived or not.
Still, all of the athletes in the races with him are obviously not playing with the same equipment. To be fair, don't all of the athletes need to compete with like competitors? In future, perhaps enhanced or special equipment races could be added for those athletes with unique limbs.
-Debra0 -
It's called the Paralmpics.
He qualified for the event he gets to run. They've determined that he gets no benefit from the 'legs' he is in fact hindered. He's an amazing athlete.0 -
Honestly, I'm just in awe of the determination and drive it must take to not only learn to walk after a double amputation, and then a knee-injury that could apparently have ended his ability to walk at all, but to run at a top level, and make it to the Olympic semi-finals. I saw Pistorius' semi race, and though he came last, by a whole second or so (!!!), it was clear from the attitudes of the other runners that they had no problem with his participation, and in fact had a great deal of respect for his achievement. I welled up when the winner of the semi-final (and world champion), exchanged name badges with him, and struggled not to lose it entirely when he was later interviewed and said what an honour it was for him to be competing on the same track as Pistorius, and how special the South African was to his sport and his colleagues. There was a lot of affection and respect out on that track, which probably tells us all we need to know about how the runners feel about it.
I do see the potential problems, but I think this is a pretty good example of the Olympic 'Faster, higher, stronger' motto at its' best. While Pistorius does have a few advantages, I'm not at all convinced that his disadvantages don't cancel them out, or even result in a negative score sheet. How, for example, do you 'feel' the starting blocks, or get a really good 'push' off them, from a pair of flexible blades? Pistorius also has only one set of muscles to rely on in his legs, and while that can be a positive (ankle issues etc), it can also be a negative when there are no calf muscles to trade off the strain in the quadriceps. Regrown, potentially-modified limbs - still a few years off, but perhaps not so far as we think - constitute a completely different situation to me - the negatives balancing the scorecard are removed and the positives massively enhanced.0 -
Tell you what. Let's see how many athletes are willing to line up to gain his 'advantage', shall we? I'm guessing the queue will be quite short...
His name is Oscar Pistorius. He's a national hero, and a symbol of hope to abled and disabled people alike. He's an incredible human being. He inspires millions of people. He inspires me. He was born without legs, but that hasn't stopped him from being a tremendous university rugby player, and a great runner.
Michael Phelps has a genetic "mutation" (not my choice of term, obviously, unnecessarily pathologising - but Marfan syndrome is an established genetic disease) that contributes to his unusually long arms and undoubtedly enables his swimming prowess. Does your wife object to him too, with his inborn advantage? Or is that somehow alright?
Most elite athletes have some thing that sets them apart from us 'mere mortals'. I don't see how Oscar is any different from any other track athlete in that regard.0 -
Brilliant response Meerkat!
One tiny correction, Pistorius wasn't born entirely without legs, he had fibular hemimelia (congenital absence of the fibula) in both legs and they were amputated halfway between his knees and ankles when he was 11 months old.0 -
Brilliant response Meerkat!
One tiny correction, Pistorius wasn't born entirely without legs, he had fibular hemimelia (congenital absence of the fibula) in both legs and they were amputated halfway between his knees and ankles when he was 11 months old.
Yeah, I know. I thought I'd keep it simple for an audience that apparently didn't even know who the man is...
:-)
(I'm a total Oscar fan. Did I mention I'm going to see him on 6 Sept? Yeah, I've mentioned it once or twice now, I suspect.... )0 -
Brilliant response Meerkat!
One tiny correction, Pistorius wasn't born entirely without legs, he had fibular hemimelia (congenital absence of the fibula) in both legs and they were amputated halfway between his knees and ankles when he was 11 months old.
Yeah, I know. I thought I'd keep it simple for an audience that apparently didn't even know who the man is...
:-)
(I'm a total Oscar fan. Did I mention I'm going to see him on 6 Sept? Yeah, I've mentioned it once or twice now, I suspect.... )
Let's stick to the subject folks. We're not talking about what goes on in life. I'm asking about the race. Think about it. He does have an advantage FOR THE RACE. A runner can pop an achillies heel, twist an ankle and so forth. This athlete, who congrats on his pioneerism, doesn't have to worry about that FOR THE RACE. If he would have won, I guarantee there would be backlash. Michael Phelps was born with a disease ( if that's what it is) and it's an advantage. It's not an artificial augmentation.0 -
I don't see why your wife's so upset by this - but if you want to talk about THE RACE: sure, he can't twist an ankle, but he can still injure his hip, back or other joints (not sure if he has knees). He can still fall over, he can have trouble with his prostheses, he can have a bad start. Due to his prostheses he isn't going to have the same proproception (awareness of your feet in space) that the other runners do, which is surely a huge disadvantage - essentially the man is running on stilts - could any of us do that?
I've read about him too, and I know that they had to do some serious analysis of his running style with his prostheses to ensure that he didn't have a mechanical advantage over the other runners who are lucky enough to still have their original lower limbs attached. The scientific conclusion was that the prostheses DON'T give him an unfair advantage.
So, what's the problem?0 -
Brilliant response Meerkat!
One tiny correction, Pistorius wasn't born entirely without legs, he had fibular hemimelia (congenital absence of the fibula) in both legs and they were amputated halfway between his knees and ankles when he was 11 months old.
Yeah, I know. I thought I'd keep it simple for an audience that apparently didn't even know who the man is...
:-)
(I'm a total Oscar fan. Did I mention I'm going to see him on 6 Sept? Yeah, I've mentioned it once or twice now, I suspect.... )
Let's stick to the subject folks. We're not talking about what goes on in life. I'm asking about the race. Think about it. He does have an advantage FOR THE RACE. A runner can pop an achillies heel, twist an ankle and so forth. This athlete, who congrats on his pioneerism, doesn't have to worry about that FOR THE RACE. If he would have won, I guarantee there would be backlash. Michael Phelps was born with a disease ( if that's what it is) and it's an advantage. It's not an artificial augmentation.
I'm sorry, I'm not sure how the context of his life is anything but relevant to the discussion. I think the fact that you didn't seem to even know the name of the "double amputee" also sets the terms of the debate a little.
A prosthetic isn't an 'augmentation'. I wonder how much contact you've had with real disabled people if you imagine that to be the case?
The prosthetic makes him slower out of the blocks - it's the reason that he was competing in the 400 in the olympics, but is a 100 and 200 sprinter in the paralympics. It's a *disadvantage*. This argument's been had by the IAF, and it's clear that, in balance, it's not an 'augmentation' in any realistic sense.
He can't twist his ankle, but do you have any idea of the kind of pain you can get from a prosthetic connection placed under stress?
Why do you imagine that it's an enhancement? Or is it just some gut feeling you and your wife had?0 -
Just wanted to mention too, that with Marfan's syndrome, in addition to the height and long limbs, people with that mutation have a high risk for heart failure/defect. Makes it even more impressive that he swims with the potential for strain on his ticker. So even with the benefit of his mutation, there also comes a cost...Michael Phelps has a genetic "mutation" (not my choice of term, obviously, unnecessarily pathologising - but Marfan syndrome is an established genetic disease) that contributes to his unusually long arms and undoubtedly enables his swimming prowess.0 -
Just wanted to mention too, that with Marfan's syndrome, in addition to the height and long limbs, people with that mutation have a high risk for heart failure/defect. Makes it even more impressive that he swims with the potential for strain on his ticker. So even with the benefit of his mutation, there also comes a cost...Michael Phelps has a genetic "mutation" (not my choice of term, obviously, unnecessarily pathologising - but Marfan syndrome is an established genetic disease) that contributes to his unusually long arms and undoubtedly enables his swimming prowess.
Completely agree. It's *never* simple....0 -
Again, I see no advantage to double amputees and for HIS race.Let's stick to the subject folks. We're not talking about what goes on in life. I'm asking about the race. Think about it. He does have an advantage FOR THE RACE. A runner can pop an achillies heel, twist an ankle and so forth. This athlete, who congrats on his pioneerism, doesn't have to worry about that FOR THE RACE. If he would have won, I guarantee there would be backlash. Michael Phelps was born with a disease ( if that's what it is) and it's an advantage. It's not an artificial augmentation.0 -
I think Meerkat has stuck to the subject and indeed qualified the argument with examples.Brilliant response Meerkat!
One tiny correction, Pistorius wasn't born entirely without legs, he had fibular hemimelia (congenital absence of the fibula) in both legs and they were amputated halfway between his knees and ankles when he was 11 months old.
Yeah, I know. I thought I'd keep it simple for an audience that apparently didn't even know who the man is...
:-)
(I'm a total Oscar fan. Did I mention I'm going to see him on 6 Sept? Yeah, I've mentioned it once or twice now, I suspect.... )
Let's stick to the subject folks. We're not talking about what goes on in life. I'm asking about the race. Think about it. He does have an advantage FOR THE RACE. A runner can pop an achillies heel, twist an ankle and so forth. This athlete, who congrats on his pioneerism, doesn't have to worry about that FOR THE RACE. If he would have won, I guarantee there would be backlash. Michael Phelps was born with a disease ( if that's what it is) and it's an advantage. It's not an artificial augmentation.
An athlete at Olympic level is an exceptional human being and I suspect they have a number of advantages over us mere mortals who can only look on in wonder and awe.
Pistorius has overcome so much to reach the Olympics and any perceived advantage is surely balanced by any number of disadvantages an able-bodied athlete could never encounter. To see how much respect he has earned from his fellow Olympians is truly heart-warming.0 -
Tell you what. Let's see how many athletes are willing to line up to gain his 'advantage', shall we? I'm guessing the queue will be quite short...
His name is Oscar Pistorius. He's a national hero, and a symbol of hope to abled and disabled people alike. He's an incredible human being. He inspires millions of people. He inspires me. He was born without legs, but that hasn't stopped him from being a tremendous university rugby player, and a great runner.
Michael Phelps has a genetic "mutation" (not my choice of term, obviously, unnecessarily pathologising - but Marfan syndrome is an established genetic disease) that contributes to his unusually long arms and undoubtedly enables his swimming prowess. Does your wife object to him too, with his inborn advantage? Or is that somehow alright?
Most elite athletes have some thing that sets them apart from us 'mere mortals'. I don't see how Oscar is any different from any other track athlete in that regard.
I don't know that your example is really relevant. Michael Phelps does not need special equipment to compete. Oscar Pistorius cannot compete without his blades. One could argue if Oscar had legs he would just be really good and not elite.
That said, it is what it is. He is an inspiration to so many people and I am happy he was given the opportunity to compete.0 -
I don't know that your example is really relevant. Michael Phelps does not need special equipment to compete. Oscar Pistorius cannot compete without his blades. One could argue if Oscar had legs he would just be really good and not elite.
Or, given that the various international sports bodies have agreed that he is, if anything, at a disadvantage when compared to able-bodied athletes, he might be among the best of the best of the elite. Less than two seconds behind the winner in the 400m semi-final, if I recall correctly, with foot replacements that put him at a disadvantage...0 -
I don't see any problem with it.
They interviewed the designer of this guy's prosthetic and there is no advantage to them. If anything I think this guy may have gone through a lot more to get where he is now than a lot of athletes. This doesn't mean that athletes don't go through a lot of sacrifice to achieve what they have achieved, I'm simply saying that these people have to learn to walk, run, move, etc. again with these new "legs".0 -
Tell you what. Let's see how many athletes are willing to line up to gain his 'advantage', shall we? I'm guessing the queue will be quite short...
His name is Oscar Pistorius. He's a national hero, and a symbol of hope to abled and disabled people alike. He's an incredible human being. He inspires millions of people. He inspires me. He was born without legs, but that hasn't stopped him from being a tremendous university rugby player, and a great runner.
Michael Phelps has a genetic "mutation" (not my choice of term, obviously, unnecessarily pathologising - but Marfan syndrome is an established genetic disease) that contributes to his unusually long arms and undoubtedly enables his swimming prowess. Does your wife object to him too, with his inborn advantage? Or is that somehow alright?
Most elite athletes have some thing that sets them apart from us 'mere mortals'. I don't see how Oscar is any different from any other track athlete in that regard.
I don't know that your example is really relevant. Michael Phelps does not need special equipment to compete. Oscar Pistorius cannot compete without his blades. One could argue if Oscar had legs he would just be really good and not elite.
That said, it is what it is. He is an inspiration to so many people and I am happy he was given the opportunity to compete.
Technically, he does need his suit, goggles and head cap. Obviously he can compete without these items but these items help with the whole drag issue. Minimally but they help.0 -
Tell you what. Let's see how many athletes are willing to line up to gain his 'advantage', shall we? I'm guessing the queue will be quite short...
His name is Oscar Pistorius. He's a national hero, and a symbol of hope to abled and disabled people alike. He's an incredible human being. He inspires millions of people. He inspires me. He was born without legs, but that hasn't stopped him from being a tremendous university rugby player, and a great runner.
Michael Phelps has a genetic "mutation" (not my choice of term, obviously, unnecessarily pathologising - but Marfan syndrome is an established genetic disease) that contributes to his unusually long arms and undoubtedly enables his swimming prowess. Does your wife object to him too, with his inborn advantage? Or is that somehow alright?
Most elite athletes have some thing that sets them apart from us 'mere mortals'. I don't see how Oscar is any different from any other track athlete in that regard.
I don't know that your example is really relevant. Michael Phelps does not need special equipment to compete. Oscar Pistorius cannot compete without his blades. One could argue if Oscar had legs he would just be really good and not elite.
That said, it is what it is. He is an inspiration to so many people and I am happy he was given the opportunity to compete.
Technically, he does need his suit, goggles and head cap. Obviously he can compete without these items but these items help with the whole drag issue. Minimally but they help.
You might be onto something. Ratings would probably go up if they competed without uniforms (swim suits).0 -
You might be onto something. Ratings would probably go up if they competed without uniforms (swim suits).
Absolutely! I was delighted when they banned full-body suits for men - makes watching the swimming SO much more fun
:laugh: 0 -
Tell you what. Let's see how many athletes are willing to line up to gain his 'advantage', shall we? I'm guessing the queue will be quite short...
His name is Oscar Pistorius. He's a national hero, and a symbol of hope to abled and disabled people alike. He's an incredible human being. He inspires millions of people. He inspires me. He was born without legs, but that hasn't stopped him from being a tremendous university rugby player, and a great runner.
Michael Phelps has a genetic "mutation" (not my choice of term, obviously, unnecessarily pathologising - but Marfan syndrome is an established genetic disease) that contributes to his unusually long arms and undoubtedly enables his swimming prowess. Does your wife object to him too, with his inborn advantage? Or is that somehow alright?
Most elite athletes have some thing that sets them apart from us 'mere mortals'. I don't see how Oscar is any different from any other track athlete in that regard.
I don't know that your example is really relevant. Michael Phelps does not need special equipment to compete. Oscar Pistorius cannot compete without his blades. One could argue if Oscar had legs he would just be really good and not elite.
That said, it is what it is. He is an inspiration to so many people and I am happy he was given the opportunity to compete.
Technically, he does need his suit, goggles and head cap. Obviously he can compete without these items but these items help with the whole drag issue. Minimally but they help.
You might be onto something. Ratings would probably go up if they competed without uniforms (swim suits).
Exactly! :laugh:0 -
Tell you what. Let's see how many athletes are willing to line up to gain his 'advantage', shall we? I'm guessing the queue will be quite short...
His name is Oscar Pistorius. He's a national hero, and a symbol of hope to abled and disabled people alike. He's an incredible human being. He inspires millions of people. He inspires me. He was born without legs, but that hasn't stopped him from being a tremendous university rugby player, and a great runner.
Michael Phelps has a genetic "mutation" (not my choice of term, obviously, unnecessarily pathologising - but Marfan syndrome is an established genetic disease) that contributes to his unusually long arms and undoubtedly enables his swimming prowess. Does your wife object to him too, with his inborn advantage? Or is that somehow alright?
Most elite athletes have some thing that sets them apart from us 'mere mortals'. I don't see how Oscar is any different from any other track athlete in that regard.
I don't know that your example is really relevant. Michael Phelps does not need special equipment to compete. Oscar Pistorius cannot compete without his blades. One could argue if Oscar had legs he would just be really good and not elite.
That said, it is what it is. He is an inspiration to so many people and I am happy he was given the opportunity to compete.
Technically, he does need his suit, goggles and head cap. Obviously he can compete without these items but these items help with the whole drag issue. Minimally but they help.
all of the athletes have those.
you cant let 1 athlete drastically change the way the race is usually done. in the sense of using different equipment.0 -
Yes he's placed at a higher disadvantage than the other athletes. The fore what he's achieved is amazing.0
-
you cant let 1 athlete drastically change the way the race is usually done. in the sense of using different equipment.
It isn't 'equipment'. It's his legs.
And as I've said a few times now, there's clear evidence, presented by the IAF that the disadvantages outweigh the small advantage of bounce. Do you have some evidence that the IAF didn't consider, that in some way invalidates this view?0 -
You might be onto something. Ratings would probably go up if they competed without uniforms (swim suits).
Absolutely! I was delighted when they banned full-body suits for men - makes watching the swimming SO much more fun :laugh:
LOL! That was funny.
As to why did she get hissy about this? I guess it's because she used to run track (pretty good mind you). I told her if it was advantageous, everyone would be severing limbs and records would be broken. SHe went on to say then we would only have the Paralympics then. I'm actually enjoying this converastion with her as well. She's an introvert, so I normally don't get too much push back from her. I guess we all have our passions. Track her hers. Working where she's working, I'm sure she is trying to get scientific data. I say let Myth Busters sort them out.
And before the PC police come out guns blazing, my wife volunteers her time with disabled children.0 -
My husband's BF lost a leg. The amount of daily aggravation he experiences from his prosthetic is considerable. It's pretty much an ongoing pain, which can easily bloom into an infection, that he has to constantly monitor and care for.
The small amount of advantage the prosthetics may give don't outweigh the drawbacks. He may not have to worry about his achilles tendon, but he has a stump that the "regular" runners don't have to contend with, and that more than evens the field.0 -
you cant let 1 athlete drastically change the way the race is usually done. in the sense of using different equipment.
It isn't 'equipment'. It's his legs.
And as I've said a few times now, there's clear evidence, presented by the IAF that the disadvantages outweigh the small advantage of bounce. Do you have some evidence that the IAF didn't consider, that in some way invalidates this view?
they are not his legs...they are pieces of equipment that allow him to walk.0 -
Can you answer my question laces_out? Or are we taking your non response as concession?
Pasting it down here again, in case you're having trouble remembering it.... "And as I've said a few times now, there's clear evidence, presented by the IAF that the disadvantages outweigh the small advantage of bounce. Do you have some evidence that the IAF didn't consider, that in some way invalidates this view?"0 -
So today I saw a double amputee run a 400m run against others. My wife, who was a state track star, went on to say how unfair that was. She went on to say how he won't have a chance to tweak an ankle, get a calf cramp, ect. What do you guys think. Do amputees have an unfair advantage when they go against someone who has none?
I know quite a few runners and they all agree with your wife.0
This discussion has been closed.