Amputees vs Non-Amputees
Replies
-
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?"
i dont know the politics of the IAF. but there are plenty of runners and other experts who say they should not be allowed. this is a new area for sport. i wouldnt be surprised if in the next olympics they are banned. just like the full body swim suits.
this is what the paralympics are for...for people who have disabilites/need equipment in order to participate in a sport.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?"
i dont know the politics of the IAF. but there are plenty of runners and other experts who say they should not be allowed. this is a new area for sport. i wouldnt be surprised if in the next olympics they are banned. just like the full body swim suits.
this is what the paralympics are for...for people who have disabilites/need equipment in order to participate in a sport.
But surely, if someone with a disability can, with the assistance of equipment that has been judged to put him at a disadvantage in comparison with the able-bodied, compete with elite athletes to the extent that Pistorius can - he still made the Olympic semi-final, after all, meaning he ran faster than a lot of able-bodied athletes in the heats - that should be celebrated, as I believe it rightly is being. I'd be surprised if the IAF tried to rescind permission, given there's no measurable advantage. As for your runners and experts, I could point you to just as many who think the opposite. Including many of the worlds' fastest, who ran alongside him in the semi-final.
At the end of the day, I don't see who is hurt by this, in any case. If he runs fast enough, he gets through, if he doesn't, he doesn't progress and others who ran faster do - that's the basic premise he understands and accepts, as should we. He's not given extra time, or a different starting block in deference to the challenges he faces. As extraordinary an athlete as he is, Pistorius is unlikely to beat the best of the able-bodied. His equipment - physical and 'extra', while excellent, simply gives him too many disadvantages to pose a serious risk of "unjustly" (in the eyes of some) winning medals, titles etc in competition with the able-bodied.
The Paralympics, for my money, ought to be run simultaneously with the Olympics. It's distressing that this event is still regarded as second-class and scheduled several weeks later with so much less fanfare and investment.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?"
i dont know the politics of the IAF. but there are plenty of runners and other experts who say they should not be allowed. this is a new area for sport. i wouldnt be surprised if in the next olympics they are banned. just like the full body swim suits.
this is what the paralympics are for...for people who have disabilites/need equipment in order to participate in a sport.
Could you give some supportive data? The IAF used a range of scientific measures to determine he was at a *disadvantage*.
You don't think it's possible that your 'experts' are a bit influenced by the pervasive disablism that would like to keep our amputees 'special'?
And I agree with castadiva about the paralympics. I'm delighted to be going. I couldn't afford to go to the olympics. I can go to the paralympics because the tickets are less than a fifth of the price. What does that, alone, tell us about how the different events are valued in our culture?0 -
I wanted to add this a couple of days ago but have had internet trouble.
I always saw him as being at a disadvantage. Granted he has less body weight and won't get cramp in his calves, injure his achilles or any other lower leg injury, but he also has less control over his lower "legs" and doesn't have the muscles control in his lower legs and feet that the other runners do. He has fewer leg muscles to propel his entire bodyweight, even if it is lighter than the other runners. I think it all evens out just about, perhaps putting him at a slight disadvantage. Just a physicist's perspective
0 -
Could you give some supportive data? The IAF used a range of scientific measures to determine he was at a *disadvantage*.
You don't think it's possible that your 'experts' are a bit influenced by the pervasive disablism that would like to keep our amputees 'special'?
And I agree with castadiva about the paralympics. I'm delighted to be going. I couldn't afford to go to the olympics. I can go to the paralympics because the tickets are less than a fifth of the price. What does that, alone, tell us about how the different events are valued in our culture?
i dont care enough to research any data for you.
and of course the Olympics cost a lot more to attend because that is where the best of the best are competing. people care very little about any other competitions...paralympics, Goodwill Games, etc... not sure why this is surprising or noteworthy to you.0 -
Yes it's an advantage. Human feet are designed to have "bounce" also, but the difference between his prosthetic and a human foot is the prosthetic doesn't get fatigued like feet muscle do in a race.
Also, he still has his quad muscles which do 80% of the work whether your Pistorius or someone with all they're legs. Combine that with lighter the prosthetic, in turn having less inertia to control, you end up with an advantage.
I'M TALKING ABOUT A RACE SITUATION, NOT EVERY DAY LIFE AND LIVING WITH IT.0 -
Yes it's an advantage. Human feet are designed to have "bounce" also, but the difference between his prosthetic and a human foot is the prosthetic doesn't get fatigued like feet muscle do in a race.
Also, he still has his quad muscles which do 80% of the work whether your Pistorius or someone with all they're legs. Combine that with lighter the prosthetic, in turn having less inertia to control, you end up with an advantage.
I'M TALKING ABOUT A RACE SITUATION, NOT EVERY DAY LIFE AND LIVING WITH IT.
That was my wife's point. He gets points for trying to compete, but regardless if he came in last, he had an advantage race wise. According to her research, the devices actually allowed the quad muscle to exert 25% less force than actual feet, and giving him more bounce with it. He is using a lot less energy to run. But anyway, he's a hero to some do to life, and to some, somebody who had to sue the Olympic Committee to get his way. Life goes on and he got his 15 seconds of fame. Good on him.0 -
That was my wife's point. He gets points for trying to compete, but regardless if he came in last, he had an advantage race wise. According to her research, the devices actually allowed the quad muscle to exert 25% less force than actual feet, and giving him more bounce with it. He is using a lot less energy to run. But anyway, he's a hero to some do to life, and to some, somebody who had to sue the Olympic Committee to get his way. Life goes on and he got his 15 seconds of fame. Good on him.
I'm glad your wife has read all the scientific tests and knows better than the actual experts.0 -
That was my wife's point. He gets points for trying to compete, but regardless if he came in last, he had an advantage race wise. According to her research, the devices actually allowed the quad muscle to exert 25% less force than actual feet, and giving him more bounce with it. He is using a lot less energy to run. But anyway, he's a hero to some do to life, and to some, somebody who had to sue the Olympic Committee to get his way. Life goes on and he got his 15 seconds of fame. Good on him.
I'm glad your wife has read all the scientific tests and knows better than the actual experts.
She is an expert in physics
) And does research for NASA. Have a wonderful day. 0 -
She is an expert in physics) And does research for NASA. Have a wonderful day.
So she's read all the tests?
Either way your wife does not have the requisite knowledge to be able to accurately determine a case she's knows nothing about? She MUST be a smart one to be able to figure out this all by osmosis!0 -
She is an expert in physics) And does research for NASA. Have a wonderful day.
So she's read all the tests?
Either way your wife does not have the requisite knowledge to be able to accurately determine a case she's knows nothing about? She MUST be a smart one to be able to figure out this all by osmosis!
[/quote]
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Have a wonderful day. :flowerforyou:0 -
Personally.. it's the Olympics. Makes no difference if he has an advantage or not. He is using man made devices to perform, that's what Paralympics are for.
You don't see able bodied people competing in the Paralympic Games right? so unless they all of a sudden decide to combine them all together there are ones for people who are using extra apparatus and ones for people who aren't. Of course that wouldn't be 'fair' to the athletes that aren't able-bodied..If one isn't right why is the other?0 -
its ironic that Pistorius was complaining about another racer he lost to in the paralympics. he was saying the other guys blades weren't fair.
he's a sore loser imo.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?
they aren't competing as equals. and that raises valid concerns. (there are studies on both sides, some saying it is an advantage, others saying it isn't. so still uncertain.) it pushes the boundaries of how much is athleticism and how much is science, and I don't much like that as a track fan.
and, yeah, oscar is whining now about somone having different technology than he does, giving them an unfair advantage. whatever, dude.0 -
its ironic that Pistorius was complaining about another racer he lost to in the paralympics. he was saying the other guys blades weren't fair.
he's a sore loser imo.
It's poetic.0 -
its ironic that Pistorius was complaining about another racer he lost to in the paralympics. he was saying the other guys blades weren't fair.
he's a sore loser imo.
It's poetic.
All the extraneous noise aside, it does raise a clear issue: by Pistorious' own admission (and I would think he would know better than anyone), there was newer/different technology employed. Which means it is feasible (and likely) that technological advancements could be made that will result in an advantage for the runner using them. This is not a static situation--it's not like there is only one type of blade that will ever be used.
From what I understand, the research on whether or not Pistorious' prosthetics provide an unfair advantage is not clear-cut one way or the other. Given all the variables involved, it's hard to imagine that it could be. But by opening the door, the IAAF has created a situation where it will continually have to test the techology and this will continue to muddy the waters.
I don't buy the rationale of the OP's wife about the lack of injuries, etc. I think that's a bad logic to follow as it opens up the argument to too many subjective interpretations (as seen by the comments that follow).
To me, the only relevent issue is: does the use of prosethetic limbs fundamentally alter the nature of the event, so that it is no longer an equal test of athletic ability. I don't think anythng else matters--and that includes all the emotion about personality, or one's drive to overcome adversity, etc, etc. It's not a question of caring or empathy, only about competition. It would be the same issue if someone with no feet wanted to compete in swimming by wearing flippers. I can respect and admire Pistorious all I want, but it has nothing to do with whether or not it is proper for him to compete in the Olympics.
Right now, the IAAF has concluded that they cannot find that the prosthetics provide an unfair advantage, so that's the way things will stand. If there are enough althetes who have world-class talent, but who must wear prosthetics to compete, then perhaps the ultimate answer will be to have a separate series of events.0 -
To me, the only relevent issue is: does the use of prosethetic limbs fundamentally alter the nature of the event, so that it is no longer an equal test of athletic ability. I don't think anythng else matters--and that includes all the emotion about personality, or one's drive to overcome adversity, etc, etc. It's not a question of caring or empathy, only about competition. It would be the same issue if someone with no feet wanted to compete in swimming by wearing flippers. I can respect and admire Pistorious all I want, but it has nothing to do with whether or not it is proper for him to compete in the Olympics.
Right now, the IAAF has concluded that they cannot find that the prosthetics provide an unfair advantage, so that's the way things will stand. If there are enough althetes who have world-class talent, but who must wear prosthetics to compete, then perhaps the ultimate answer will be to have a separate series of events.
Yeah, but that's the problem, people don't know how to seperate the two and involve thier personal feelings in this. Not just think about competition.0 -
EVERYTHING Meerkat said. Everything.
Anyone who complains that he shouldn't be allowed and only focuses on his "advantages" and not the even more numerous disadvantages is petty and ignorant. As was pointed out - if it's so easy and gives nothing but advantages then why aren't the complainers lining up to have their legs removed? Oh yea - because they know that having their own legs is a HUGE advantage even if they refuse to admit it.0 -
EVERYTHING Meerkat said. Everything.
Anyone who complains that he shouldn't be allowed and only focuses on his "advantages" and not the even more numerous disadvantages is petty and ignorant. As was pointed out - if it's so easy and gives nothing but advantages then why aren't the complainers lining up to have their legs removed? Oh yea - because they know that having their own legs is a HUGE advantage even if they refuse to admit it.
we are not ignorant. we just realize how technology can give someone an advantage. to say otherwise is what is ignorant.
and do you really believe your idiotic example that competitors would line up for amputations? i guess you dont realize it takes years and maybe a lifetime to get used to using prosthetics.0 -
I fully realize it takes years and maybe a lifetime to get used to prosthetics having several friends and aquaintances who have them thanks to being deployed to Iraq. Do you realize that your assertion that he has a great advantage is in direct contrast to saying that it takes years and maybe a lifetime to simply even get used to them?EVERYTHING Meerkat said. Everything.
Anyone who complains that he shouldn't be allowed and only focuses on his "advantages" and not the even more numerous disadvantages is petty and ignorant. As was pointed out - if it's so easy and gives nothing but advantages then why aren't the complainers lining up to have their legs removed? Oh yea - because they know that having their own legs is a HUGE advantage even if they refuse to admit it.
we are not ignorant. we just realize how technology can give someone an advantage. to say otherwise is what is ignorant.
and do you really believe your idiotic example that competitors would line up for amputations? i guess you dont realize it takes years and maybe a lifetime to get used to using prosthetics.
Yes, technology can gve someone an advantage. Can. In this instance the negatives outweigh the positives. His legs aren't bionic.0 -
I fully realize it takes years and maybe a lifetime to get used to prosthetics having several friends and aquaintances who have them thanks to being deployed to Iraq. Do you realize that your assertion that he has a great advantage is in direct contrast to saying that it takes years and maybe a lifetime to simply even get used to them?
Yes, technology can gve someone an advantage. Can. In this instance the negatives outweigh the positives. His legs aren't bionic.
his legs were amputated as a child due to a deformity right? he has had a lifetime to get used to the baldes. and i didnt say "great" advantage. he has advantages that other racers do not.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 agree with this.
I think that we're letting our respect for this person's resilience and spirit cloud the fact that he has an edge that was engineered. You're no longer comparing apples to apples anymore. His advantage doesn't come from training, it comes from someone reviewing the design and improving it over a previous model.
Most of us would be disgusted if an athlete wanted to compete against a person with two wooden peg legs or even the prosthetic that were available just 10-15 years ago. And as technology progresses, in 5-10 years the next runner will have an even bigger advantage as new materials etc. are developed. I don't see this much different than a baseball player corking his bat.
And to answer the question preemptively, I don't want to lose my legs.0 -
An 18 year old girl I have known since she was tiny lost her leg in a brutal accident last Saturday. Watching her struggle just to stand, and knowing she has YEARS of surgeries, rehab, and PT to overcome, I in no way think that as an amputee, she has it easier. I'm in awe of her strength, her smiles as she is fighting the pain, and that she's standing with a walker a week after losing her leg, but no she does not have an unfair advantage at all.0
-
An 18 year old girl I have known since she was tiny lost her leg in a brutal accident last Saturday. Watching her struggle just to stand, and knowing she has YEARS of surgeries, rehab, and PT to overcome, I in no way think that as an amputee, she has it easier. I'm in awe of her strength, her smiles as she is fighting the pain, and that she's standing with a walker a week after losing her leg, but no she does not have an unfair advantage at all.
thats great for your friend but we are talking about the guy from the olympics who many have said has an unfair advantage.0 -
Did you read what I wrote? Nothing about it is great. And what I am saying is that from what I have witnessed, there's no way an amputee has an unfair advantage, given what they have to overcome.0
-
Did you read what I wrote? Nothing about it is great. And what I am saying is that from what I have witnessed, there's no way an amputee has an unfair advantage, given what they have to overcome.
I think the topic "Amputees vs Non-Amputees" is misleading. Clearly a Non-Amputee has an advantage over an amputee with no equipment involved. The real question is about whether the blades that Oscar Pistorius used in the Olympics gave him an advantage over a non-amputee competing against him. The Olympic committed decided they did not give him an advantage and allowed him to compete. That said, even Oscar Pistorius claimed that certain equipment gave amputees an advantage over other amputees so it stands to reason really good equipment could give an amputee an advantage over non-amputees.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/sep/02/paralympics-oscar-pistorius-unfair-advantage
Your argument seems to be that an amputee has to overcome so much that the equipment doesn't matter. Oscar Pistorius, a world class athlete who also happens to be an amputee, seems to disagree with you.0
This discussion has been closed.