Brueggemann found that Pistorius was able to run at the same speed as able bodied runners on about a quarter less energy. He found that once the runners hit a certain stride, athletes with artificial limbs needed less additional energy than other athletes.
The professor found that the returned energy "from the prosthetic blade is close to three times higher than with the human ankle joint in maximum sprinting."
Based on these findings, the Council ruled against Pistorius.
Sounds reasonable to me. They'd be illegal for any other runner to wear. If you don't have any arms, that's a shame, but you can't expect them to let you compete in the hammer toss using a catapult.
i don't think you have any idea of the trauma involved, mentally, emotionally and physically, in being an amputee. the hardships that this man has overcome in being able to compete at this level are more than any hardship an able-bodied person could ever face. he's blessed with the financial and technological ability to afford to have these multi-ten-thousand dollar legs, both of them, created for him specifically, custom-made to fit his body. most amputees don't have that sort of luxury.
the fact that he has done as much as he has is amazing, and he should be allowed to compete.
If everyone's allowed to use artificial extensions that provide 30% more mechanical advantage than the human ankle does, then he should be allowed to compete.
They're not, so he's not. It's not a level playing field if one guy's allowed to use mechanical advantage, regardless of how much he worked and overcame to get there. Some guy from Bosnia who watched his family get blown away from artillery fire, or some guy from Africa who watched his children starve to death, also went through a lot of mental, emotional, and physical trauma that I (and you) don't have any idea about, but that doesn't mean they get granted the use of unfair advantages by the IOC.
Let me see if I have this right. Youre saying that the amount of suffering and trauma a person endures should somehow be factored into whether his fake limbs give him an advantage? Shouldnt it be based on a more objective and relevant criteria like, you know, do they actually give him an advantage over other entrants?
If they replaced his prosthetic legs with ACME jet boots should he still be allowed to compete because he's had a sufficient amount of trauma in his life? Wheres the cutoff for that? Dog hit by a car? You get a 10 meter head start. Traumatic amputation? Why, we'll just give the medal right up front!
The event is not a pissing contest to see who has had to endure more hardhship or trauma...its about who can run the fastest. This guy has, for lack of a better term, devices that allow him to achieve things people with biological limbs cannot. So, how exactly does his trauma experience negate the obvious advantage he's having over the other entrants?
Comments 7
The professor found that the returned energy "from the prosthetic blade is close to three times higher than with the human ankle joint in maximum sprinting."
Based on these findings, the Council ruled against Pistorius.
Sounds reasonable to me. They'd be illegal for any other runner to wear. If you don't have any arms, that's a shame, but you can't expect them to let you compete in the hammer toss using a catapult.
Reply
the fact that he has done as much as he has is amazing, and he should be allowed to compete.
Reply
They're not, so he's not. It's not a level playing field if one guy's allowed to use mechanical advantage, regardless of how much he worked and overcame to get there. Some guy from Bosnia who watched his family get blown away from artillery fire, or some guy from Africa who watched his children starve to death, also went through a lot of mental, emotional, and physical trauma that I (and you) don't have any idea about, but that doesn't mean they get granted the use of unfair advantages by the IOC.
Reply
If they replaced his prosthetic legs with ACME jet boots should he still be allowed to compete because he's had a sufficient amount of trauma in his life? Wheres the cutoff for that? Dog hit by a car? You get a 10 meter head start. Traumatic amputation? Why, we'll just give the medal right up front!
The event is not a pissing contest to see who has had to endure more hardhship or trauma...its about who can run the fastest. This guy has, for lack of a better term, devices that allow him to achieve things people with biological limbs cannot. So, how exactly does his trauma experience negate the obvious advantage he's having over the other entrants?
Reply
Leave a comment