Who could have foreseen this predicament?After decades of trying to improve life for disabled athletes, of giving them their own competitions, we've finally reached the point where our "help" has become too good.
The International Association of Athletic Federations (IAAF) continued its quest to exclude double-amputee Oscar Pistorius from Olympic competition in 2008, announcing that his prosthetic legs provide less air resistance than "normal" legs.
In March, the IAAF released a ruling that excludes runners with artificial help from competition. Though they insisted the ruling wasn't aimed at Pistorius, the IAAF certainly laid the groundwork for keeping the legless sensation from mainstream competition.
Pistorius, a South African who was born without fibulas, has been a double-amputee since infancy. He started running in 2003, and quickly became known as the "fastest man on no legs" and "Blade Runner."
Everybody ate it up, until his times began to approach those established by able-bodied individuals.
It pains me to say it, but Pistorius' detractors -- the ones who call his disability an unfair advantage -- are right. Pistorius and his coach have countered that additional factors should be taken into consideration, but the truth is that he is a different kind of athlete.
As technology continues to improve, we approach a tipping point. Whether Pistorius has an advantage over flesh-legged runners at this moment in time is up for debate, but you can be certain that he will eventually.
The time is near (and may be here already) when human engineering of prosthetic limbs surpasses the natural capabilities of the human body. The IAAF sees the writing on the wall and is doing its best to prepare for an inevitable firestorm.
When the IAAF says no to Pistorius' bid for the Beijing Olympics, it will be a very unpopular decision.
But it will be the right one.
5 comments:
In a lot of ways this is the exact same dilemma as the one behind steroid use, though it's certainly easier to spot the augmented players. Still, if everyone knows in advance which players are doped and which aren't, how is it unfair? We know which players have natural curveballs or better agility before the game starts. How is this different?
I don't know, we don't allow people who aren't paralyzed to run in events for people who are in wheelchairs. It seems to me that it's a viable point. At the same time, it's also not fair to Mr Pistorius since he isn't in the same category as someone who is completely limited in their mobility.
This is why I like your writing, Kevin. You don't shy away from the difficult issues, and I am frequently challenged when I come here.
I admire everything Pistorius has done and all he has overcome, but I agree with you on this. Modern medicine has made it possible for him to run, but I think the science has created an uneven playing field in his favor that cannot be overlooked. It is truly a sad irony.
@Daniel - Ummmm, it's extremely different than steroids. First, amputees are not trying to cheat, they're trying to compete. Steroid users are healthy human beings attempting to become superhuman. Second, what does knowing someone is using steroids do for you? Nothing, except make you angry, maybe. They're cheating, you're not, and you're ticked. At least I would be.
@Chris - Thanks for the kind words. I'm always humbled that people come back for seconds. And as always, your insightful comments (agreeing or disagreeing) are always appreciated.
My steroid comment assumed a pre-knowlege of who was doped and who wasn't. In other words if it wasn't a secret, why not pit 'roiders against naturals? It would be an interesting contest. There might be steroid counter-strategies you could use to compensate for the increased muscle-mass and agression.
We already watch atheletes because they can play better than we can. Why not augment them to play even better than that? Devil's advocate.
Post a Comment