Is this an advantage or not?

[Von Tonner]

Firstly, let me say from the outset I am in awe of this guys determination, courage, and tenacity - but in the arena in which he wants to compete is it fair to his fellow competitors. I must admit I am not convinced it is fair. Why I say this is largely due to the courts reasons.

"In overturning a ban imposed by the International Association of Athletics Federations, track and field’s governing body, the court deemed that there was not enough evidence to prove that Pistorius’s flexible j-shaped blades, attached below his knees, gave him an advantage."

Well, how much evidence is required? If 'advantage' is measured, is a 20% advantage permissable but 21% and above not?

Tests done last November found their was an advantage.

"The I.A.A.F. sponsored three days of testing on Pistorius, who gave his consent, in Cologne, Germany, under the supervision of Peter Brüggemann, a professor at the German Sport University.
Brüggemann found that the Cheetah prosthetics were more efficient than a human ankle. He also found that they could return energy in maximum speed sprinting and that Pistorius was able to keep up with a few able-bodied sprinters while expending about 25 percent less energy."

But.


"Pistorius’s lawyers, however, argued that the results of the study did not provide enough evidence to make a decision, and they lodged an appeal in February. Jeffrey Kessler, a lawyer with the New York-based firm Dewey & LeBoeuf, who agreed to take the case on a pro bono basis, led Pistorius’s defense."

Again, quantify what is "enough"

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa130/shazavaar/runner.jpg

From purely a laymans' perspective, he does not have an ankle or calf tendon - all vital parts in running - to contend with as do his competitors. Surley that alone must disqualify him. Or am I wrong?

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/sports/20070514_RUNNER_GRAPHIC.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/17/sports/olympics/17runner.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5087&em&en=b7235883889bf922&ex=1211169600

[Platapus]

This is such a tough question.

On one hand anyone who had two legs amputated can hardly be considered having an advantage

On the other hand, the technological state of prosthetics is advancing to the point where a person may have a limited mechanical advantage.

I don't think the competition rules, when they were made, even considered this.

Emotionally I would love to see this "disabled" man compete with "non-disabled" men.

However, I feel that the spirit of competition is that everyone is competing from the same technological basis.

A very tough question to answer.

[orwell]

I'd hate to see the guy disqualified, but at the same time, it does give him a perhaps unfair advantage. Perhaps a trial race to see just how much of a lead he'd gain from his 'advantage'? I think ultimately I'd have to say no, you can not run the general sports, but perhaps he could participate in some of the other extreme sports where doping and the such is allowed?

[Platapus]

Would there be a problem if a record in the Para-olympics would be better then in the traditional olympics?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Well, for what its worth, here's a link to a scan of the decision (http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/document/1085/5048/0/Pistorius%20award%20%28scanned%20published%20on%20 CAS%20website%29.pdf).

From skimming it, it seems that "not enough" is not so much a "there is reasonable doubt in the study" kind of thing.

The court's opinion goes something like this. The data they had suggested that the Cheetah brings both advantages and disadvantages to the user relative to a normal leg.

The study, however, was specified to measure only the part where he had the advantage. It proceeds to conclude, naturally, that the guy receives a massive advantage from Cheetah.

It is a case of biased sampling, so to speak.

[Skybird]

the problem I have with the study that now lead the international sports court to overrule the IAAF has been led and supervised by a man - who is working for and is being payed the producer of the prothese and is in the business of seling protheses in general. That is the one big problem I have with this decision.

I did not immediately notice that von Tionner had started this thread, and thus started my own, that I meanwhile have interrupted. See my explanation in what I said there:

"
An international sports court has overruled a sentence by the IAAF that denied the Southafrican sprinter Pistorius, who has both legs amputated and replaced by special prothesis on carbon basis, permission to battle for victory at the Olympics together with the "non-handicapped" athletes. The IAAF argued on basis of an analysis that said that the sprinter was using 25% less energy using these "technical assistance devices", and that with each step or jump they gave back much more energy to the sprinter than biologcal limbs do. It also was said the sprinter would tire slower and later, sicne the prothesis weigh less than biological limbs.

This sentence now has been overruled by a higher international sports court, presenting another analysis that said these claims were not true, and that it makes no difference at all. the study was led and supervised by Hugh Herr.

I do not want to raise debate on wether or not handicapped and "complete" humans should do sports competition together in the same league, I am against that for principle reasons, and that's it. But the problems I have with this special court sentence at question, are leadiong beyond that, and are two-fold:

First, even critics of the IAAF who wanted to acchieve for principle reasons that healthy and crippled persons shall compete against each other and unified in the same event and league, are unable to deny that this sentence opens a wide gate for the entrance of more technical assistance devices and body-implemented technology into the sports competion arena - and in the forseeable future being used by normal or healthy athletes as well. This in a times were chemical doping already is handing over the flag to genetic doping. Olympic spirit? Sporting spirit? Forget it - like in motorsports, in the future disadvantages and weaknesses of sportsmen will be euqualized by technical gadgets. But what meaning has a sports competition and winning a medal then that leads beyond the question of who has more money to pay the better technical constructor?

And second: The counter-analysis was led and managed by Hugh Herr. This Hugh Herr is working for and payed by Össur, the company that is producing limb prothesis and also has constructed Pitorius' protheses.

Can a conflict of interest become any more obvious?

Hardly.

"

[Von Tonner]

Well, for what its worth, here's a link to a scan of the decision (http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/document/1085/5048/0/Pistorius%20award%20%28scanned%20published%20on%20 CAS%20website%29.pdf).

From skimming it, it seems that "not enough" is not so much a "there is reasonable doubt in the study" kind of thing.

The court's opinion goes something like this. The data they had suggested that the Cheetah brings both advantages and disadvantages to the user relative to a normal leg.

The study, however, was specified to measure only the part where he had the advantage. It proceeds to conclude, naturally, that the guy receives a massive advantage from Cheetah.

It is a case of biased sampling, so to speak.
Thanks for the link. I did not realize that there were actually 3 tests done. The 'Rome Observation", the "Cologne Test" and then for purposes of the appeal, the "Houston Report". I must say, having read the full report and the panels findings, the IAAF does not come out unblemished on this.

But for all intents, the finding pertains only to the athlete in question and to exhibit A - the Cheetah Flex-Foot. i.e. that model only. And this finding in his favour only helps him if he qualifies.