[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.

"