Oscar Pistorius - Unfair Advantage?

"Every Olympics has at least one story that leaves a giant, enduring footprint. Just guessing, but this summer it will be about the sprinter with no feet." ~ Bill Plaschke, LA Times

I think that best sums up what is happening right now with the 2012 Olympic Games.

The story that Bill Plaschke is referencing is that of South African sprinter Oscar Pistorius. The 25-year-old known as the 'Blade Runner' will be competing in the London Olympic Games in the 400m and 4x400m relay.

The reason Pistorius will be the story? He's a double amputee. Pistorius will become the first amputee track athlete to compete in the Olympics.

The story, of course, comes with controversy. He runs using prosthetic legs called Cheetahs. These carbon fiber artificial limbs leads to the discussion: Does Pistorius have an unfair advantage over his competition?

My answer: Are you serious?


Three weeks ago when Oscar Pistorius qualified for the 400m games, much support was shown for the double-amputee from South Africa. Millions around the world showed their support and wished congratulations for his amazing qualification for both the London 2012 and Paralympic Games.

But for all of the support, there were also outcries against Pistorius being allowed to compete. Twitter responses to ESPN included comments like "He shouldn't be allowed to compete, he has his own games" and "The man has metal legs how is that fair?" There was even an egregious comment on a Pistorius article on ESPN that read "he should be with the sword swallower and the bearded lady at the freak show not the olympics."

Again, are you serious? 


First off, let's ignore the fact that many these outcries are calling for segregation and discrimination. Let's just ignore that civil rights are being thrown out the window. And besides, cases like these have been seen all through sports. For example, women are allowed to compete in the PGA even though there is a WPGA. 

So why can't a disabled man, eligible for the Paralympic Games, participate in the Olympics if he is talented enough to do so?

Would somebody with down syndrome be kept out of the major leagues if he can throw a 100 mph fastball?

Would somebody who is blind not be allowed to run track even if she is talented enough and fast enough to win?

This last scenario has actually been seen twice in track and field. Marla Runyan, a legally blind runner, competed in the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games and finished 8th in the 1500m race, becoming the first legally blind athlete to compete in the Olympics. She also finished as the top American in the 2002 New York City Marathon. Numerous blind high school athletes, like Alyssa Rossi in 2009, have made headlines along with their dedicated teammates for their achievements. A sighted runner would stick with Rossi through all training exercises and races. One story (which I cannot confirm was Rossi) involved the two runners sticking together for an entire race, running too quickly for the sighted runner and a bit too slowly for the blind runner. Then, on the final straight, the sighted runner would let the blind athlete go with the squeeze of a hand. The result: a blind runner sprinting ahead to victory.

Oh and a legally blind archer, Im Dong-hyun just set a world record today, scoring 699 points in the 72-arrow event.He has 10% vision in one eye, 20% in the other, but he can hit a target over 70 feet away with a bow and arrow.

Oscar Pistorius might just be the next great story!

But Pistorius has something that Marla Runyan and Alyssa Rossi did not: technology that helps to make up for what the athlete lacks. Those blade prosthetic legs have caused the outcries. But do those legs provide him with a competitive advantage?

You all know that I love my proof. Here's what the research says. In 2008 his prosthetic legs were deemed to give him an unfair advantage, and he was not allowed to compete in the Olympics that year. Less than a year later, MIT did a study to examine the effects of the Cheetahs. They concluded that the prosthetic limbs generated less force against the ground than a regular human leg. The main obvious points in this came in the start of the race, where there was significant disadvantage from pushing out of the starting blocks. Dr. David James, a researcher from the Sports Engineering department at Sheffield Hallam University, had a different view. He observed that the carbon fibre blades are lighter than muscle and bone, and they create a bounce that expends little energy. Also, an amputee doesn't  have to deal with lactic acid buildup in calf muscles, and thus can run the end of a race just as fast as the start, "particularly over longer distances where the acceleration phase is not so important."

So which research is true? Ask Steve Tebo, who tweeted in to 3SN saying "he has no advantage [of] calf muscles. I am amputee and runner trust me it's not easier for me!! And I remember before running." ...as for the future of technology in sports...like everything else in sports, as new technologies and clothing and apparel become available, rules must be re-examined and sometimes adjusted. It could be true, like Dr. James suggested, that marathon runners might finish in less than two hours with prosthetic legs. 100m dash might be done by a Usain Bolt of the future in 6 seconds due to stronger shoes. Swimwear might become more hydrodynamic and Michael Phelps' records could be shattered ten years from now. Let everybody have the technology and there's no problem with that. And as for Pistorius having the blades and nobody else? He's still at a disadvantage. Ask the research. The evidence is there. So don't go trying to diminish this great man's great accomplishments because he's different and unique. Congratulations and good luck Oscar!

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/07/06/3692576/bill-plaschke-oscar-pistorius.html#storylink=cpy