Pistorius will be in the Olympics...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/18708365

We had a discussion about this ages ago...   well..  it seems he will be there..........

and is there any real difference with him being there than the previously banned drug cheats???

he's been cleared to run by the Court of Arbitration for Sport in the same fashion as the drugs cheats have so we have to accept that whether we agree with the decisions or not

it's a very difficult one. And all the arguments have, as you say, been aired before. I guess if the authorities are happy and the other runners don't mind, bring it on. 

Peter Collins wrote (see)

it's a very difficult one. And all the arguments have, as you say, been aired before. I guess if the authorities are happy and the other runners don't mind, bring it on. 

I on't think they take the views of the other runners into account.

I understand that some of the other athletes are not happy about the drug cheats being included in the team, and have tweeted to that effect (whatever Team GB officially say!) 

I've no idea how they feel about Pistorius, but it's not quite the same thing as allowing known cheats to take part.  

It's hard to say whether his prosthetics give him an advantage or not.

I was talking about Pistorius. I agree that there's no real work yet on how his prosthetics help or hinder him, but I think the horse has, er, bolted. On drug cheats - I think it's just as difficult. I believe in people serving their time and paying for their crime, then being rehabilitated. The worst thing, though, about what Dwain Chambers did is that he denied three team-mates their medals in that relay. That was despicable. If I was him, I'd have quietly left the sport.

On the one hand, it would seem ultra churlish to ban a guy who is amazingly smashing through adversity to compete at the top level.

But there's that niggle isn't there, yes he's powering the blades, but where does human powering end, and machine powered start?

As for drugs cheats, I simply don't understand how they can come back and ever be taken seriously. Should certainly be a life ban from the Olympics.

I don't want to knock his achievements, he has obviously done incredibly well. However, I feel he has basically stuck 2 fingers up to the other guys he should have been racing in a couple weeks time and effectively saying he is too good for them. What about the guy who wins gold in that race now? He has basically reduced them to 2nd rate as opposed to a seperate challenge.

He is a phenominal guy. Whether his blades hinder him or not aside, at the end of the day he is not competing on a level playing field with the other athletes. Yes, he powers the blades himself, and he does it very well, but they never fatigue and very very very rarely fail.

Personally I do not agree with the decision to let him run, but seeing as I don't make the decisions, best of luck to him.

Now. Drug cheating. I agree with the serve your time side of it, but Dwain Chambers didn't serve his time. He whinged until it was reduced! As previously stated, he didn't cheat himself he also nulled the efforts of 3 other athletes. He's a cheat, his punishment was a lifetime olympic ban, he hasn't served it. We should not dilute our standards to fit in with other nations. As it happens the change in rules also allowed others back in to the team, David Millar for example.

Wetter is Better! wrote (see)

 

Whether his blades hinder him or not aside, at the end of the day he is not competing on a level playing field with the other athletes. Yes, he powers the blades himself, and he does it very well, but they never fatigue and very very very rarely fail.

 

 

+1.

I don't think there needs to be any other argument; it's just not a level playing field.  Even the CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport) in their judgment (overruling the IAAF ban) admitted that there is scientific proof that the biomechanics involved are very different, but their decision was based on IAAF's failing to prove "on balance of probabilities" that the use of his blades provides a net advantage.  If the advantages and disadvantages roughly cancelled each other out, wouldn't that just be a bit of a coincidence rather than an argument for allowing people to compete in the same event, when the biomechanics involved are completely different?

I can ride round a track on my racing bike in 31 seconds, but if I did it on my vintage Chopper with the rusty chain it takes about 45 seconds.  Should I be allowed to compete in the 400m as long as I use the shit bike?

Disclaimer: the above example is hypothetical.  I'd never ride my bike around a running track, since Kevin Keegan famously demonstrated why it's such a bad idea.

It's quite interesting that he is going to be in the Olympic and Paralympic teams. Does that mean that in future any paralympic athletes who meet qualification times/criteria for the Olympics will be allowed to compete in both?

afaik, there is nothing within the Olympic charter that says that a Paralympian cannot compete at the Olympics.   if the paralympian has met the relevant criteria and can compete on even grounds with an able bodied athlete why shouldn't they??

I don't mean that they shouldn't be allowed to compete, I just think its interesting to chose to take part in both Games. It seems mean-spirited to say that the other Olympic athletes won't have a second chance to win a Olympic gold medal, but I suppose that's what I'm getting at. Of course, the other Olympic athletes haven't overcome such huge physical adversity as Pistorius, I do think he's amazing and has achieve phenominal things.

SR - PhilPub has succinctly provided the info on the Pistorius question.  as far as the Court for Arbitration in Sport are concerned the blades are not proven to confer an advantage so he should be able to compete against able bodied on the same terms.  IF he was going significantly quicker on them though, then no doubt CAS would rule differently.

he hasn't been chosen for the individual events because afaik (look it up) as he hasn't met the qualification times for selection.  relay teams are selected differently to this 

As I understand it tests have shown that he can reach 300m on lower oxygen useage than able bodied athletes which for my money says the blades do confer and advantage. I'm not sure why the CAS ignored this.

fat buddha wrote (see)

SR - PhilPub has succinctly provided the info on the Pistorius question.  as far as the Court for Arbitration in Sport are concerned the blades are not proven to confer an advantage so he should be able to compete against able bodied on the same terms.  IF he was going significantly quicker on them though, then no doubt CAS would rule differently.

 

This is the bit I've got a problem with.  If he's not going significantly quicker, does that mean he might only have a slight advantage?  And is that OK?  What if you're a South African 400m runner who is pipped to a place in the Olympic relay squad, because Pritorius ran 0.04 quicker than you?  Can you only kick up a fuss if the gap was 2 seconds?

XFR Bear wrote (see)

As I understand it tests have shown that he can reach 300m on lower oxygen useage than able bodied athletes which for my money says the blades do confer and advantage. I'm not sure why the CAS ignored this.

The CAS adjudication is really mixed up on this issue.  (From my understanding) it actually accepts a study which shows that oxygen usage is significantly less (as in 25%) for the earlier stages of the 400m race, which would explain why he finishes so strongly, yet goes on to say that "on balance" there is no scientific proof that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. So the CAS themselves admit that there are different forces at play, but because there's somehow a balancing out, it's OK to let him compete.  For an arbitration body, I think their logic is completely flawed.

For the record I also think Oscar Pritorius has done perhaps more than any other individual to raise the profile of paralympic sport at the highest level.  On balance  this is definitely a good thing... but a separate issue.  I just don't think the argument for allowing him to compete in "able-bodied" 400m competitions is a convincing one at all.

Maybe the real test? Let everyone use blades ?
I did a run in US a few years ago, and ran a few miles swapping places with someone on blades. He did have 'normal' legs, I was at risk of neck ache chatting to him.

For info : my 'scientific analysis' : I was faster uphill ... he zoomed past me on downhill sections. I could also take corners a lot faster and tighter.

But I guess you don't get many hills or corners in the Olympic track races?

Would he have got there faster in a wheelchair?