Double Amputee Sprinter Cleared For Olympic Competition

I'll ignore the fact that you prefaced the above with "it's true" citing no source, but science should matter. I'll be the first to admit that this guy is inspirational to say the least, but if science has given him superior legs, why should he be able to compete with those of us who are stuck with legs that easily injure and are less energy efficient?
That would be like an arm-amputee strapping into one of those exoskeletons for a weight competition.

I agree with the above comment. Just because he's inspirational doesn't mean he should be allowed to compete. where do you draw the line? what if in 20 years the prothesis' are good enough to offer a clear advantage? Isn't this almost like steroids? an unnatural aid?

his new ankle may be 20-30% more efficent, but he dosnt have calf muscle to give that extra push, only spring. Regardless he may have an advantage.

But if the use of mechanical ligiments is allowed, even passive then I have a link for everyone.
http://www.jumpusa.com/poweriser.html

If he can use those, I'll use these.

So, what happens when a blind person is given bio-mechanical/artificial eyes (sometime in the future) allowing them to have 20/10 vision, and this person wants to compete in the shooting event? What happens when someone decides to have their legs amputated so they themselves can have prostetics giving them an unfair advantage over others? I know it's extreme but it's definitely not far fetched. Olympians aren't allowed to use steroids, they shouldn't be allowed to turn themselves into cyborgs and compete without legs when everyone else has to. Where does it end? It sets a precedent that I'm sure will be challenged in the near future.

you bunch of whiners. do any of you even know an amputee?

please make sure to read this whole comment, because you will most likely first be upset, and then start to understand.

in the stricted sense, he shouldn't be allowed go compete, well he should be eligible, but he shouldn't be able to use any prosthetics. what i mean is that if he in his natural state is able to qualify more power to him, but the use of unnatural training methods or unnatural prosthetics shouldn't be allowed in the olympics, this is why we band things like steroids and such. this is why things like special olympics exist. yes it is elitist, but the olympics ARE elitist.

granted "natural" and "unnatural" are ugly words, but in this situation i think they fit.

Why not make seperate classes of competition for all sorts of amputees with standards for the prosthetic power they use?

I think it's disgusting to mention this man in the same breath as a hypothetical person who "decides to have their legs amputated so they themselves can have prostetics" as said in an above comment. Even if a bizarre extreme case happened like that, CAS and the IAAF could turn down that individual.

Pistorius was born with no fibulas and had to have both his legs amputated as a baby. His perseverance is inspiring. With all of the morally questionable athletes that we consider role models in this country, it is refreshing that there is someone out there who embodies what athletics really should be all about.

He is the kind of sports hero that i want my young son to emulate.

This guy has a very clear advantage. There is no reason he should be allowed to compete. There is no such thing as a good time to ignore science. That's the beauty of it, it's there whether you want it or not.

As was stated before, there is no doubt that he is inspirational. The discussion at hand is whether or not he should be allowed to compete with an unfair advantage. Athletes aren't allowed to cheat just because they're nice guys or inspirational, so why should the fake legs be allowed.

I agree, this person could clearly have an advantage, and even if HE dosen't what to stop some other amputee from making/ buying legs that will give him/her an advantage

If there is a time to draw the line on letting people in the Olympics it is now, 100% humans only.

In what world would not having feet in a foot race be an advantage. Lets give him credit where credit is due. The man can run faster than 99% of the worlds population and he does not have feet. Sure he is not as likely to pull a hamstring as the other guys but he also cannot feel the track under his toes. I also doubt the other guys run in constant fear of having there legs fall off mid race. Sure someday prosthetics could give someone an unfair advantage but this is not the case.

"Unfair advantage." I wonder what part of Oscar's situation and challenges feels to him advantageous.

No, we don't let runners compete with jetpacks. But there's a weird new bias going on for abled people to think of prosthetics or assistive technology as turning their users into robocops. That's fiction -- this is fact. Learn more about real people living real lives.

Go ahead -- do the research and change his technology on him -- I'm sure Oscar would still be interested in competing.

When people's determination outstrips the rules, maybe it's time to change the game.

As unpopular as this line of reasoning maybe the Olympics have represented the best NATURAL ATHLETES in the world. The Special Olympics represents the best in people that have diasbilities.

Changing the Olympics is NOT the proper solution as I see it. Nor would changing the rules of engagement help either. If technology assisted people enter races someone soon is going to push one down, trip one or claim a foul from one.

What has really been accomplished here?

Personally i feel like alot of you are crazy and inconsiderate assholes. How do you figure a amputeed man has that much of an advantage? He has a 30% advantage on an average joe but against trained runners its equal. The man had to reteach himself how to walk. Oh then he had to teach himself how to sprint! Oh but yea he has advantage on people who are in full physical shape. Those other runners can strengthen and improve parts of their leg that he does not even have anymore....Advantage my ass! Good for you man...I hope sets a record time!

Who cares? A man led a challenging life, overcame tons of obstacles, and has a chance at winning a race.

The problem with most professional sports, including the Olympics, is that people get way too caught up in the details and forget what it's really about. Let the man run; would it really be such a tragedy if he succeeded?

So because the guy has led a hard life (which I seriously doubt) means he should be allowed to cheat in the Olympics? If he is allowed to run, all the other runners should be allowed to wear spring stilts as well.

I don't care how much he loves the sport, I don't care how much of an "inspiration" he is--the guy has an UNFAIR advantage. Period.

And having no calf has nothing to do with it. If you knew anything about the mechanics of running you would know that his spring is fulfilling the same purpose (only without using energy or creating lactate) as a normal calf.

The guy is being used as a novelty.

My gosh, this the most biased article I've ever read on Popular Science. Whether should be allowed to compete aside, I am unimpressed with the quality of reporting here. Oh, and he shouldn't be able to compete.

flamehd14... my thought exactly.

"It’s about time. After an excruciating and absurd debate..."
How do you get away with opening a story like that? Apparently us who think differently have absurd reasoning.

From what I see, there are too many "what ifs" here:

what if he actually has an advantage?
what if that advantage would have existed without the prosthetics?
what if a future amputee has more of advantage?
what if he sets a record?
what if in 20 years "naturals" can't compete any more?

Maybe I'm a "crazy and inconsiderate asshole," but I would rather not have to deal with drawing some arbitrary line in the future that says one athlete is "human" enough and another isn't. It would be better to just draw the line at no mechanics involved.

Then again, NBC will probably get better tv ratings from this.

I think that the comparison between prosthetic legs and steroids are unfair. I believe that steroids were banned more because of the possible terrible side effects than because they gave athletes an advantage. I believe the line should be drawn when athletes purposely injure themselves to acquire artificial legs, the Olympics is as much about athletes overcoming their own flaws (physiological, emotional, genetic or even physical) as it is about winning. For instance most remember Neil Armstrong for winning the tour de France AFTER he overcame cancer.

The comparison with steroids is a bad one. As redwarrior said steroids were banned for the potentially dangerous side effects. If there were no side effects everyone would take them and it wouldn't be an unfair advantage. Also sports at all levels ban illegal drugs of all kinds, whether they might give an advantage or not because kids look up to athletes as role models. Whether he competes or not this man is a great role model for amputees and non-amputees alike. It is a fantastic story and probably a Disney movie waiting to happen but I'm disappointed that the science is being shrugged aside. Obviously there were concerns he had an unfair advantage, science backed that up, and now science doesn't matter? I know this is "Popular Science" so maybe the last line should have read "Sometimes science isn't popular" instead of "shouldn't matter". This is a very slippery slope. Cars offer mechanical advantages over horses but I didn't see any in the Preakness.

It seems to me that popsci didnt take the "scientific" stance on this subject because the research is not adaquate to draw a definative conclusion. Whether or not it is fair, i would still enjoy to see the matter settled the old fashion way- plain competion! Lets draw our conclusions on the matter after he competes, he very well could lose.

Redwarrior: I didn't know Neil Armstrong had cancer...or that he won the tour de France. I thought he was famous for that whole "first person on the moon" stuff.

In my opinion, the article itself is just a tad more biased than useful. The subject aside, popsci.com could have come up with a nicer article explaining the situation in a much more factual way.

Bringing the subject back onto the table, I had heard about this athlete a few months ago. The man is inspirational and should be awarded in some way, but you just can't ignore the science. Although they found the findings to be inconclusive, that's no reason to justify the opposite of what they found. That's when you go ahead and focus on MORE studies! The studies that had occurred found there was some advantage. That at least merits a closer look.

I know it's a sticky situation, but it's best to look at this now before it might get out of hand.

There is a phenomenal difference between a prosthetic that adds energy to the gait of an amputee, and one that is only capable of storing and releasing biologically produced energy. The exoskeleton is one example of an active augmentation. Those prosthetic lower legs are completely passive - any energy put into his gait comes from a completely human source (mostly his upper legs in this case). On this point, he is at a significant disadvantage to his competitors. Without the ability to add energy to his gait with his lower legs, he is unable to put that extra 30% bio-power into his running.

In contrast, on an oxygen usage test, this trade-off looks like he is expending 30% less energy than his competitors (since that extra muscle mass is missing).

It's odd, but it seems like the additional running power that he lacks is being made up for in weight savings in his lower legs. This should permit him to achieve a higher stepping frequency, and keep him competitive with the other potential Olympians.

If there was some metric by which his prosthetics could be compared to the maximum human potential, then perhaps weight could be added or subtracted from his prostheses to even out the playing field. The major problem with this avenue of reasoning is, of course, that human potential is always changing through training, evolution, and environmental factors. So, it's virtually impossible to pin down the human maximum and say, "You're only allowed to do this well. If you do any better, we have to penalize you." Clearly, we're approaching the point where technology and biology are too intermeshed to draw a strong and dividing line between them.

By allowing Oscar to compete in the Olympics (should he pass his qualifiers), a precedent is being set. So far, that precedent appears to limit the use of bio-technology in Olympic competition to passive limb replacement. I think that's fair. I also think that future Olympic committees should ban any sort of passive augmentation of functioning limbs.

This includes the addition of high energy tensile fibers into clothing that would allow an Olympian to store energy with one muscle group, then release that energy to augment an opposing group of muscles. For instance, an elastic sleeve that stretches when straightening your elbow (using triceps), then releases that stored energy during a bicep curl. Clearly, that would pose an unfair advantage to anyone without this special clothing. Additionally, people whose disabilities would not normally deny them any form of competitiveness may not be able to take advantage of this form of technology.

In summary, any artificial linkage between working elements of the human body should be banned. On the other hand, artificial replacements of non-functional or amputated elements of the human body should be permitted, so long as they are not powered by any source of energy unavailable to the natural form of the element in question.

This kind of rule would permit advancements in limb-replacement technology that could be powered by naturally produced energy sources within the body (ATP, glucose - whatever else powers natural muscles). Obviously, that's still sci-fi for now, but if it becomes reality - it will have a profound impact on professional sports and the Olympics.

i don't think he should be allowed to compete in an able bodied olympics. the guy is a sort of cyborg right? that means he has an advantage. those things work like springs. it's basically the same as allowing someone to use a performance enhancing drug in a tournament

Hey guys!

Let's appreciate the fact: Oscar Pistorius is one determined individual and he sure needs our encouragement.

Imagine (we must have friends who have had near fatal acidents and been bed-ridden), this guy with no legs gets a sci-tech boost and through sheer will power makes it to the top.

Science and technology will advance and let's pray (hope) that many of the differently-abled citizens of this world get a fair opportunity to live and share their dreams in this world.

And, by the way, do check this article on Bionics.

http://www.itmagz.com/admin/issuepdf/Bionics.pdf

It's awesome. We need to look at our world in a positive light. And wishing the very best to Oscar.

Cheers!

The Associated Press source article is far less biased than this one, but presents a better argument in favor of Oscar. Apparently an MIT study contradicted the German one. There's clearly a thin line somewhere between flesh-and-bone athlete and unfair advantage, and the Court of Arbitration for Sport has to carefully consider both sides of any argument and make these decisions carefully. I trust their judgement because they've researched this far more than I have.

As for the plausibility of an unfair advantage arising from prosthetics like this, I'd say it can't be as easy as ruling out only prosthetics that add energy to the system. In the case of Oscar, his prosthetic legs are ultra-efficent springs, whereas the flesh and blood between my knees and the ground are energy hungry centers for viscous resistance. It's similar to the difference between rubber tires on asphalt and steel wheels on rails. Because so much of running is cardio-vascular, anything that increases efficiency by 25%, as the German study suggested, is unacceptable, but I trust the decision of Court of Arbitration for Sport and suspect the MIT study must have been quite persuasive.

As for the journalistic quality of the article. There is none. It reads more like a blog rant, many examples of which can be found here in these comments.

tanstaafl83-
"Those prosthetic lower legs are completely passive - any energy put into his gait comes from a completely human source (mostly his upper legs in this case)."

Kind of like a Bicycle...

Let me make an analogy comparing a normal runner, with the gentleman in the article. Here is the comparison: When you drop a stone, does it bounce? No. Where does the energy go? Vibration. A normal runner (with legs) has to use energy to recover from the impact and propel himself forward. What happens when you drop a rubber ball? Boing! Pops right up. That is the difference. It is like standing on the roof and one guy drops a wood pole, and the other guy drops a pogo stick. Any study that would say that a prosthesis like this would not be more efficient than a human leg is bollocks.

It is all about elastic and inelastic collisions. This is grade school physics everybody. Not only are the weight savings huge, the guy has calves that return a substantial amount more energy to motion than human legs. PLUS, there is no risk of injury, and no lactate buildup. This is not fair by any means.

I’m sure he’s a great guy and an inspiration to you all, but he does not belong in an exhibition of raw human athleticism (he doesn’t have human legs).

Like Baxyjr said, "This is grade school physics" - a bouncy ball stores and releases energy more efficiently than a rock, when dropped on the same surface. However, the analogy is incomplete. Biped running is extremely efficient in humans because of the elasticity of our tendons [1-3]. Well-trained athletes have thicker tendons and stiffer muscles that are capable of storing energy far more efficiently than an untrained runner [4]. As this stored energy in the tendons is being released and the athlete's foot is pushing off the ground, additional energy is added from the muscle. The muscle adds far more energy during the push-off than is lost on impact, otherwise we wouldn't even be able to walk!

The difference between Oscar's prosthetics and his competitor's calves is the ability to add useful energy to a running gait. To use the elastic impact analogy from earlier, Oscar's prosthetics make his lower legs like a high-efficiency bouncy ball. A fully functional lower leg with all its bits and pieces is like a less-efficient bouncy ball with a miniature jackhammer inside, allowing it to bounce higher on each subsequent impact. (Note: I only considered the lower leg, as the rest of the athletes bodies are more or less on equal ground)

About the bicycle comment: A bike can not be used as a replacement limb, as we have no limbs that function with continuous rotary motion. Oscar's prosthetics act like super-efficient tendons - obviously replacing one missing body part with technology that performs in a virtually identical capacity.

1. Bennett M.B, Taylor G.C. Scaling of elastic strain energy in kangaroos and the benefits of being big. Nature. 1995;378:56–59.

2. Farley C.T, Glasheen J, McMahon T.A. Running springs: speed and animal size. J. Exp. Biol. 1993;185:71–86.

3. Ker R.F, Bennett M.B, Bibby S.R, Kester R.C, Alexander R.M. The spring in the arch of the human foot. Nature. 1987;325:147–149.

4. Taylor, C.R. Relating mechanics and energetics during exercise. In: Jones J.H. , editor. Comparative vertebrate exercise physiology: unifying physiological principles. vol. 38A. Academic Press; San Diego: 1994. pp. 181–215.

Yes frost I mixed up names, (but the correct one does not come to mind). It occurs to me that companies that make the legs could derive two philosophies from the results of all this: (1) that humans desire their products to be better than the real thing, supposing he is allowed to compete or (2) that humans desire their products to mimic the real legs as much as possible. So perhaps, although for this athlete as an individual I think he should be given a chance, him not being allowed to compete may lead to the manufactures of such prosthetics to try and develop realistic products and we stay away from a sort of matrixy world.

The key words for me in this artice:"Olympic spirit". This indeed is an act of spirit and I agree, regardless of the scientific argument being fact is not relevant. What is important is the able and disable athletes can be seen to be competition in the same arena.

www.comfortablefoot.com>Comfortsandals