Anyone else think it was more interesting that the winning healthy black athlete changed name tags with the losing white South African cheater"exceptional" athlete.

That may be my favorite moment from these Olympics so far, and it was only a semi-final race. Good on you "Healthy Black Athlete."

Wait wait wait, I was told that all the other runners thought he was a cheater and hated him. And that letting him run was a slap in the face of the spirit of the Olympics!

/Amazing story, amazing guy and cool to be witness to yet another historical moment.
//Good on the winner for embracing the real spirit of the Olympics.

My son has basically the same amputations that Pistorius does.. So watching him and his story has been very interesting to me on a personal level and I think that he gives my son, who is four now, someone to really look up to. He's very active in gymnastics and loves to run and climb all over things. He's to young to have the cool prosthesis that the older people have, but I can't wait to see what he does in the future. He's pretty amazing already.

That was awesome!

DoBeDoBeDo: Wait wait wait, I was told that all the other runners thought he was a cheater and hated him. And that letting him run was a slap in the face of the spirit of the Olympics!

I've been a runner pretty much my whole life. I am personally amazed by the guy. I don't think most runners would be anything but in awe of the guy. To Michael Johnson's credit, I thought he was basically saying that he may indeed have an advantage while at the same time being supportive of him. Forget the legs for a moment and think about the mental toughness to sprint on those things. I am sure Oscar has a level of comfort from years of use, but I'm sitting there watching thinking all that would go through my head running on a couple of sticks. Advantage or not, I don't think most other athletes care in the end. I mean they have legs.

I think the tink-tink legs are a form of unfair advantage. But I get just as mad when somebody calls him a 'loser'. Being somebody without legs that says "I'm gonna run anyway." is pretty darn tough.

SanjiSasuke: I think the tink-tink legs are a form of unfair advantage

Part of me agrees. That part is quickly shouted down by the part that realizes this is a pretty damn unique guy in a unique situation.

DoBeDoBeDo: Wait wait wait, I was told that all the other runners thought he was a cheater and hated him. And that letting him run was a slap in the face of the spirit of the Olympics!


I don't think anyone hates him personally and vast majority have more than a healthy amount of respect for what he has done.

However, that doesn't mean he should be allowed in the Olympics. To me it is not an "advantage/disadvantage" issue - as soon as you start debating that, the answer is clear - he is not running.

bacongood: I don't think anyone hates him personally and vast majority have more than a healthy amount of respect for what he has done.

However, that doesn't mean he should be allowed in the Olympics. To me it is not an "advantage/disadvantage" issue - as soon as you start debating that, the answer is clear - he is not running.


Naw. When you see semis stacked with guys on blades maybe there would be a point to it.

JohnBigBootay: When you see semis stacked with guys on blades maybe there would be a point to it.

Well, I don't think many world-class athletes are going to go lose their legs to find out which way they run faster. It's really tough to say because even if they did provide an advantage in running, those benefits are kinda outweighed by NOT HAVING LEGS for the rest of your life. So it's an impossible argument to have, and since everyone's just going to shout you down as an insensitive asshole for suggesting that it might be an advantage in a race, I guess there's no point in trying to rationally discuss it.

So short of making him join the Paralympics (and depriving him of any meaningful income) what is he supposed to do? use springs?

He lost, so that's not an advantage. It would only be an advantage if he ran like Bolt.

The dude should turn in the blades, and get some treads instead. Then farkers would have a real reason to biatch.

Johnny 5 alive!

sephjnr: So short of making him join the Paralympics (and depriving him of any meaningful income) what is he supposed to do? use springs?

He lost, so that's not an advantage. It would only be an advantage if he ran like Bolt.

A) He already is a paralympian champion. And I didn't know there was a right to make our living as a professional athlete.

B) Really? It is only an advantage if you win? Do you really think that?

sephjnr: It would only be an advantage if he ran like Bolt.

We'll never know how fast he would've been without them, but it's doubtful he would have been as fast as Bolt since, well, no one else on earth, ever, is.

In one of his interviews he made an interesting point; That hundreds of amputee athletes have been running using the same "legs" for years, yet none of them are running Olympic caliber times. If it was a significant advantage / difference, we would see more amputees competing at this level. As it is, his performance owes much more to his own athletic ability.

PetraeusWJ: In one of his interviews he made an interesting point; That hundreds of amputee athletes have been running using the same "legs" for years, yet none of them are running Olympic caliber times. If it was a significant advantage / difference, we would see more amputees competing at this level. As it is, his performance owes much more to his own athletic ability.

I would tend to agree.

PetraeusWJ: In one of his interviews he made an interesting point; That hundreds of amputee athletes have been running using the same "legs" for years, yet none of them are running Olympic caliber times. If it was a significant advantage / difference, we would see more amputees competing at this level. As it is, his performance owes much more to his own athletic ability.

He is an amazing athlete, but that doesn't prove much. What % of the world are douple amputees? What % of double amputees even try these things on? What % of double amputees who try them on train to the level that he has? Just because he is better than them doesn't negate any "advantage" the blades give, they are just not as good as athletes.

In my opinoin, based on the tests that led to the initial ban, he is a very good athlete who would probably be at just below national class if he had "normal" legs. I doubt any of the other amputee athletes are in the same park as him.

But again, this all assumes that you can run without feet. To me, you cannot; so the discussion ends there.

I heard that running with the blades can be painful because even the best prosthetic won't fit perfectly. I'm sure there's some kind of limit on how hard you can run so that your stumps don't get injured/infected or whatever.

This dude inspired me to get up at 5 am this morning and run. Great gesture by a competitor....

bacongood: B) Really? It is only an advantage if you win? Do you really think that?

That's not what I said. The guy below you got it right.

If James listed the Pistorius number on eBay right now, he'd probably get some pretty significant bids. I'm a cynic, but when they exchanged numbers, I just assumed that this is what James will probably do with the number.

sephjnr: bacongood: B) Really? It is only an advantage if you win? Do you really think that?

That's not what I said. The guy below you got it right.

sephjnr: He lost, so that's not an advantage.

It is what you said.

bacongood: sephjnr: bacongood: B) Really? It is only an advantage if you win? Do you really think that?

That's not what I said. The guy below you got it right.

sephjnr: He lost, so that's not an advantage.

It is what you said.

Read the whole quote.

"He lost, so that's not an advantage. It would only be an advantage if he ran like Bolt."

Losing != advantage.
Winning != advantage.
Winning as well as Bolt = advantage.

What's to misunderstand?

sephjnr: Losing != advantage.
Winning != advantage.
Winning as well as Bolt = advantage.

What's to misunderstand?

If you're as fast as Bolt, and you don't have feet, it's cheating?

You could pump me full of 'roids and I'll never run 50 let alone 45, but that doesn't prove that steroids aren't an advantage.

you have pee hands: sephjnr: Losing != advantage.
Winning != advantage.
Winning as well as Bolt = advantage.

What's to misunderstand?

If you're as fast as Bolt, and you don't have feet, it's cheating?.

If you have surrogate technology that gives you a conspicuous advantage over a normal person, absolutely - that's the bone of contention amongst his critics. There would be more complaints had Oscar got a podium, and there would be more fervent debate.

sephjnr: If you have surrogate technology that gives you a conspicuous advantage over a normal person, absolutely - that's the bone of contention amongst his critics. There would be more complaints had Oscar got a podium, and there would be more fervent debate.

You're previous post doesn't really make any sense. You basically said that winning or losing doesn't prove an advantage, but running as fast as Bolt would. Why is Bolt the threshold that separates human possibility from impossibility? He's the fastest guy right now, but someone someday will probably beat him.

I think Pistorious is probably getting a bit of an advantage from his prosthetics. The cynic in me thinks the IOC agrees but figured it wouldn't be an issue because he was pretty unlikely to medal and it wasn't worth the bad PR to keep him out.

you have pee hands: You're previous post doesn't really make any sense. You basically said that winning or losing doesn't prove an advantage, but running as fast as Bolt would. Why is Bolt the threshold that separates human possibility from impossibility? He's the fastest guy right now, but someone someday will probably beat him.

Today, Bolt is exactly that. Has anyone relying on just natural ability and training methods got even close?

In the future, he'll be beaten but not by a marked amount unless training, enhancements or genetics permit it.

sephjnr: bacongood: sephjnr: bacongood: B) Really? It is only an advantage if you win? Do you really think that?

That's not what I said. The guy below you got it right.

sephjnr: He lost, so that's not an advantage.

It is what you said.

Read the whole quote.

"He lost, so that's not an advantage. It would only be an advantage if he ran like Bolt."

Losing != advantage.
Winning != advantage.
Winning as well as Bolt = advantage.

What's to misunderstand?

your entire logic?

What does Bolt have to do with anything?

First of all, Bolt runs the 100/200, not the 400.

Second, you can get an advantage and still not be the best in the world. OP's advantage bumps him up from barely national class to world class, but not quite best in the world.

bacongood: sephjnr: bacongood: sephjnr: bacongood: B) Really? It is only an advantage if you win? Do you really think that?

That's not what I said. The guy below you got it right.

sephjnr: He lost, so that's not an advantage.

It is what you said.

Read the whole quote.

"He lost, so that's not an advantage. It would only be an advantage if he ran like Bolt."

Losing != advantage.
Winning != advantage.
Winning as well as Bolt = advantage.

What's to misunderstand?

your entire logic?

What does Bolt have to do with anything?

First of all, Bolt runs the 100/200, not the 400.

Second, you can get an advantage and still not be the best in the world. OP's advantage bumps him up from barely national class to world class, but not quite best in the world.

As you are having trouble, I'll rephrase my argument for your benefit.

Do you believe his prosthetic legs give him enough of an advantage to warrant criticism of his standing in athletics? And do you believe that if he had two normal human legs he'd lose to quite a few others in his own class? You cannot assert either of those arguments as you don't have enough evidence.

As I stated above, If he won most races as comfortably in his class as Bolt does in his, that would be a marked advantage, would it not? He didn't even make the final of his chosen category in the premier event of the planet. He could have done, and he could also have done if he had two normal legs, and he could also have failed in the same manner.

If you are correct in asserting that it gives him a edge over the competition, it is clearly not a marked one that guarantees a certain level of victory, and on that basis it invalidates your primary argument that he should only be a paralympian.

sephjnr: Today, Bolt is exactly that. Has anyone relying on just natural ability and training methods got even close?

In the future, he'll be beaten but not by a marked amount unless training, enhancements or genetics permit it.

The fact that there's no one who can beat him doesn't mean he defines the limit of what the human body is capable of, just what a human has done so far, and in any event it doesn't make any difference. Any advantage or disadvantage Pistorius with blade-feet has would have to be judged relative to Pistorius with regular feet, and we have no way of knowing what Pistorius with regular feet would run in the 400.

There almost certainly hasn't been anyone who's got a 400 pr as fast and 100/200 prs as slow as Pistorius, which makes his PRs look very odd, but it's hard to know what that means because the blades look like they make it hard for him to come out of blocks properly.

I think he would be very close to the WR in the 800 if he ran that though he'd have to do it as a time trial because it'd be dangerous to have someone with metal feet running in a pack.

My father-in-law lost a leg in Vietnam- it's a shame he died a while back and didn't get to see this. The advances in prosthetic tech over the past few years are amazing.

Oh, and bring on the female double amputee sprinters too

sephjnr:
As you are having trouble, I'll rephrase my argument for your benefit.

Do you believe his prosthetic legs give him enough of an advantage to warrant criticism of his standing in athletics? And do you believe that if he had two normal human legs he'd lose to quite a few others in his own class? You cannot assert either of those arguments as you don't have enough evidence.


I'm not really sure how to address the first question; I don't really know what you mean by "standing in athletics".

However, to your second - I do have enough evidence to answer it and the answer is yes, he would lose to more people in the open 400 if he had "normal" legs. The science of sport website has a good article on it, and the science was the basis for his not being able to compete in the last olympics. Basically, when you monitor his rate of oxygen usage, it is not on par with world class athletes. However, because the lack of lower legs means he doesn't need to process as much, he can keep up with them.


As I stated above, If he won most races as comfortably in his class as Bolt does in his, that would be a marked advantage, would it not? He didn't even make the final of his chosen category in the premier event of the planet. He could have done, and he could also have done if he had two normal legs, and he could also have failed in the same manner.


Winning or losing races is not that relevant; an advantage does NOT mean you win automatically, it means you perform better than you should. Without the blades, it is most likely he would not have even qualified for the Olympics.

The last part is gibberish.


If you are correct in asserting that it gives him a edge over the competition, it is clearly not a marked one that guarantees a certain level of victory, and on that basis it invalidates your primary argument that he should only be a paralympian.

My basis for saying he should only be a paralympian is that you need feet to run; it has nothing to do with the advantage arguement.

But your arguement is basically like saying "steriods are ok if you are trying to just make the majors; but bad if you get as good as Barry Bonds did".

/I really hate drawing the steriods/blades comparision - they are two completely different matters with two completely different mindsets. I really do respect what OP has accomplished and would have no issues with him competing in Diamond League events, but not the Olympics or WCs.

you have pee hands:
I think he would be very close to the WR in the 800 if he ran that though he'd have to do it as a time trial because it'd be dangerous to have someone with metal feet running in a pack.

I've heard through a couple levels of hearsay that he can push the 800m world record in workouts. Take it with a huge grain of salt.

But yeah, I don't know if "dangerous" is the word, but there is no way he stays upright for a full 800 at a real race.

bacongood: sephjnr:

However, to your second - I do have enough evidence to answer it and the answer is yes, he would lose to more people in the open 400 if he had "normal" legs. The science of sport website has a good article on it, and the science was the basis for his not being able to compete in the last olympics. Basically, when you monitor his rate of oxygen usage, it is not on par with world class athletes. However, because the lack of lower legs means he doesn't need to process as much, he can keep up with them.

So if an athlete has an abnormal physical condition, like Lance Armstrong's abnormally large heart (which can process more oxygen than the field), have unfair advantage? How about tall swimmers over short swimmers?

My basis for saying he should only be a paralympian is that you need feet to run; it has nothing to do with the advantage argument.

If that is the definition of running then you need to tell the paralympics to stop using that term and to call it what you are implying that they are doing, "hauling your gimpy ass as fast as you can, by whatever means necessary."

Dad on wheels: My son has basically the same amputations that Pistorius does.. So watching him and his story has been very interesting to me on a personal level and I think that he gives my son, who is four now, someone to really look up to. He's very active in gymnastics and loves to run and climb all over things. He's to young to have the cool prosthesis that the older people have, but I can't wait to see what he does in the future. He's pretty amazing already.

With the prosthetics they have these days, there's nothing your son won't able to do- and I think that's pretty goddamn awesome. With guys like Pistorius making the Olympics, and guys like Mark Inglis climbing Everest, it proves there are no limits.

As for the people who think Pistorius has an unfair advantage: you're stupid.

/classy move on James' part

I just hate the hypocrisy in the whole thing. So it's fine to be like "oh, he's so great and an inspiration!" as long as he's confined to the paralympics, and he's supposed to be satisfied with that? He's lived his entire life being told he could do everything other people could do, just in a different way, but then he excels at it and people have to find ways to take the credit from him, and give it to the prosthesis, I'm not going to argue whether he gets an advantage or not- there's really no way to make the comparison unless he had legs and then didn't, and scientists who understand this stuff better than me wrote more intelligent opinions on the matter. I know he's proud, his country should be proud of him, and the world should give him credit for his accomplishments.

This race was clearly unfair. All the other runners had calf muscles.

Your Average Witty Fark User: With the prosthetics they have these days, there's nothing your son won't able to do- and I think that's pretty goddamn awesome. With guys like Pistorius making the Olympics, and guys like Mark Inglis climbing Everest, it proves there are no limits.

As for the people who think Pistorius has an unfair advantage: you're stupid.


No, everyone who doesn't care that Pistorius undoubtedly had an unfair advantage: you're racist. You aren't thinking you're own argument all the way through. You're stopping at the feel good part, and ignoring the cost of feeling good came at the expense of others. You just don't care about those others, because they are South African, and you have a nice happy inspirational story ready for press. The problem with the legs is they took one of the best paralympians and let him use his advantage to beat out everyone else for the honor of representing South Africa. It would have been worse if he had won, because then we'd have been FORCED to debate the level of appropriate outrage, but it's still bad when he loses, because it encourages people to think it was no big deal, and because they don't CARE about the chances of the guy whose spot he took, they think that him losing ends the debate. It's absolutely WORSE if his advantage takes him from just missing the Olympic trials to just making them, because he directly stole the Olympic dream from someone else, with a mechanical device.

This guy set an awful precedent, and the more we refuse to admit that, the bigger the fight will be for the next person who is just a little bit more mechanically advantaged. I bet there's a guy in a wheel chair somewhere with UNBELIEVABLE upper body strength that's going to make a hell of a swimmer once you add those feet replacement flippers and calf replacement tension bars.

AmericanEagle: bacongood: sephjnr:

However, to your second - I do have enough evidence to answer it and the answer is yes, he would lose to more people in the open 400 if he had "normal" legs. The science of sport website has a good article on it, and the science was the basis for his not being able to compete in the last olympics. Basically, when you monitor his rate of oxygen usage, it is not on par with world class athletes. However, because the lack of lower legs means he doesn't need to process as much, he can keep up with them.

So if an athlete has an abnormal physical condition, like Lance Armstrong's abnormally large heart (which can process more oxygen than the field), have unfair advantage? How about tall swimmers over short swimmers?

Vast majority of elite athletes have a genetic advantage of some sort. That doesn't mean the rest of the field gets to add on things to make it even. We aren't striving to get everyone to finish at the same time, we are trying to find out who the best are.

Physical abnormality is fine.
Physical abnormality plus mechanical (or unnatural) addition is not fine.


My basis for saying he should only be a paralympian is that you need feet to run; it has nothing to do with the advantage argument.

If that is the definition of running then you need to tell the paralympics to stop using that term and to call it what you are implying that they are doing, "hauling your gimpy ass as fast as you can, by whatever means necessary."

That is the defintion of running that pretty much everyone uses - movement where at some point both feet are off the ground.

It is nothing against the paralympics, it is just not running. Though I will note that the paralympics have classes for single amputee and double amputee; if two blades equal two feet, how come one blade and one foot do not equal two blades?

Your Average Witty Fark User:
As for the people who think Pistorius has an unfair advantage: you're stupid.

/classy move on James' part

See IAmRight's comment above.

Glockenspiel Hero:
Oh, and bring on the female double amputee sprinters too

Amen.

Mr Guy: You aren't thinking you're own argument all the way through. You're stopping at the feel good part, and ignoring the cost of feeling good came at the expense of others. You just don't care about those others, because they are South African, and you have a nice happy inspirational story ready for press. The problem with the legs is they took one of the best paralympians and let him use his advantage to beat out everyone else for the honor of representing South Africa. It would have been worse if he had won, because then we'd have been FORCED to debate the level of appropriate outrage, but it's still bad when he loses, because it encourages people to think it was no big deal, and because they don't CARE about the chances of the guy whose spot he took, they think that him losing ends the debate. It's absolutely WORSE if his advantage takes him from just missing the Olympic trials to just making them, because he directly stole the Olympic dream from someone else, with a mechanical device.

This guy set an awful precedent, and the more we refuse to admit that, the bigger the fight will be for the next person who is just a little bit more mechanically advantaged. I bet there's a guy in a wheel chair somewhere with UNBELIEVABLE upper body strength that's going to make a hell of a swimmer once you add those feet replacement flippers and calf replacement tension bars.

What in the flying fudge does that have to do with race? That's a good argument you've got destroyed by White Guilt. A black African may get that shot in 15 years time, so when that happens would you make the same debate with the precise same wording?

Plus, when bionics will be invasive in all other walks of life (shake the eight-ball and choose your favourite Sci-Fi author for reference), will there be an onus on keeping the Olympics 'pure'? and by who - the notably-corrupt IOC? the world at large? If Pistorius is the start as you feel, SORT IT OUT NOW instead of THROWING SLURS at PEOPLE WHO CANNOT SEE BEYOND THE FEEL GOOD FACTOR

-see what I did there?

His heart doesn't have to pump blood up from his feet. Only from his knees. That is an advantage.
His heart only has to oygenate his thigh muscles, not his calves. That is an advantage.

They decided that his advantages were offset by disadvanatages. But that's a slippery slope.

Should a guy who is 4'3" be allowed to wear blades so he can compete in the high jump?

sephjnr: What in the flying fudge does that have to do with race? That's a good argument you've got destroyed by White Guilt. A black African may get that shot in 15 years time, so when that happens would you make the same debate with the precise same wording?

Saying that people fundamentally don't care about Africa because it's got the triple whammy of being "over there" "black" and "poor". I'm saying that people would have a very different perspective on this story if we were hearing the tale of how he just barely edged out someone on the US track team who might be from YOUR hometown. I absolutely DO think people would have an extremely different reaction if he was on Team France, Team USA, or Team UK, because then people actually would focus on the fact that he's a good, but not great athlete, getting gifted into the Olympics at the cost of some other runner, because they'd be insisting any first world nation would actually prove the things don't give an advantage.

Mr Guy: Saying that people fundamentally don't care about Africa because it's got the triple whammy of being "over there" "black" and "poor". I'm saying that people would have a very different perspective on this story if we were hearing the tale of how he just barely edged out someone on the US track team who might be from YOUR hometown. I absolutely DO think people would have an extremely different reaction if he was on Team France, Team USA, or Team UK, because then people actually would focus on the fact that he's a good, but not great athlete, getting gifted into the Olympics at the cost of some other runner, because they'd be insisting any first world nation would actually prove the things don't give an advantage.

I have the perspective that disregards colour, as have a few people in this thread. All of whom, according to you, are 'racist for it'. And you didn't attempt to answer my second question.