Earlier this month, Oscar Pistorius, known as "Blade Runner" and "the fastest man on no legs," was selected to run in both the individual 400 meters and the 4x400 relay at the London Olympics, opening the door for him to become the first amputee track athlete to compete at any games.
His participation has stirred tremendous debate, with many claiming that his J-shaped, carbon-fiber prosthetic lower legs give him an unfair advantage over able-bodied runners.
This is a healthy debate, but I'm not going to jump into the fray by taking one side or another about the South African athlete's alleged advantage.
Instead, I hope to add to the debate by arguing that I hope he does have an advantage.
If he doesn't, then we in the world of orthopedic rehabilitation aren't doing our job. If he doesn't, how can we offer hope of high-level function to the millions of other amputees throughout the world?
If Pistorius is barred from competition, we all lose. Society as a whole benefits from a broad range of technologies that were initially developed for special populations. Text readers, touch screens and voice and gesture recognition were all created to help improve function and enable people with disabilities to participate in daily life. We now take for granted these advances that improve the ability of everyone to communicate through devices like computers, tablets, and smart phones.
Part of the reason the debate about Pistorius is so heated is that it's intricately tied to the "purity" of Olympic competition. But when we bar an athlete like Oscar Pistorius from the Olympics or limit the technologies in his legs, we lose an opportunity to showcase his tremendous abilities to the world.
I also think it's time to reconsider the ideal about the purity of Olympic competition and ask some probing questions about what constitutes advantage.
Sport is really all about advantage -- all elite athletes use genetic, environmental, nutritional, and technical factors to their advantage. Certain body types are better suited for some sports than for others. Training at altitude and taking nutritional supplements that promote recovery can provide advantages on race day. Designers of sports gear, shoes, and clothing continuously strive to improve their products in ways that will enhance athletes' performance.
As soon as we ask what's permitted -- and what's not -- in the world of prosthetics, however, we begin to stand in the way of people reaching their full potential. This type of controlling environment conflicts with the goals for rehabilitation devices, which is to confer the highest possible level of functioning for each individual. Many amputees have artificial limbs that don't fit perfectly or function optimally, even though function customizable prostheses are feasible and should be made widely accessible.
Does Pistorius have an unfair advantage due to his high-tech prosthetic limbs? The debate will go on because we don't yet have the technology to prove or disprove this allegation. As director of the BADER Consortium, which focuses on evidence-based orthopedic rehabilitation care to optimize function ability in soldiers with musculoskeletal injuries, I welcome that kind of debate because it draws attention to important issues associated with inclusion and optimizing performance for all amputees and people with limb difference -- not just elite athletes and wounded warriors but also ordinary people for whom increased activity will translate into better health, enhanced quality of life, and cost savings.
At this point, I think it's unlikely that Pistorius's prosthetic limbs are providing him with an "unfair" advantage. He's probably not going to set any Olympic records, but his participation will recharge the rehabilitation community. Pistorius can show all of us the importance of focusing on abilities rather than disabilities. Too often, when someone loses a limb, their first thoughts are about what they can't do anymore. Pistorius is proof that even with limb loss, you can dream and say "I can."
Let's refrain from putting arbitrary limits on that dream.
Diana Nyad: Olympics More Than Sports
'No Advantage to Being an Amputee': A Defense of Oscar Pistorius's Prostheses
Oscar Pistorius: I'll cherish Olympic race 'rest of my life"
Michael Phelps, Oscar Pistorius and Serena Williams highlight Day 8 at the ...
Athletes without disabilities cannot participate in both.
but tomorrow, it will surely be an advantage.
in 12 years, pole vaulting will just be called vaulting since poles won't be needed and all the "athletes" will have spring-shock calf implants.
It's not just a claim, it's truth. Even if you dispute that:
1) these "blades" are springs, and a spring can be VERY MUCH MORE efficient than the human leg - without regard to whether or not _a_specific_set_ is.
However, you cannot dispute that:
2) These blades do not fatigue or suffer injury the way human legs do, and;
3) These blades are replaceable between heats, while human legs are not.
Further, you cannot say that this man's exclusion from the Olympic Games would have failed him somehow or kept back from his potential; there are venues for him to compete in where he can (and does) excel.
If we permit artificial enhancement, we've failed the very purpose of the games; to see how far humans (not machines) can go. Cyborgs can have their own venues.
1) Prosthetics provide no fine motor control.
2) The damage and wear on the attachment site is something people with flesh legs don't have to deal with. This is usually a source of pain for people that put natural stress on their prosthetics. I can only imagine what kind of stress and pain it cases for somebody that puts Olympic levels of support.
3) Prosthetics are expensive and custom fit. This could certainly hinder training as you would not want to change the shape of the attachment point.
As for artificial enhancement, that ship sailed long before this year's Olympics. Glasses, hearing aides, supplements, and many other things have already been used.
As for the "very purpose of the games", where do you get that from. The ancient games were basically a religious celebration and the modern games are to promote culture, education, and global understanding through sport. Never once have I seen the IOC say that they were to test the limits of human capability.
As a final thought, if they are so advantageous, why doesn't he win more races?
2) True, but first he has a large surface area for this and secondly, nothing's stopping the implantation of an attach point like the ole infamous Captain Hook, but on a leg. It's been done, and with modern technology, it could be done well, and thereby largely sidestep your argument 3.
3) As pointed out in 2 above, it could become an easily fitted device - it's only expensive because someone is out to make a buck. And besides, the latest "Speedo"s aren't cheap, either.
4) There's a huge difference between various "enhancements" - it's not a one-solution-fits-all-sports situation.
5) I was taught something different about the Olympics, but if you are correct, that's VERY, _profoundly_ sad.
6) He may not win more because maybe his advantage makes a mediocre racer competitive - remember, all Olympians are statistical outliers and the amputee community is dramatically smaller; your point proves _nothing._
but let's get real . . . we all know how technology progresses, with 2 or 3 generations of advancement these "blades" will be faster that any unmodified human.
Maybe they will make the blades as shoes.
Then this:
"The Achilles tendon is short or absent in great apes, but long in arboreal gibbons and humans. It provides elastic energy storage in hopping, walking, and running. Computer models suggest this energy storage Achilles tendon increases top running speed by >80% reduces running costs by more than three-quarters."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achilles_tendon
So do the other athletes have an advantage over Oscar because they possess the Achilles tendon?
But it is completely appropriate for the athletic community to debate whether he has an advantage because of his prosthetics. To answer those who say he Deserves an advantage, I say, let's carry it to an extreme: If he had rocket-powered legs that allowed him to win every running and jumping event in the Olympics, setting world records in every event, would that be OK? Of course not, and neither should his current prosthetics give him an advantage. They appear simply to put him on a level playing field, but they should continue to investigate to make sure that that is the case. That's not any prejudice against him, or against amputees. That's just being fair to everyone.