http://digital.nationalpost.com/epaper/viewer.aspx
Article rank
STU FORSTER / GETTY IMAGES
South African runner Oscar Pistorius
Run, Oscar, run
COLBY COSH
National Post [log in to unmask]
As humans, we have two choices of response when we're confronted wi t h
something entirely new: wonder and unease. It may be that we are individually
predisposed to one or the other, and that much of the energy we invest in
political, social and artistic debates is simply a matter of trying to justify
what sort of person we are, deep down.
That's unfortunate for Oscar Pistorius, the South African sprinter who was born
without lower legs and has been competing against able-bodied runners with his
knees mounted on curved, springy carbon-fibre blades. On May 16, Pistorius was
cleared by the international Tribunal Arbitral du Sport (TAS) to compete in
officially sanctioned track events, including the 2008 Beijing Olympics, for
which he may still qualify. But he may never be able to convince those who are
against him instinctively that he belongs on the track with the bipedal.
Almost everybody who has commented on the arbiters' Pistorius decision has
gotten it wrong in some respect. It was hailed in some quarters as a great day
for the disabled. It was certainly a great day for one disabled athlete, insofar
as Pistorius was able to overcome a ruling by the International Association of
Athletics Federations (IAAF), the world licensing body for track and field, that
his Icelandicmade blades give him an unfair advantage over athletes running on
the legs they were born with. But the disabled have always been able to compete
in events like the Olympics as long as there was no question of them being on -
pardon the unavoidable pun - an equal footing. And the TAS was very careful to
open the door only for Pistorius. Their decision allows him, and only him, to
use only one model of the blades, and leaves open the possibility that future
research will allow for a finding that he does enjoy an unfair, disqualifiable
advantage.
On the other hand, we have cranky, contrarian commentators who went out of their
way not to celebrate the TAS decision. ESPN columnist Tim Keown carped that the
ruling was "symptomatic of a culture that is deathly afraid of excluding
someone, for fear of hurting their feelings or being branded a bully or an
elitist . Should he be allowed to compete? Of course not."
Les MacPherson of the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix spent about 300 words reminiscing
about an old episode of The Six Million Dollar Man before coming around to the
point that "for Pistorius to win an Olympic gold medal would be a disaster."
Both emphasized that it should be obvious that Pistorius enjoys an unfair
advantage, as the IAAF initially concluded, and mocked the appeal tribunal.
If the IAAF had treated any living sportswriter the way it did Pistorius, all
the ink in the world wouldn't be enough to channel the outrage. The association
disqualified him under a rule it introduced in March, 2007, almost certainly to
cover his specific situation. They hired a German biomechanics expert to
determine whether Pistorius enjoys an advantage in straight-line acceleration,
setting aside a part of the race - the start - in which his blades clearly
impose a contrary, mitigating disadvantage. They prepared an inaccurate summary
of the German report, sent it to IAAF council voters without clearing it with
their expert and unilaterally chose to count abstentions as votes against
Pistorius. Some IAAF officials told the press before the vote was held that
Pistorius would be banned, suggesting that thes whole process was rigged.
In considering Pistorius' appeal, the TAS did not conjure up some new principle
of feelgoodery: Its panellists applied the IAAF's own rule - banning the "use of
any technical device that incorporates springs, wheels or any other element that
provides the user with an advantage over another athlete not using such a
device" - using the same scientific evidence that was available to the IAAF. The
IAAF could have stopped Pistorius by passing a much simpler rule - "All
competitors shall have toes" would have sufficed. Having sought the appearance
of fairness by refusing to discriminate overtly, they needed to follow through
and actually be fair.
The best existing answer to the question of whether Pistorius really does enjoy
"an advantage over another athlete not using such a device" is "Who knows?" The
German report showed that he bounces up and down less than runners with legs.
This could mean his gait is more efficient mechanically, but some able-bodied
sprinters deliberately add bounce to their stride. There is less energy loss in
Pistorius's blades than in a human ankle, but no one yet knows how they stack up
against the elastic complex of bones, muscles, tendons and ligaments that make
up a whole knee and leg.
Allowing Pistorius to compete will help biomechanics reach firmer conclusions.
And if he should win the odd meet or medal along the way, would that really be
such a tragedy?
COLBY COSH
National Post [log in to unmask]
As humans, we have two choices of response when we're confronted wi t h
something entirely new: wonder and unease. It may be that we are individually
predisposed to one or the other, and that much of the energy we invest in
political, social and artistic debates is simply a matter of trying to justify
what sort of person we are, deep down.
That's unfortunate for Oscar Pistorius, the South African sprinter who was born
without lower legs and has been competing against able-bodied runners with his
knees mounted on curved, springy carbon-fibre blades. On May 16, Pistorius was
cleared by the international Tribunal Arbitral du Sport (TAS) to compete in
officially sanctioned track events, including the 2008 Beijing Olympics, for
which he may still qualify. But he may never be able to convince those who are
against him instinctively that he belongs on the track with the bipedal.
Almost everybody who has commented on the arbiters' Pistorius decision has
gotten it wrong in some respect. It was hailed in some quarters as a great day
for the disabled. It was certainly a great day for one disabled athlete, insofar
as Pistorius was able to overcome a ruling by the International Association of
Athletics Federations (IAAF), the world licensing body for track and field, that
his Icelandicmade blades give him an unfair advantage over athletes running on
the legs they were born with. But the disabled have always been able to compete
in events like the Olympics as long as there was no question of them being on -
pardon the unavoidable pun - an equal footing. And the TAS was very careful to
open the door only for Pistorius. Their decision allows him, and only him, to
use only one model of the blades, and leaves open the possibility that future
research will allow for a finding that he does enjoy an unfair, disqualifiable
advantage.
On the other hand, we have cranky, contrarian commentators who went out of their
way not to celebrate the TAS decision. ESPN columnist Tim Keown carped that the
ruling was "symptomatic of a culture that is deathly afraid of excluding
someone, for fear of hurting their feelings or being branded a bully or an
elitist . Should he be allowed to compete? Of course not."
Les MacPherson of the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix spent about 300 words reminiscing
about an old episode of The Six Million Dollar Man before coming around to the
point that "for Pistorius to win an Olympic gold medal would be a disaster."
Both emphasized that it should be obvious that Pistorius enjoys an unfair
advantage, as the IAAF initially concluded, and mocked the appeal tribunal.
If the IAAF had treated any living sportswriter the way it did Pistorius, all
the ink in the world wouldn't be enough to channel the outrage. The association
disqualified him under a rule it introduced in March, 2007, almost certainly to
cover his specific situation. They hired a German biomechanics expert to
determine whether Pistorius enjoys an advantage in straight-line acceleration,
setting aside a part of the race - the start - in which his blades clearly
impose a contrary, mitigating disadvantage. They prepared an inaccurate summary
of the German report, sent it to IAAF council voters without clearing it with
their expert and unilaterally chose to count abstentions as votes against
Pistorius. Some IAAF officials told the press before the vote was held that
Pistorius would be banned, suggesting that thes whole process was rigged.
In considering Pistorius' appeal, the TAS did not conjure up some new principle
of feelgoodery: Its panellists applied the IAAF's own rule - banning the "use of
any technical device that incorporates springs, wheels or any other element that
provides the user with an advantage over another athlete not using such a
device" - using the same scientific evidence that was available to the IAAF. The
IAAF could have stopped Pistorius by passing a much simpler rule - "All
competitors shall have toes" would have sufficed. Having sought the appearance
of fairness by refusing to discriminate overtly, they needed to follow through
and actually be fair.
The best existing answer to the question of whether Pistorius really does enjoy
"an advantage over another athlete not using such a device" is "Who knows?" The
German report showed that he bounces up and down less than runners with legs.
This could mean his gait is more efficient mechanically, but some able-bodied
sprinters deliberately add bounce to their stride. There is less energy loss in
Pistorius's blades than in a human ankle, but no one yet knows how they stack up
against the elastic complex of bones, muscles, tendons and ligaments that make
up a whole knee and leg.
Allowing Pistorius to compete will help biomechanics reach firmer conclusions.
And if he should win the odd meet or medal along the way, would that really be
such a tragedy?
-----------------------
To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:
http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy
|
