Should this guy able to compete against normal people?
- Thread starter Syzygys
- Start date
And I agree with that.
Isn't it also unfair to an athlete who trained so hard and then lost his legs? "Sorry you have no legs you can't play with us anymore". It's the same thing.
I'm curious why you maintain this opinion in spite of the evidence against him actually having an advantage.
I tell you one thing. The athletic games are about equality and giving people equal chances while competing. A person with artificial legs like that, has an unfair advantage of having a spring mechanism involved during his movement.
I understand that a person who has lost his legs, is pushing themselves to the limit and using the thoughts of the loss to drive themselves further athletically, however they must accept that they cannot compete like the rest can at the same level, because that would not be fair to them or to the other athletes.
Well, for one, the Paralympics exist because for the most part, handicapped athletes are at a great disadvantage against able-bodied ones, or the technology allowing them to compete was not conducive to the original sport. But with the advent of these prostheses, the field has been leveled, and a handicapped athlete no longer suffers from unfair disadvantages. The question then becomes "Do they have an unfair advantage?" The answer seems to be no.
So if there is no advantage, then what makes their use of prostheses "unfair?"
Like I said, its unfair to other athletes. I am a runner and I can tell you that someone on a wheelchair participating in a running event will get much further, than someone who is just using their legs. Just use the downhill and etc. It is not FAIR. period. And who is going to control which prosthesis they use? Watch them exchange a prosthesis for a better springed one when the event to run comes. And what the **** am I supposed to feel, when I see someone like that without legs using a better mechanism spring prosthesis to run? I have trained for long time and here I got someone who has not put as much effort into this as I did, using prosthesis?
And if you don't trust me, than maybe you should trust IAAF independent committee:
http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-243-297--12492-0,00.html
http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-243-297--12492-0,00.html
It isn't whether or not it is "unfair" it is a matter of not allowing anyone with anything other than what a normal person would be naturally given the ability to compete against normal humans. I'm not trying to imply that he isn't normal in the extent of being a human being but he isn't the same without his normal legs no matter what you think.
This issue was discussed in here by Aimee Mullins http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/aimee_mullins_on_running.html.
Up until now, not having limbs were disadvantage, but terms are changing now. Imagine zooming eyes, bodies with artificial coolants and many more: That's what I call brave new world, and not only brave, but also "capable", or better equipped than organic ape possibilities. Olympics are the form of exhibition that reflects the level and the direction of human civilization.
As far as I know, this "normal people" business was already sorted philosophically and politically, well before this recent issue. Apparently it hasn't sunk in yet properly: we will need to upgrade our software too...
Up until now, not having limbs were disadvantage, but terms are changing now. Imagine zooming eyes, bodies with artificial coolants and many more: That's what I call brave new world, and not only brave, but also "capable", or better equipped than organic ape possibilities. Olympics are the form of exhibition that reflects the level and the direction of human civilization.
As far as I know, this "normal people" business was already sorted philosophically and politically, well before this recent issue. Apparently it hasn't sunk in yet properly: we will need to upgrade our software too...
As mentioned somewhere else, it is hard to do testing in this regard with 1 person.
I don't expect the statistical sample of 1, I am sorry. But up to a point, you are right. The rule is, no special device allowed, other runners can not run with small springs in their shoes and such. (they could argue that no advantage is gained)
But here is a new argument: Can he compete in the Paralympics? I assume you would say, of course. Now, I find it problematic that a person can compete in BOTH. If he is good enough for normal competition, than he should be banned from the Paralympics. Or, normal people should be able to compete in Paralympics, after all, they might just be an average normal person...
Let's use a different world, not average. PC happy now? So if there is a special games made for "not average" people, they should compete there. Now if a 1 legged swimmer is so good (without a mechanical leg) that he/she could compete against the normal swimmers, I don't have a problem with it, but again, he/she can not use an artifical device...
Why not, you will ask: Because it is impossible to decide if there is an unfair advantage by using that device...
It is like a Catch 22:
If the device user loses, well, we feel sorry for him and it is pathetic to let him compete without a real chance of winning.
If he wins, who is to say that he didn't win because of the help of the device???
It is really a philosophical problem, not a moral one...
That evidence was most likely politically motivated. Nowadays we don't want to hurt handicapped people's feelings and such. If you think about it, there can be no scientific evidence based on 1 runner.
You don't believe me??? Here is an analogy. Let's say an alien spaceship lands on Earth and a few aliens came out who resemble humans, up to 90%. They happen to have 2 legs, but a big furry tail too. One of them wants to compete in the Games. His pretested results are close to the best, so technically he could win. Can he compete? "Testing" him we found no advantage of the big furry tail.
Now unless you let the other aliens run too and see their results, judging by one alien, you simply can not figure out if there is advantage in having a furry tail or not...
The same with this guy. If we had a dozen more guys like him and they all make the top 20, (meaning out of the best 20 runners 12 have springs) you bet there is an advantage of having springs for legs...
Speaking of that, Paralympics is the most UNFAIR games ever invented. I understand the reason behind it, but implicating that different type of handicapped people can fairly compete against each other is just ridiculous. Imagine a guy in a wheel chair playing tennis against a blind fellow....
Here is youtube video of him competing and there was actually a very good comment there:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDMji7ByzSo
"There has been no study to prove "no advantage". There was, however a study to prove the previous study from German team (not his country) to be inconclusive. The truth of the matter is that he is competing on different terms and that there is no clear answer to the question of advantages."
Exactly...
In this video, he comes in very last, and you kind of feel sorry for him, which takes as back to the original problem: If he is bad, letting him compete is just sad, if he is good, who is to say it is not because of the springs?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=jP6vmqi7c7I
And at the Beijing Paralympics, he wins easily:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=fvwp&v=pJsXreqbWbs
Underlining my previous concern: How can you compare athletes with different type of disabilities? (1 leg, no leg,etc)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=jP6vmqi7c7I
And at the Beijing Paralympics, he wins easily:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=fvwp&v=pJsXreqbWbs
Underlining my previous concern: How can you compare athletes with different type of disabilities? (1 leg, no leg,etc)
I say no. But he has a great chance in the Paralympics....
I would tend to say 'no' at first blush, but I think it really comes don to the question"Why do we run races in the first place?"
If races are run "to find the fastest human," then any augmentation should be allowed up to an including the use of a jet propelled car. So clerly that cannot be why we run these races. If the goal is "to find the fastest natural human", then we need to further ask what we mean by "natural". He may not qualify in this context. If the goal is or "the fastest human running without mechanical aid (excluding naturally occurring biological mechanics incident to human motion)", then he clearly does not qualify.
If the real goal is "to make runners and spectators feel good about themselves by providing a competition where no one competitor has a clear and material advantage", then letting him run makes sense, even if comparing his speed to that of the non-augmented runners is comparing apples to oranges in many ways. Letting him run boosts his self esteem, so the fact that he is using a synthetic mechanical aid is beside the point.
Of course, give it a few years, as the materials and design of his appendages improves (as surely they will), until there is no chance for a non-augmented athlete to beat him (or others fitted with the new technology). at that time, I expect a re-evaluation to avoid the competition becoming dominated by the technology. At some point, the advantage gets to be too great. Imagine that a man born without arms, but with mechanical equivalents wanted to compete in the shot put. Sounds fine, but you can easily imagine mechanical arms that have a huge dvantage over those of flesh and blood...and at some point it feels like that goes against the spirit of the competition. The problem is it would do so only in gradual and arguable shades of gray, which makes the decision to exclude people down the road for having technology that is "too good" painfully arbitrary.
Right now, though, this guy is at the front end of that curve, where permitting his participation seems to hurt no one.
In the end, running footraces in a age where we can land robots on Mars is slightly ridiculous. The thrill of it derives mostly from competitive instincts that made a lot of sense in a pre-technological world, where gauging yourself and tribemates against rivals for physical domination made sense. Now it does not. Who is the greatest archer in the world? Who cares? Guns beat bows. Who is the fastest runner on the planet? Same difference, I have a car.
And what evidence do you have to support this claim, other than your apparent dislike of handicapped people?
Here's a link to the findings of the Court of Arbitration for Sport: http://web.archive.org/web/2008052...+award+(scanned+published+on+CAS+website).pdf
Read that. Please, if you're going to ramble on about this subject, at least educate yourself to its particulars.