Sprinter with prosthetic legs

[jackie hayes]

NYTimes link.

 

A sprinter with two prosthetic legs wants the chance to compete in the Olympic games. Current regulations would disqualify him. Fair or not?

[Palehosefan]

If his times improve enough to qualify then I wouldn't have a problem. If you start seeing robotic legs then there might start to be an issue, but it's still this guys athletic ability that is pushing his lower legs to sub 11 second 100 M's, that's damn impressive regardless.

[ChWRoCk2]

If he qualifies then allow him if not then dont.

[Texsox]

I'll give you six million reasons why it is a bad idea.

 

[SleepyWhiteSox]

Hate to say it, but under what it says the current rules are, it sounds like maybe he should not be allowed to until the proper rules changes and guidelines are put in place first to prevent more problems further down the line and assure a level playing field. But it's probably a moot point if he can't have the type of numbers to qualify anyways.

[jackie hayes]

Bump (from the waaaaaaayback machine).

 

Pistorius WILL be allowed to compete for a spot:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/17/sports/o...s/17runner.html

 

It's an interesting precedent -- there must be strong evidence that a prosthetic gives someone an advantage, or he must be allowed to compete. It shifts the burden of proof from the athlete to the sport's governing committee. Still an interesting story, too, to me.

[JuiceCruz16]

NO chance NO way should he be able to go to the Olympics. I saw the story on ESPN 360 or whatever. Great story, but come on it's not a reason to allow that for the competitors.

Edited May 16, 2008 by JuiceCruz16

[ptatc]

Bump (from the waaaaaaayback machine).

 

Pistorius WILL be allowed to compete for a spot:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/17/sports/o...s/17runner.html

 

It's an interesting precedent -- there must be strong evidence that a prosthetic gives someone an advantage, or he must be allowed to compete. It shifts the burden of proof from the athlete to the sport's governing committee. Still an interesting story, too, to me.

 

There is very strong evidence that it gives him a large competitive advantage.

 

1. It makes the limbs much lighter thus he uses much less energy then other athletes , so he can run faster longer.

2. The prosthetic legs have a greater return of energy so he can move quicker (picture you runnig in sand and him running on cement)

3. There is no energy spent on lateral and vertical movement at the foot and ankle. Since his is solid all of the energy can be spent on forward motion. watch him run. Runners will have some up and down motion. He stays level saving alot of energy.

 

Whether or not he should be allowed to run is a good discussion but he does have a significant advatage over other runners.

 

 

[jackie hayes]

There is very strong evidence that it gives him a large competitive advantage.

 

1. It makes the limbs much lighter thus he uses much less energy then other athletes , so he can run faster longer.

2. The prosthetic legs have a greater return of energy so he can move quicker (picture you runnig in sand and him running on cement)

3. There is no energy spent on lateral and vertical movement at the foot and ankle. Since his is solid all of the energy can be spent on forward motion. watch him run. Runners will have some up and down motion. He stays level saving alot of energy.

 

Whether or not he should be allowed to run is a good discussion but he does have a significant advatage over other runners.

Well, I don't think he's denying that there are some advantages. He seems to be saying there is no net advantage. Which seems plausible to me (I don't know, I'm just saying it may be true). Wouldn't there also be some competing disadvantages (like the propulsion provided by your calf muscles)?

[Balta1701]

Well, I don't think he's denying that there are some advantages. He seems to be saying there is no net advantage. Which seems plausible to me (I don't know, I'm just saying it may be true). Wouldn't there also be some competing disadvantages (like the propulsion provided by your calf muscles)?

So the question then becomes, at what point in the development of these prosthetics do you draw the line and say "No more"? Presumably these will just get better and stronger with time, and eventually it's entirely plausible that you could have your olympics competed in solely by people with prosthetic legs because they've reached a point where no human legs can keep up.

[RockRaines]

There is very strong evidence that it gives him a large competitive advantage.

 

1. It makes the limbs much lighter thus he uses much less energy then other athletes , so he can run faster longer.

2. The prosthetic legs have a greater return of energy so he can move quicker (picture you runnig in sand and him running on cement)

3. There is no energy spent on lateral and vertical movement at the foot and ankle. Since his is solid all of the energy can be spent on forward motion. watch him run. Runners will have some up and down motion. He stays level saving alot of energy.

 

Whether or not he should be allowed to run is a good discussion but he does have a significant advatage over other runners.

Yes, but he also DOESNT HAVE LEGS. Its not the same feeling whether they are hyper futuristic or not. The guy is running on fake legs.

[jackie hayes]

So the question then becomes, at what point in the development of these prosthetics do you draw the line and say "No more"? Presumably these will just get better and stronger with time, and eventually it's entirely plausible that you could have your olympics competed in solely by people with prosthetic legs because they've reached a point where no human legs can keep up.

Well, no, not really. If the testing is done to ensure that the prosthetics have no net advantage, and done accurately, then runners with prosthetics would have...no net advantage. The percentage of runners with prosthetics would be just the percentage of good athletes who have prosthetics, which would be a very small number.

 

For the record, I actually voted no, but I'm willing to do the Devil's advocate thing because I think there are good args on both sides.

[Balta1701]

Well, no, not really. If the testing is done to ensure that the prosthetics have no net advantage, and done accurately, then runners with prosthetics would have...no net advantage. The percentage of runners with prosthetics would be just the percentage of good athletes who have prosthetics, which would be a very small number.

 

For the record, I actually voted no, but I'm willing to do the Devil's advocate thing because I think there are good args on both sides.

So then you're essentially saying that the line should be drawn where a prosthetic is designed such that it equals the performance of the best human being, but not better?

 

I think no matter what it winds up being such a grey area that it's almost impossible to draw that line. How do you tell if a prosthetic enables performance of one person versus another?

[jackie hayes]

So then you're essentially saying that the line should be drawn where a prosthetic is designed such that it equals the performance of the best human being, but not better?

 

I think no matter what it winds up being such a grey area that it's almost impossible to draw that line. How do you tell if a prosthetic enables performance of one person versus another?

I think the argument is that a prosthetic should be allowed if it restores the ability that the sprinter would have had, given normal development. Not that it should be allowed up to the point where he is equal to the best in the field.

 

As for it being a gray area, that would be my argument against it. The body seems too intricate too allow anyone to calculate the net effect with any acceptable degree of confidence.

 

What we really need is some sprinters to volunteer for a good, rigorous controlled experiment...

[knightni]

Let him race in the Paralympics.

[ptatc]

Well, I don't think he's denying that there are some advantages. He seems to be saying there is no net advantage. Which seems plausible to me (I don't know, I'm just saying it may be true). Wouldn't there also be some competing disadvantages (like the propulsion provided by your calf muscles)?

 

In sprinters there is minimal propulsion from the calf muscles. They act as shock absorbers and energy return mechanisms because of the velocity of the motion.

 

There are tremendous advantages, it doesn't matter that his legs aren't real. They've been proven to give significant advantages. There are no significant disadvantages.

 

This particular case is somewhat moot due to the fact that he isn't very good and probably won't even make the semi-finals. However, it sets a dangerous precedent for future runners with higher level abilities.

[ptatc]

I think the argument is that a prosthetic should be allowed if it restores the ability that the sprinter would have had, given normal development. Not that it should be allowed up to the point where he is equal to the best in the field.

 

As for it being a gray area, that would be my argument against it. The body seems too intricate too allow anyone to calculate the net effect with any acceptable degree of confidence.

 

What we really need is some sprinters to volunteer for a good, rigorous controlled experiment...

 

There has been a great deal of research on runners motions, torques, velocity of each individual body segment, mostly on the lumbar spine and lower extremities. Through our motion analysis systems coupled to EMG units, we know when muscle activate and to what degree in the average runner and olympic caliber runners. Through Respiratory research (you may have seen these on the news where they run with the masks on) we know the amount of oxygen that is used and it's efficiency in the body and for individual muscles.

 

The research is fairly reliable and valid. From the studies I've read and from experience with patients this is a subject that will not go away and needs to be addressed now because it will come around again.

[jackie hayes]

There has been a great deal of research on runners motions, torques, velocity of each individual body segment, mostly on the lumbar spine and lower extremities. Through our motion analysis systems coupled to EMG units, we know when muscle activate and to what degree in the average runner and olympic caliber runners. Through Respiratory research (you may have seen these on the news where they run with the masks on) we know the amount of oxygen that is used and it's efficiency in the body and for individual muscles.

 

The research is fairly reliable and valid. From the studies I've read and from experience with patients this is a subject that will not go away and needs to be addressed now because it will come around again.

Eh...I'm sceptical. Not that the research is good, just that it is as finely tuned as it would need to be to make the comparison. Measuring the individual parts is one thing, gauging from those the 'overall effect' is orders of magnitude more difficult. That is true of highly abstract, simplified, mathematical models -- it has to be much more difficult when dealing with the body.

 

I know I'm not an expert, but I'm still doubtful from analogues. If we could measure overall effects so perfectly, it would seem possible to design the One Perfect Pitching Motion, proven mathematically to be better than all others. Which is something I at least never saw. (Mark Prior excepted, of course.)

 

And by "controlled experiments", I meant something a little more grisly than that research.

[ptatc]

Eh...I'm sceptical. Not that the research is good, just that it is as finely tuned as it would need to be to make the comparison. Measuring the individual parts is one thing, gauging from those the 'overall effect' is orders of magnitude more difficult. That is true of highly abstract, simplified, mathematical models -- it has to be much more difficult when dealing with the body.

 

I know I'm not an expert, but I'm still doubtful from analogues. If we could measure overall effects so perfectly, it would seem possible to design the One Perfect Pitching Motion, proven mathematically to be better than all others. Which is something I at least never saw. (Mark Prior excepted, of course.)

 

And by "controlled experiments", I meant something a little more grisly than that research.

 

Actually there was a proposed pitching mechanics model that would be the abolute best to avoid injuries. There were a couple of problems with it however.

 

1. No ones lever arms (bones) are exctly the same length

2. It is difficult to repeat the perfect delevery all the time even if you can meet it in the first place.

 

Remeber there are practical approaches coming from pitcher coasches in the field and there are biomechanical research models. The troubles is finding where they meet.

 

For this case it is pruely biomechanics as we can run tests on the prothsis as nauseium. We know evy little thing about them and the materials. This is how we know how much of an advantage it is.

 

[jackie hayes]

Actually there was a proposed pitching mechanics model that would be the abolute best to avoid injuries. There were a couple of problems with it however.

 

1. No ones lever arms (bones) are exctly the same length

2. It is difficult to repeat the perfect delevery all the time even if you can meet it in the first place.

 

Remeber there are practical approaches coming from pitcher coasches in the field and there are biomechanical research models. The troubles is finding where they meet.

 

For this case it is pruely biomechanics as we can run tests on the prothsis as nauseium. We know evy little thing about them and the materials. This is how we know how much of an advantage it is.

As I said, I know I'm not an expert. But it seems like there has been some expert debate over this. The guy who led the study used by Pistorius -- although I know the criticisms of him -- is obviously very qualified. In my mind, for now, it's an open question.