I’ve written before that if Oscar Pistorius, the double-amputee runner from South Africa, gets a mechanical advantage from his prosthetic Cheetah legs, he shouldn’t be allowed to run in international competitions against able-bodied athletes. But now that the Court of Arbitration for Sport has ruled that there is no conclusive evidence that that is so, all I can say is, “Good luck, Oscar.”
Just the same, the concept of introducing artificial anything into sports leaves me feeling uneasy, and issue of whether the prosthetic limbs give Pistorius an advantage remains unresolved. The IAAF, the governing body of track and field, had cited a study that showed that the prostheses allowed to use 25 percent less energy than other runner. Pistorius countered with a study led by an MIT professor with the assistance of an impressive list of scientists hat said he has no metabolic advantage.
The court said that since the IAAF didn’t prove that there is an advantage, Pistorius can run.
With one study saying they help and another saying they don’t, I’d have been more comfortable if there were more tests and research.
Pistorius said he was ecstatic, and understandably so. He dreams of running in the Olympics, a goal he could reach by shaving a bit more than a second off his 400-meter time or by being named to the South African 4X400-meter relay team. He trains as hard as any other elite athlete. The guy’s got heart.
But this isn’t about what kind of guy Pistorius is. It’s a very real question about the place for prosthetics in sports, and it’s not going to go away. Once you start allowing mechanical aids for one person, no matter how deserving that person is, you’ve opened the door to allowing them for everyone.
And don’t say the Cheetahs don’t give Pistorius an advantage. Without them, he can’t run. With them, he’s on the verge of world class. And as good as the technology is now, new generations of prosthetics will be even better. Who’s going to decide when they get better than human legs? And how do you even decide that? Then what do you do, say that these artificial limbs are okay, but those aren’t?
As luck would have it, as Pistorius was fighting in the sports court, another South African, Natalie Du Toit, who lost her left leg in an accident at the age of 17, qualified for the Olympic 10K swim. She swam without a prosthesis, but Pistorius’ case would suggest she should go out and get one, then claim it doesn’t give her an advantage.
Marla Runyan was legally blind when she competed as a runner in Sydney, and Neroli Fairhall of New Zealand, a paraplegic, competed in the archery competition in 1984.
None of these other disabled athletes asked for help or special rulings. The qualified and competed.
Pistorius has said his victory is one for all disabled persons. I suppose it will be seen that way, but I suspect most disabled persons would prefer to see more opportunities in the workplace and more ease of access to public facilities. Pistorius is a feel-good story, but not one that will make any difference in anyone’s life but his own.
