Political Equinox

The Issue: The New York Times had an interesting article about an amputee from South Africa whose attempting to qualify for the Olympics. Oscar Pistorius is a double amputee who had his lower leg removed as an infant. He has been training on what are known as Cheetahs, essentially carbon based blades shaped in a J that can function as well as normal legs in terms of the sprint. The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), which is the governing organization over competitive track and field recently ruled that Mr. Pistorius would have an “unfair advantage” as they claim his Cheetahs were more energy efficient than actual human legs. They did not have any conclusive “scientific literature” that says his legs would give him an advantage.

Nevertheless the Times notes that the IAAF will most likely not allow Mr. Pistorius to compete against able bodied runners in sanctioned events. This would preclude his competition in the 2008 Bejing Olympics, but not the 2008 Bejing Paralympics.

My Stance: Without conclusive scientific evidence, I think they should allow Mr. Pistorius to compete on a probationary period and do more study on the science behind the Cheetahs to determine conclusively whether or not they actually provide an advantage. The only potential advantage reported currently is the discrepancy in energy output. Nonetheless the IAAF noted themselves that the difference is less than 10 percent. Although I am probably the farthest thing from a competitive runner, even I understand anecdotally every bit of an edge for highest echelon of athletes could mean the difference between the gold and not even placing. Nonetheless, energy output might not even translate into an advantage for him. The Times notes that Mr. Pistorius’ current average time in the 400 meter would not qualify him for the Olympics. Without conclusive scientific evidence and analysis of races against his potential Olympic competitors I don’t see how you can fairly determine if Mr. Pistorius’ legs constitute an unfair advantage.

Either way, I am proud prosthetic science has advanced far enough that we actually have to have this conversation.

What’s your stance?