Michael Johnson bucks courts findings, says 'friend' Pistorius shouldn't compete in London

Michael Johnson bucks courts findings, says 'friend' Pistorius shouldn't compete in London [cnn.com]

Coming on the heels of curious statements about the descendants of slaves being athletically superior, Johnson is now saying it's "unfair" if Oscar Pistorius, aka Blade Runner, competes against able-bodied runners when it's not clear whether he has an advantage, according to the Telegraph in London.

The South African runner and his carbon fiber prosthetics are slated to compete in the individual 400 as well as the 4×400 relay in this summer's London Games.

--------------

Basically this guy is born with a deficiency where his legs were amputated about mid-calf. He uses spring-like "blades" to run.

My question isn't really about Johnson, but about how we move forward with definitions of what gives someone an unfair advantage and how this is known. Generally, how should different types of competition be defined? (e.g. regular vs para events) This question sometimes comes up where, say, a hermaphrodite wants to compete with women (and may be advantaged).

This guy in particular has won para events, so does he qualify for para only or all events? Why don't "normal" people qualify for such events? Let's say that someone decides to amputate their (perfectly working) legs and gets the same kind of prosthetic and does well - is that any different?

It's not PC, but I think Michael Johnson is right about this. The blades may well allow such runners to run faster than they would with "normal" legs.

And I don't know why the paper is so quick to describe this statement as condescending:

Quote : In what may have been Johnson's most condescending assertion, he paraphrased British runner Roger Black as saying, "What happens when we have a Michael Johnson, a 43-second 400-meter runner, who then has a horrific accident and then becomes a disabled athlete and then you put him on blades, these prosthetics, and he is now running 41 seconds?"

Johnson knows more about running fast 400s than anyone in history, so I wouldn't be so quick to judge his statements as anything other than "unacceptable in today's way of avoiding saying anything negative about anyone." Pistorius is an excellent athlete, of course. But I can't tell you if he's on a "fair" playing field.

Answering your larger question, for the most part I think these should be handled case by case. (That said, I think the court made the wrong decision here. But then they, too, should know...)

Should be allowed to compete.

Quote from jamegumb : It's not PC, but I think Michael Johnson is right about this. The blades may well allow such runners to run faster than they would with "normal" legs. And I don't know why the paper is so quick to describe this statement as condescending: Johnson knows more about running fast 400s than anyone in history, so I wouldn't be so quick to judge his statements as anything other than "unacceptable in today's way of avoiding saying anything negative about anyone." Pistorius is an excellent athlete, of course. But I can't tell you if he's on a "fair" playing field. Answering your larger question, for the most part I think these should be handled case by case. (That said, I think the court made the wrong decision here. But then they, too, should know...)

Well my point is, if we don't know if it gives an advantage or not, there should be a clear rule - if there are any mechanical implements, no competition, period. That's the only equitable and justifiable thing to do. If you give him an exception because he's handicapped, then how can he compete in "regular" and "para" events? Why can't a "normal" person compete in para events?

Quote from Dr. J : Well my point is, if we don't know if it gives an advantage or not, there should be a clear rule - if there are any mechanical implements, no competition, period. That's the only equitable and justifiable thing to do.

Yes, I think that's right. But what if someone had, say, a prosthetic hand? Would that be allowed? Maybe?

And obviously I don't think able-bodied athletes should be in the Paralympics.

Quote from jamegumb : Yes, I think that's right. But what if someone had, say, a prosthetic hand? Would that be allowed? Maybe? And obviously I don't think able-bodied athletes should be in the Paralympics.

how large a role does a hand play in running? weightlifting perhaps.

The problem with this ruling is that they didn't make the determination about the rule (ie is he using something the Olympics outlawed), they seem to be ruling on whether it gives him an advantage.

I don't think it would be at all surprising if this athlete or another significantly improved on this 400 time. So maybe he's on par with them now, but tomorrow he or the next athlete could use these blades for a real advantage.

Also, what happens if he wants to run a longer distance (where the slow start he gets is minimized)?

What happens if Michael Johnson wanted to just strap these to his feet (pretend it's possible folks) and run?

(For the record, I'm also not really a fan of those body suits swimmers wear either.)

Quote from Dr. J : how large a role does a hand play in running?

That's why I brought it up - suppose a prosthetic hand was slightly lighter and slightly more aerodynamic than a human hand. This might give an infinitesimal advantage to the prosthetic. But it's a sport decided by very small margins, and is the standard that *no advantage whatsover* be allowed to a competitor?

This guys should be allowed to compete, but compete in the para/special olympics (or whatever they're called these days).

I'm sorry but if you're using equipment/prosthetics that in many ways are superior to the thing they've replaced that's an unfair advantage.

Looking at it another way why couldn't this guy just wear 6-feet tall leg prosthetics and play center for the Olympic basketball team. He'd walk on the floor, and camp down my the basket and every time they got the ball just lob it up to him (where he's several feet taller than everyone else) he could just drop it in the basket.

What about a guy who lost his hand had it replaced with some laaaarge web hand thing. He'd be a badass in the water and would probably destroy all the swimming records.

No, if you allow equipment in that by it's nature is superior to the "normal" thing that others don't have access to than they shouldn't be allowed to compete.

Personally, I believe it's unfair.

And if the other runner's feel the same, I guess they can protest by not participating in the events that Pistorius is in.

No prosthetic limbs should be allowed in regular competition. In terms of making things fair for women? Easy, get rid of sex categorization and let them compete with the men. Sure they won't win at running, but I bet they do just fine in archery and curling.

Quote from LivninSC : This guys should be allowed to compete, but compete in the para/special olympics (or whatever they're called these days). I'm sorry but if you're using equipment/prosthetics that in many ways are superior to the thing they've replaced that's an unfair advantage. Looking at it another way why couldn't this guy just wear 6-feet tall leg prosthetics and play center for the Olympic basketball team. He'd walk on the floor, and camp down my the basket and every time they got the ball just lob it up to him (where he's several feet taller than everyone else) he could just drop it in the basket. What about a guy who lost his hand had it replaced with some laaaarge web hand thing. He'd be a badass in the water and would probably destroy all the swimming records. No, if you allow equipment in that by it's nature is superior to the "normal" thing that others don't have access to than they shouldn't be allowed to compete.

I think your examples make sense. This "blade" is not human-like at all. Doesn't even look like a leg. It's specifically built to enhance his running ability. It's like the LZR Racer swimsuit that got banned due to all the records being shattered in 2008. It did give them an unfair advantage.

I do think he's an exceptional athlete. He obviously trains like a world class athlete. I'm sure regardless of whether he's got legs or blades he'd beat 99.99% of people out there just based on his genetics and conditioning alone.

I just don't know what the fair answer is in this case.

And it makes me wonder...

Quote : Police: testosterone, needles in Pistorius bedroom PRETORIA, South Africa (AP) -- Police say they found two boxes of testosterone and needles in the bedroom of Oscar Pistorius, the Olympian who has been charged with murder in the shooting of his girlfriend. etc.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/poli...--spt.html

If they allow prosthetics for Pistorius, they'd have to allow them for everyone.

Maybe not, if the prosthetics were exactly like a human leg, but the blades are not.