Double amputee Oscar Pistorius cleared to run in individual 400m in London Olympics

I opened this thread expecting the OP to go on about how great it is that they’re giving him a chance, and how inspirational it is that a double amputee is participating in the Olympics. Really refreshing to see the direction this went instead. I too feel like this is a questionable decision.

While the general concept of a double amputee competing in the Olympics is amazing and awesome, you also have to look at what is fair to the other competitors.  It's been established that the blades give him an unnatural advantage not available to the other competitors.  And don't say, "Well life wasn't fair to Oscar!"  Because life being fair, and a competition being fair, are two separate issues.

As a para I side with those saying it's an unfair advantage and life difficulties has nothing to do with the argument for or against. Folks in wheelchairs crush runners. Should they be allowed to dominate marathons? It's a slippery slope.

I will say, for a sport that has a history of its competitors using technology (often of the illegal chemical variety) to artificially improve performance, I'm surprised people are so outraged that this violates the sanctity of the sport.

And while I understand the slippery slope argument to a degree (you hear about countries purposely altering the physiology of its athletes in sports where weight categories exist to increase the likelihood of success), I doubt you'll see athletes purposely removing feet or arms to replace with prostethics.  This kid lost his legs before he was 1; he didn't add the Cheetah blades to gain some advantage over his competition.  I'm sure if an athlete in his/her mid-20's replaced some bones with metal, the IOC would take a second look at his/her eligibility.

America. That is all.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_qlNEmpxQxI

For everyone pulling the empathetic compassion card as to why he belongs at the games, we are not hating him or being angry with him; we're just stating that fact that he clearly should not be allowed to compete because of the competitive technological advantage.  I feel for the guy and I'm sure he would rather have his legs than compete in London under these circumstances, but you can't just throw the integrity of the sport out the window because you feel compassion, empathy, pity, etc. for someone's situation.  I wish he had other guys in his situation that he could compete with--he probably does but he's just so much better than them... Remember, elite individual sport athletes have to deal with that lack of competition sometimes, too...

Ask yourself whether you supported the PGA or the ADA in Casey Martin's case against the PGA. Casey Martin had a circulatory disorder which made it detrimental or impossibnle for him to walk long distances. His scores qualified him to join the PGA pro tour, and when he joined, he sued the PGA for the right to use a cart during the third stage of the Q-school and during tournaments.

The PGA held that this granted Casey a competitive advantage, given that a lnother player on the course might walk as much as 20 miles between and along holes over a four day tournament weekend. Anyone who has played 18 holes on a hot day will attest that it's a workout just to walk it.

The supreme court determined that despite the fact that the PGA tour was a private club, the golf courses on which the events were played were public venues required to provide the full extent of handicapped accessibility. The supreme court further ruled that walking between and along holes was not part of the fundamental nature of golf, and since the cart did not assist with Casey's swing, it did not provide a competitive advantage.

As a nearly deaf person, I support the ADA in every way possible. I should have full access to the same venues, events and opportunities as everybody else. However, I don't believe that should I want to play a professional game of "name that tune", that the game operators should be required to provide a visual indicator of the notes. The fundamental nature of the game is such that if works out your ears. Golf works out your body. I don't believe that the PGA should've been forced to provide carts.

Instead, I believe that the PGA should be required to hold differently-abled events that have equal prizes and are given equal time on PGA-affiliated media. The reward and glory should be the same. Whether or not private enterprise wants to buy into that with sponsorships would be up to private enterprise.

To come back to the original point, an archer with one arm is not going to be allowed to use a crossbow to compete in archery. A shootist can wear corrective lenses, but not magnifying ones. A swimmer with one leg cannot wear a prosthetic equipped with a fin. These represent measurable advantages, and until we decide it's alright to ask athletes to disfigure their bodies to improve, they're not acceptable for standard contests.

And when we decide that's okay, will we start allowing steroids? Dangerous "uppers"? Will we allow a football player to carry around rolls of nickles so his hands are heavier when he bats at the ball?

Furthermore, the olympics are a world sport, so even if the ADA and supreme court felt that the stadiums in which they were being held were public, they'd have no right to enforce their own view of right on the competitors. Every nation competing would have to agree to identical stipulations for every case. Because that's not possible, it's not a good idea to let someone in such a position compete in preliminaries. It puts the world in an impossible spot should they win.

Instead, what needs to be done is to elevate the special oplympics to a level on par with that of the regular olympics. NBC has bid the rights for the olympics and in doing so also won the rights to the special olympics. They will be required to devode an equal amount of airtime to each. London bid for and won the 2012 Summer Games. They also have won the 2012 Special Summer Games. They will be required to provide the same venues at equivalent times of day, the same athlete lodging and the same opportunities for meeting dignitaries and other figures. The only difference would be that the Special Olympics have much broader regs for who may compete. "If you do not qualify for the olympics because of a disablility, you are welcome to compete at one of our regional events." The best from there go on to the finals.

That just seems to be in poor taste.  Double dipping like that.  

The ideal thing to do would be to set a standard for replacement running legs and after the race the legs are impounded.  If the replacements are found to exceed the abilities of the natural limp in anyway, you are DQed and banned.  However I'm not sure if we have that level of technology yet and if we don't tough luck to Oscar.  

If this is an unfair advantage due to technology, then any pitcher whos had Tommy Johns should be removed from baseball, as studies show it improves your speed. Also anyone whos had lasik should be banned as it can make your vision better than 20/20. Every sport has unfair advantages that are overlooked daily.

Wasn't this a four years ago argument?

I thought originally they decided the blades gave him an advantage but then through further testing decided that it didn't and he would be allowed to compete.

But I found this line to be pretty funny-

I would bet money that he is better with the prosthetics than he was before them

No bet, I think he is faster now than he was when he had no legs at all.