Don't call me big guy, please.

 

I am so sorry Mr. Hangman from the cold black bottom of my heart.

My roommate discussed how when he ran track, one of the biggest things that bothered his legs was the shin splints he would develop. He ran the 400m and the 300m hurdles. I also ran Varsity track my freshman year in the 400m and the 800m as well and can attest to how annoying and painful those can be. Something this South African runner would never have to endure. I will say it was a cool story and I'm glad he at least made the semi-final, but also glad the story ended there.

Answer my question first! Do you wear glasses? If so then is that an advantage? I mean if you have to wear glasses to be able to see to compete, then I am just saying, what the difference!

 

There's a difference in Pistorius' prostheses and glasses. Glasses are external aids, but they aren't directly changing your muscle physiology. Hearing aids could be thrown in there too. I understand what you're saying, and I don't knock the guy for a second for doing what he has - I would agree that he has very likely worked harder than most Olympic runners to get where he has, but this is like bringing a motorcycle to a horse race.

Might not really add to the debate, but I thought definitely added to the discussion:

 

Inspirational moments: Oscar Pistorius in the best picture you

Sorry, I'm still in the "slippery slope/no" camp.

 

Yes, it makes for a great, inspirational human interest story. But the slippery slope is worrisome. How long before the RSP spring with 101% elastic energy return is developed? Not trying to make light of a serious issue here, but how long before someone with a missing foot gets fitted with a flipper and wants to qualify in a swimming event?

Your contention is not in line with the link I provided. That link showed the advantages and explained why those were key. Quotes said he gained an advantage.

 

Care to tell us why you disagree with those contentions?

 

Your article doesn't explain both sides of these findings. They were published in a "point/counterpoint" feature in the Journal of Applied Physiology and the SI writer did a good job of interviewing and quoting the lead author of the "Point" section. He didn't do so well with the "Counterpoint" authors. There are serious arguments to be made about the contention that a combination of low ground reaction force and fast leg swing times account constitute actual advantage for Pistorius. In fact, Weyland's contention that Pistorius' low ground reaction force readings constitute an advantage is puzzling considering that the application of downward force into the ground is precisely what allows a runner to accelerate and maintain speed in the first place.

 

Just because it uses scientific terms and sounds great doesn't make it great science, and I'm left a little underwhelmed by the studies that led to these conclusions. I'd like to see more data involving numerous amputees' ground reaction forces and leg swing times, rather than just measuring Oscar Pistorius and comparing him to the averages of other sprinters. We don't have NEARLY enough data to make a good scientific conclusion here, and until we do, I'm going to err on the side of inclusiveness.

Your article doesn't explain both sides of these findings. They were published in a "point/counterpoint" feature in the Journal of Applied Physiology and the SI writer did a good job of interviewing and quoting the lead author of the "Point" section. He didn't do so well with the "Counterpoint" authors. There are serious arguments to be made about the contention that a combination of low ground reaction force and fast leg swing times account constitute actual advantage for Pistorius. In fact, Weyland's contention that Pistorius' low ground reaction force readings constitute an advantage is puzzling considering that the application of downward force into the ground is precisely what allows a runner to accelerate and maintain speed in the first place.

 

Just because it uses scientific terms and sounds great doesn't make it great science, and I'm left a little underwhelmed by the studies that led to these conclusions. I'd like to see more data involving numerous amputees' ground reaction forces and leg swing times, rather than just measuring Oscar Pistorius and comparing him to the averages of other sprinters. We don't have NEARLY enough data to make a good scientific conclusion here, and until we do, I'm going to err on the side of inclusiveness.

 

Good stuff. Exactly what I was asking for even though I'm not smart enough to debate which scientist was right or is on the right track.

 

Challenge is this IMO. Let's assume that today all scientists agree there is no advantage (they don't but let's assume). So today you let a gentleman like Oscar run. 4 or 8 years from now or 12 years from now the technology has changed dramatically and now there are serious questions about competitive advantage. Have you gotten yourself stuck in a hole you can't get out of?

Your contention is not in line with the link I provided. That link showed the advantages and explained why those were key. Quotes said he gained an advantage.

 

Care to tell us why you disagree with those contentions?

Are his competitors complaining? I ask because I don't have time to read the whole thing right now.

Are his competitors complaining? I ask because I don't have time to read the whole thing right now.

 

No idea. He came in last in the semi's yesterday so I'm guessing those guys are not. I'd also guess that privately the issue of "how far" has been discussed.

Are his competitors complaining? I ask because I don't have time to read the whole thing right now.

 

I haven't heard of anything about that. Just that Michael Johnson's opinion.

No idea. He came in last in the semi's yesterday so I'm guessing those guys are not. I'd also guess that privately the issue of "how far" has been discussed.

If it's ok with his competitors and the Olympic committee, I just don't see the problem. That's why I asked the question.

I understand your questions and why you're apprehensive. It just seems to me that until there is absolute proof that he's getting an unfair advantage, he should be allowed to compete.

Good stuff. Exactly what I was asking for even though I'm not smart enough to debate which scientist was right or is on the right track.

 

Challenge is this IMO. Let's assume that today all scientists agree there is no advantage (they don't but let's assume). So today you let a gentleman like Oscar run. 4 or 8 years from now or 12 years from now the technology has changed dramatically and now there are serious questions about competitive advantage. Have you gotten yourself stuck in a hole you can't get out of?

 

I think that's exactly where we are right now. If you'd have looked at even the best prostheses even 10 years ago, there's no way you find an advantage. They were clunky, painful and had extremely limited motion. These particular prostheses came out and have enabled this one particular runner to compete. So we do the experiments and figure out where we are.

 

As to the statement of whether the technology has changed, then we're asking about something completely different. My only concern is about these particular prosthetics. The same questions will have to be asked about any subsequent prosthetics.

Glad they decided to let the guy run. He has no calf musels, I believe the semi's showed how much of a advantage he had.

Your contention is not in line with the link I provided. That link showed the advantages and explained why those were key. Quotes said he gained an advantage.

 

Care to tell us why you disagree with those contentions?

What I presented is not "contention," it's scientific fact. I'll stand by this evidence. Any attempt at an argument at this point is just for the sake of trying to argue.

I'll stand by the clear evidence I've provided. Any attempt at an argument at this point is just denial.

 

That's crap, BF. How can you take two different versions and say one is denial just because it doesn't fit your narrative?

 

It's not ONE guy off on his own as the lone wolf. There are too many who have questions or differing views to use the "denial" answer.