l'affaire Pistorius

[cacique]

i cannot believe i just read recently that pistorius is still pursuing a qualifying time for berlin. i cannot believe IAAF would allow him to compete if he attains a qual. time. as it is, he's competing against able-bodied athletes in mostly b-races, i think.

[bad hammy]

Re: l'affaire Pistorius

i cannot believe IAAF would allow him to compete if he attains a qual. time.

Why not?

. . . IAAF . . .

So, you do have a Shift key . . . :lol:

[gh]

story on front page 3 days ago that Pistorius has given up on Berlin.

http://www.reuters.com/article/sportsNe ... 9?rpc=401&

[cacique]

Re: l'affaire Pistorius

i cannot believe IAAF would allow him to compete if he attains a qual. time.

Why not?

. . . IAAF . . .

So, you do have a Shift key . . . :lol:

because he's a cyborg.

just kidding. i mean, he's a paralympian, not a regular olympian.

i do have a shift key, which i use sparingly...

ha... you dont' even use it for your own name!

thanks, gh.

[Daisy]

Re: l'affaire Pistorius

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 111709.php

Latest study estimates up to a 10 second advantage. Even if they are wrong by a factor of ten that is still a huge advantage.

[Conor Dary]

Very interesting study. Though not too surprising.

[Marlow]

Re: l'affaire Pistorius

Ethical point

http://ethicist.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/ ... eses-fair/

[Pego]

Re: l'affaire Pistorius

Ethical point

http://ethicist.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/ ... eses-fair/

What is his point and why? I am too dense to understand all those parables he uses.

[lonewolf]

Re: l'affaire Pistorius

Ethical point

http://ethicist.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/ ... eses-fair/

What is his point and why? I am too dense to understand all those parables he uses.

The parables are not germaine. He was just being cute. I understood the parables but I could not figure out his point either. Prosthetics are possibly unfair.. or maybe not... he is either for or against their use in able bodied competition..
I dunno :?

[Marlow]

Re: l'affaire Pistorius

Ethical point
http://ethicist.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/ ... eses-fair/

What is his point and why? I am too dense to understand all those parables he uses.

his bottom line was brilliant in its ethics (which WAS his point) and risibly lacking in its logic.

His point was that science has NOT proven (to his satisfaction) that OP's blade (hold that thought) is inherently 'better' than the leg, so OP should be able to run.

His underlying argument is that even if it were shown that it DID provide an advantage, he should STILL be able to run because he, being a human, should enjoy all rights we accord humans (life, liberty and the pursuit of a Gold Medal - he even mentions T Jefferson!).

That is, of course, false. (cf. Semenya's case) If OP has a bio-mechanical (cyborgian, as it were) advantage, he should NOT be allowed to compete with 'mere' mortals. He should race the other Blade Runners (apples-apples argument).

The other part of this is: even if OP's blade is only 95% 'efficient', technology will advance swiftly to the point where there IS a 110%+ return on one's energy investment, so why not just make the distinction now, before precedents muddy the water further?

[Daisy]

Re: l'affaire Pistorius

Can anyone use blades? If blades are legal then couldn't companies incorporate them into running shoes? Or HJ shoes?

[kuha]

Re: l'affaire Pistorius

It's a pretty poor piece of writing. I "think" he's saying, essentially, that it's all no big deal and anyone who thinks otherwise just needs to get over it. But I disagree with that view, and--in any case--he hasn't made that argument in any genuinely compelling way.

The piece is merely a rhetorical ramble, ending up pretty much nowhere.

[lonewolf]

Re: l'affaire Pistorius

I suspect most disabled athletes would gladly forfeit athletic prowess for a full set of functional limbs but they are not entitled to empathetic advantageous reward. Marlow is right, nip it in the bud.

[rainy.here]

Re: l'affaire Pistorius

... technology will advance swiftly to the point where there IS a 110%+ return on one's energy investment

Physically impossible.

[Marlow]

Re: l'affaire Pistorius

... technology will advance swiftly to the point where there IS a 110%+ return on one's energy investment

Physically impossible.

Perhaps you are thrown off by my (non-scientific) semantics, but I'm talking about tumblers on a sprung floor being able to jump much higher than on solid ground. The energy they put into the sprung floor pays them off in a greater return than the flat floor does.