Advocacy & Safety - Should challenged athletes be banned from Olylmpics?

If she qualified, challenged triathletes such as O.C. cyclist Jill Hodges would not be allowed to participate in the Olympic Games following a recent decision by the IAAF, which makes the rules. The ruling is now under appeal. The prosthetic in question is made in Orange County, but is used world-wide. To read more, comment, vote, and see an info graphic, please go to: http://www.ocregister.com/news/reinersten-iaaf-jake-1989169-pistorius-leg

Cyborgs should not compete against regular humans. Soon everyone will chop off good limbs to get that extra edge.

Would you let a schizophrenic compete, if his medication gave him a significant performance boost? No? What do you have against people with mental illnesses?

I heard a speaker once who claimed that he should be the record holder on bench presses for his weight class... He was a double amputee and had the upper body of someone a good 50 pounds heavier because he didn't have his legs adding weight. He was competing against people in one of the light weight classes, and complained that it was silly to disqualify him for not wearing shoes. While on the surface it is a valid point, it would sure be seen that he had an unfair advantage in a sport that measures upper body strength, with defined weight classes.

I would guess that it is pretty easy with modern prosthetics to make the weight lower than with a natural limb. And if the technology has advanced to the point that they function as well (or better) than natural limbs, then it is an unfair advantage. If the prosthesis works as well as a natural leg, and weighs 20 pounds less, then it is a distinct advantage.

Is it sad that athletes with prosthetics won't be able to compete in the Olympics? Sure.

Is it sad that somewhere there is a person with exceptional abilities and limbs that will never make it to the Olympics because of lack of coaching? Yes.

Would it be sad that an athlete would be unable to compete in the Olympics because a drug they need to survive is on the banned list? Absolutely.

I could go on listing potentially sad situations, and none of them mean that the Olympics need to be accessible to everyone. If prosthetics are allowed, then mechanical aids for those with weakened limbs should be allowed... Then weakened could be defined similar to untrained... It opens a can of worms.

It is not the challenged athlete that is being banned, it is the equipment. If a challenged athlete wants to participate without the mechanical assistance, then I am sure they will not be banned.

The problem with this is these are games. Games, by their nature, have artificial rules. In a game, you are supposed to play by the rules. People with prosthetics are deemed as not playing by the rules. We can argue on whether it is fair or not. But those are the rules.

...It is not the challenged athlete that is being banned, it is the equipment. If a challenged athlete wants to participate without the mechanical assistance, then I am sure they will not be banned.

Sort of funny where this gets so much press while there have been world class Gymnasts who are excluded for much more subtle reasons, no questions of advantages due to equipment or devices.

It is not the challenged athlete that is being banned, it is the equipment. If a challenged athlete wants to participate without the mechanical assistance, then I am sure they will not be banned.

Would have to agree with this, they should be able to compete, but not with the prostetics.

The problem with this is these are games. Games, by their nature, have artificial rules. In a game, you are supposed to play by the rules. People with prosthetics are deemed as not playing by the rules. We can argue on whether it is fair or not. But those are the rules.

+1

Good points. I'll say when you bike with a challenged athlete all your suffering is put into perspective.

Good points. I'll say when you bike with a challenged athlete all your suffering is put into perspective.

There are many people that I admire for many reasons. Some who have overcome odds I couldn't even imagine facing.

And I am glad that those with physical challenges have prosthetics, and other methods to allow them to take on athletic endevors, and the hurdles of every day life.

And I also know that some challenged athletes would be in the Olympics if things were different, and it is heart breaking. But sometimes life is tragic... I think what we can all do is to think when we watch the Olympics that the athletes are not only worthy of being there because of all of their efforts, but fortunate that they have the ability to be there as well.

Of course, it is easy to say this when I am not looking in the face of an aspiring challenged athlete.

I remember seeing a tv show about amputee's racing. One amputee was complaining about how it wasn't fair for one leg amputees racing two leg amputees. His reasoning was that double leg amputees had the advantage because their prosthetic running legs were longer than their normal legs used to be. If I remember correctly, the one racer's legs were now 4 inches longer than they used to be.

Yes, I am against an amputee with a prosthetic being allowed to compete in the race. It is artificial, just like performance enhancing drugs are. That leg could be made lighter, stronger or bouncier. That prosthetic will also never tire or cramp.

Anyone know how much faster the wheelchair crowd is in the Boston Marathon? They race in their own classification.

Wheelchair racers FLY. That's why they go first.

I was also against Casey Martin getting to use a cart in golf tournaments.

There will be a day when athletes with prosthetics routinely trounce those without. Best keep the competitions separate.

It is ironic that the "able-bodied" are complaining about the advantages the "handicapped" have in athletic competition.

For safety reasons, we cannot integrate wheelchair racers with runners in a marathon, but why not allow everyone who actually runs to compete together? If the Flex-Foot and similar appliances provide an unfair advantage, award separate top prizes for 0, 1, and 2 prostethic legs.

I agree that games have rules and those are their to make for a "level" playing field. Sadly we have seen far too many athlets getting caught using artificial means to enhance their bodies. When one is missing a major part of the body, then the artificial additions are certainly a requirement, but none the less it causes a difference in performance. I am thrilled for these athlets that the modern prostetics work so well that they can be supperior in certain tasks than a natural body part. I bet however that anyone who has lost a leg or arm, would rather had it back than have the "advantage" of a prostetic body part.

As I was looking at Yahoo today they had an article about a swimmer that lost her lower legs due to a severe birth defect http://highschool.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=779286 This young lady has found a natual tallent for swimming and has develeped it to the point where she has become one increadibly tallented athlet. For this young lady becoming a member of the U.S. Paralympic team is a way to compete against other athletes and prove to the world what a fantastic athlete she is. Sadly the Paralympics don't get as much media attention as the "regular" Olymics, but I would see winning at the Paralympics as just a great an achievent. You complete against the best authletes in the world. If you win, you can be very proud.

André

It is not the challenged athlete that is being banned, it is the equipment. If a challenged athlete wants to participate without the mechanical assistance, then I am sure they will not be banned.

+1

It is sad that so much emphasis is put on winning rather then just competing and doing your best.

It is ironic that the "able-bodied" are complaining about the advantages the "handicapped" have in athletic competition.

For safety reasons, we cannot integrate wheelchair racers with runners in a marathon, but why not allow everyone who actually runs to compete together? If the Flex-Foot and similar appliances provide an unfair advantage, award separate top prizes for 0, 1, and 2 prostethic legs.

This makes sense for many events, but the Olympics have never been divided into classes.

Those that would in many events be in special categories (seniors for example) must form their own "Olympics" simply because the Olympics haven't historically had multiple classes.

Maybe that is the best comparison (in my opinion), the challenged athlete and the senior athlete... Both deserve their accolades for accomplishments, but I wouldn't expect the IOC to accomodate them by implementing classes. The Olympics already seem hectic since they combine so many disciplines in a short period of time, so maybe it will never happen. But, I could see challenged athletes competing if there were classifications.

But, I could see challenged athletes competing if there were classifications.

The Paralympics do have classes. I went to the Winter Paralyimpics in Salt Lake City in 2002 (a month or two after the "real" Olympics) to provide music support, and they indeed had classes such as "severe disability in one limb", "severe disability in two limbs", etc. This is where you'd see athletes like a skier with no arms and one leg skiing a giant slalom, a sight-impaired cross-country skier following a sighted teammate around the course, or sledge hockey (players seated in sled-like devices, each hand holding a sort of mini-hockey stick with spiked handles for propulsion). It was a fantastic experience, actually, maybe even more motivating than the regular Winter Olympics.

But, no, I don't think that athletes with replacement body parts should be competing in the traditional Olympics. Not only are there other venues of competition, but to me, it also becomes a question of where it should end -- how many artificial limbs can an athlete have before they're either too strong or too weak to compete fairly? There would have to be regulations restricting the types of mechanisms, but how can those limits be decided?

Anyone know how much faster the wheelchair crowd is in the Boston Marathon? They race in their own classification.In Honolulu, the faster racers can do the course in about 90 minutes, which includes a couple small hills. The slower racers get caught by the runners and have to drop out.

Olympic Games own rules seem to indicate fair play, AND open to everyone. But without a prosthetic it seems impossible for many.

Olympic Games own rules seem to indicate fair play, AND open to everyone. But without a prosthetic it seems impossible for many.

Yeah -- and I'm not sure of any way to work around it, either.

The Olympics began long before prosthetics became capable of athletic feats, so they were never a question until relatively recently.

Another problem with allowing prosthetics athletes into the Olympic games is that the very richest athletes will be the only ones competing. The more money you have, the better prosthetic you can afford.

I've also seen those metal spring legs doing un-human dunks during halftime NBA games. Just think if you allowed them to enter the high jump competition?

Also what about when bionic parts are better and stronger, which is coming very soon?

The male record for wheelchair in Boston Marathon is 1:18

There really needs to be a court of medical professionals for this to determine whose appendages gives them an advantage and whose does not. If it's only a disadvantage they should compete. Isn't there a guy in professional cycling with special doping privileges (he's allowed to have some of that stimulant in his system) because of his athsma medication?

It goes to show the development of technology. Maybe a Para-Olympian will surpass "able" athletes. I played goal in floor hockey. The opposing goal tender was a Special Olympian. I was the sieve not him.

It is ironic that the "able-bodied" are complaining about the advantages the "handicapped" have in athletic competition.

So the normal-bodied athletes are the "challenged" ones in this case, big deal. Should they be banned? I'd say it should be the other way around, otherwise you may as well allow electric bikes in a bike race and I think the technical term for that is "lame". Now I'm not dissing electrics, they make awesome utility bikes and such, but if say 100 years from now most people in the world have some type of bionic implant, then watching the Olympics may be kinda like the way we watch alligator wrestling.

I spent a few years coaching disabled ski racers. I have the utmost respect for those with physical challenges, including my wife's father who lost his leg and wears a prosthetic. That said if there is a competitive advantage the person shouldn't be competing with a prosthetic with able-bodied athletes, which would be the case in many track & field events.

Disabled sports USA, orgs like it and the Paralympics exist for a reason. It's fair to everyone. The USOC is not capable of determining what prosthetics offer an advantage. I can tell you that even in skiing, the handicapping system for timing depending on the level of injury / function also has drawbacks. We can't put everyone on the same playing field, literally or figuratively. The world isn't fair, but we have a system in place that works for 99% of all athletes.

what about simply designing a leg that does not give an advantage, or quantifying the advantage and handicapping the athelete (pun intended) to make the competition fair? It seems doable.

what about simply designing a leg that does not give an advantage, or quantifying the advantage and handicapping the athelete (pun intended) to make the competition fair? It seems doable.

Hmm... I kinda doubt it. You'd have to design a leg, put it on a runner, have him do a test run, and then somehow figure out how THAT runner would have performed the same run if he had both legs to begin with.

They can determine performance differences between bicycles pretty easily -- they're solid-state objects. Humans change all the time, though. That's why they train, to make themselves stronger & faster than before.