OT: How dumb..Olympic decision
blande...@hotmail.com
those blade thingies. That is the type of decision I would expect to
be taken by a vote of rst'rs..
Joe Ramirez
> They let that dude with no lower legs into the Olympics running on
> those blade thingies.
Not into -- eligible for. He still needs to qualify and/or be selected
by his country, South Africa.
> That is the type of decision I would expect to
> be taken by a vote of rst'rs..
The outcome was made possible by the way the question was framed: do
his running blades confer on him an "unfair advantage" over able-
bodied runners (because of the way they return energy, etc.)? That
made the inquiry a more-or-less factual one, to be decided on the
basis of expert testimony provided by engineers. However, most sports
fans probably conceive of the Olympics as a test of the *human body*
and spirit, making the question about comparative advantage
irrelevant: the point is that the competition becomes meaningless if
the human body is not doing all of the work. However, there are
probably no rules that specifically address this policy objective, and
they would be difficult to enforce if they existed, owing to
countries' equal-access laws. A better long-term solution might be to
incorporate the "paralympic" games into the mainstream Olympics by
creating special categories for disabled but assisted athletes. That
would probably satisfy most people, though some might still insist on
competing against "the best."
Joe Ramirez
andre...@gmail.com
You know, I was listening to that decision being announced on NPR this
morning, and man was my mind boggled. Allowing someone with artificial
legs to run with everyone else is an unequal competition no matter how
you look at it. Not having any legs below the knee changes the entire
dynamic of the sport - from training to competing. Having seen these
things in action, the curved lower structure is clearly designed to
produce force much like a spring, which essentially means that this
guy doesn't have to use his lower legs like most sprinters, which even
if it doesn't give him a significant advantage in velocity would
certainly cushion the impact on his stamina. What if someone with
slightly better artificial legs which are lighter and stronger comes
along and leaves this guy in the dust? You don't think he'll complain
to the board about unfair advantages and whatnot? Ludicrous.
andre...@gmail.com
> On May 16, 12:44 pm, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > They let that dude with no lower legs into the Olympics running on
> > those blade thingies.
>
> Not into -- eligible for. He still needs to qualify and/or be selected
> by his country, South Africa.
>
> > That is the type of decision I would expect to
> > be taken by a vote of rst'rs..
>
> The outcome was made possible by the way the question was framed: do
> his running blades confer on him an "unfair advantage" over able-
> bodied runners (because of the way they return energy, etc.)? That
> made the inquiry a more-or-less factual one, to be decided on the
> basis of expert testimony provided by engineers. However, most sports
> fans probably conceive of the Olympics as a test of the *human body*
> and spirit, making the question about comparative advantage
> irrelevant: the point is that the competition becomes meaningless if
> the human body is not doing all of the work.
It doesn't make the question irrelevant at all. If it's a question of
the human body not doing all the work, it's a question of competitive
advantage as well. As one article I found offers - he won't have to
deal with a build-up of lactic acid in his calves, nor - as with my
point above - the fatigue resulting from using his calves/ankles/feet,
etc... Of course, he has disadvantages too. Traction and balance are a
serious concern - which brings up another issue: is it safe to have
him sprinting along with half a dozen other runners? He has
potentially a greater chance of falling, sliding, and taking another
runner out - perhaps even inflicting serous injury with those
composite prosthetics he's sporting.
Joe Ramirez
wrote:
> On May 16, 10:00 am, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 16, 12:44 pm, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > They let that dude with no lower legs into the Olympics running on
> > > those blade thingies.
>
> > Not into -- eligible for. He still needs to qualify and/or be selected
> > by his country, South Africa.
>
> > > That is the type of decision I would expect to
> > > be taken by a vote of rst'rs..
>
> > The outcome was made possible by the way the question was framed: do
> > his running blades confer on him an "unfair advantage" over able-
> > bodied runners (because of the way they return energy, etc.)? That
> > made the inquiry a more-or-less factual one, to be decided on the
> > basis of expert testimony provided by engineers. However, most sports
> > fans probably conceive of the Olympics as a test of the *human body*
> > and spirit, making the question about comparative advantage
> > irrelevant: the point is that the competition becomes meaningless if
> > the human body is not doing all of the work.
>
> It doesn't make the question irrelevant at all.
Yes, it does. The question of advantage need not be reached if the
competitor is ineligible for a more basic reason.
> If it's a question of
> the human body not doing all the work, it's a question of competitive
> advantage as well.
A moot question.
> As one article I found offers - he won't have to
> deal with a build-up of lactic acid in his calves, nor - as with my
> point above - the fatigue resulting from using his calves/ankles/feet,
> etc... Of course, he has disadvantages too. Traction and balance are a
> serious concern - which brings up another issue: is it safe to have
> him sprinting along with half a dozen other runners? He has
> potentially a greater chance of falling, sliding, and taking another
> runner out - perhaps even inflicting serous injury with those
> composite prosthetics he's sporting.
See what I mean by making it a question of fact? You've fallen into
the same trap as the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Using that
approach, a searching technical investigation will have to be
conducted in every single case. Different prosthetics = brand-new
investigation and potentially different result. The same athlete might
be eligible one year and ineligible the next, as his equipment
changes. That's a terrible way to decide a question as fundamental as
this one. The reason this method is being employed is that it has a
veneer of procedural fairness and enables all concerned to evade the
really sticky question about what kind of competition we want to have.
Joe Ramirez
Jack Hollis
<josephm...@netzero.com> wrote:
>The outcome was made possible by the way the question was framed: do
>his running blades confer on him an "unfair advantage" over able-
>bodied runners (because of the way they return energy, etc.)? That
>made the inquiry a more-or-less factual one, to be decided on the
>basis of expert testimony provided by engineers. However, most sports
>fans probably conceive of the Olympics as a test of the *human body*
>and spirit, making the question about comparative advantage
>irrelevant: the point is that the competition becomes meaningless if
>the human body is not doing all of the work.
If I was on the committee I'd see if this guy actually has a chance to
win a medal. I'm sure everyone knows what this guys times are. If he
does have a chance to medal, then I would vote no. Other than that,
it's not worth the bad PR of banning him.
Then, if he competes, the IOC looks like a bunch of good guys. The
guy either doesn't qualify or, if he does qualify, is eliminated in
the early heats, no harm done. The guys on the podium are the same
ones who would have been there if he didn't compete.
Jack Hollis
wrote:
>They let that dude with no lower legs into the Olympics running on
>those blade thingies. That is the type of decision I would expect to
>be taken by a vote of rst'rs..
If they can allow Renee Richards to play tennis as a woman, this is a
non issue. Luckily for tennis he wasn't good enough to win anything
of any import. Nevertheless, if I was a low ranked player who was
eliminated by him in the early rounds of a tournament, I'd feel
cheated.
Joe Ramirez
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 10:00:30 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez
>
As a practical matter, that's probably not far from the way future
cases like this one will be resolved. The underlying policy issue is
just too messy for anyone to want to confront.
Joe Ramirez
Ted S.
> If they can allow Renee Richards to play tennis as a woman, this is a
> non issue.
They don't any more; the female athletes have to be gender typed. I
believe the last exception was Princess Anne when she did the equestrian
event in the Olympics.
Do a google search for Stella Walsh.
--
Ted Schuerzinger
tedstennis at myrealbox dot com
If you're afraid of the ball, don't sit in the front row. --Anastasia
Rodionova
TJT
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 20:07:55 -0400, Jack Hollis wrote:
>
>> If they can allow Renee Richards to play tennis as a woman, this is a
>> non issue.
>
> They don't any more; the female athletes have to be gender typed. I
> believe the last exception was Princess Anne when she did the equestrian
> event in the Olympics.
>
> Do a google search for Stella Walsh.
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanis%C5%82awa_Walasiewicz
They should have special Olympics for hermaphrodites too, so that likes
of "Stella Walsh" and "Dave Hazelwood" could take part in that great event.
Jack Hollis
<tedst...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>> If they can allow Renee Richards to play tennis as a woman, this is a
>> non issue.
>
>They don't any more; the female athletes have to be gender typed. I
>believe the last exception was Princess Anne when she did the equestrian
>event in the Olympics.
Equestrian events in the Olympics always did allow men and women
compete against each other. So Princess Anne was not an exception.
However, she was the only female competitor who had a horse that was
better looking than she was.
Jack Hollis
<josephm...@netzero.com> wrote:
>> Then, if he competes, the IOC looks like a bunch of good guys. =A0The
>> guy either doesn't qualify or, if he does qualify, is eliminated in
>> the early heats, no harm done. The guys on the podium are the same
>> ones who would have been there if he didn't compete.
>
>As a practical matter, that's probably not far from the way future
>cases like this one will be resolved. The underlying policy issue is
>just too messy for anyone to want to confront.
>
>Joe Ramirez
And as long as the guy doesn't win a medal no one will care very much.
However, if he does qualify for the SA Olympic team, there will be one
SA sprinter with two feet who did not get the chance to be an Olympic
athlete. I'm not sure that he will feel that it didn't matter.
andre...@gmail.com
> > It doesn't make the question irrelevant at all.
>
> Yes, it does. The question of advantage need not be reached if the
> competitor is ineligible for a more basic reason.
Yet no rule exists to eliminate the competitor for a more basic
reason, hence the question is not irrelevant. Were such a rule in
place, or put in place as a result of this fiasco, then we could talk.
> See what I mean by making it a question of fact? You've fallen into
> the same trap as the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Using that
> approach, a searching technical investigation will have to be
> conducted in every single case. Different prosthetics = brand-new
> investigation and potentially different result. The same athlete might
> be eligible one year and ineligible the next, as his equipment
> changes. That's a terrible way to decide a question as fundamental as
> this one. The reason this method is being employed is that it has a
> veneer of procedural fairness and enables all concerned to evade the
> really sticky question about what kind of competition we want to have.
As I said above, without a rule to make the sprinter inelligible on
grounds of using proshetics or not using his entire body or some
general principle to that effect, how do you avoid making it a
question of fact? You're right in that they're obviously trying to
find a politically expedient way of telling this guy to piss off. My
previous post was specific to functioning within that framework.
Joe Ramirez
wrote:
> On May 16, 11:23 am, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> > > It doesn't make the question irrelevant at all.
>
> > Yes, it does. The question of advantage need not be reached if the
> > competitor is ineligible for a more basic reason.
>
> Yet no rule exists to eliminate the competitor for a more basic
> reason, hence the question is not irrelevant. Were such a rule in
> place, or put in place as a result of this fiasco, then we could talk.
For anyone still interested in this case, below is a link to the first
commentary I've seen that addresses what I think is the true
fundamental issue: not whether artificial legs confer an advantage
over human legs, but whether the competition is meaningful at all if
it's not between human bodies.
‘Blade Runner’ ruling subverts nature of sport
Artificial legs would make for artificial competition at Beijing
Olympics
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24758518/
Joe Ramirez