190 replies to this topic

[thomo]

P.B, Olympics next stop?

Quote

London 2012 Olympics: double amputee Oscar Pistorius makes 400m qualifying time
Oscar Pistorius, the 24-year-old double amputee sprinter born without fibulae in both legs, last night ran the 400m qualifying time for the Olympic Games in London next

Another article

Final article

Edited by thomo, 26 March 2011 - 01:13 PM.

[langswm]

He just ran a A qualifying time of 45.07 to qualify for the World Champs in South Korea. Just needs to get selected into the South African team now. Will be interesting and sure to garner debate if he is selected

[FreeDickland]

Hopefully rationality will prevail over "political correctness" and what seems to me a seriously flawed decision that implies Mr Pistorious and his prostheses are equated with unadapted runners - this understanding being based on material (outlined in earlier threads) indicating that the blade legs allow him to run second half of his 400 faster than the first half - quite different to unaided runners who suffer from oxygen debt in legs which are heavier than the Blade legs and without the aid of accumulating "sproing" from these aids.

Not optimistic however.

[iangallagher16]

not like he is gonna win the event but im pleased he got in. im all for it

[Colin]

iangallagher16, on 21 July 2011 - 12:20 PM, said:

not like he is gonna win the event but im pleased he got in. im all for it

Doesn't matter if he can win or not. Paralympics etc were brought in to deservedly level the playing field for those with disabilities.Disabled can still compete with 'abled' at their choice, however if the 'fix' of the disability or the protheses is an enhancement over what  'able' bodied can do,---as has been thouroghly argued in this case (see Science of Sport articles for good summaries), then it is in the same category as any other unnatural enhancement, drugs etc.
You can'yt have your cake and eat it too.

Where does it end? What amount of enhancement is allowable? Can David Rudisha (not that he needs it) put some springs under his feet?

It will damage more than promote the cause of disabled sport.

[HillsAths1]

Colin, on 21 July 2011 - 12:46 PM, said:

Doesn't matter if he can win or not. Paralympics etc were brought in to deservedly level the playing field for those with disabilities.Disabled can still compete with 'abled' at their choice, however if the 'fix' of the disability or the protheses is an enhancement over what  'able' bodied can do,---as has been thouroghly argued in this case (see Science of Sport articles for good summaries), then it is in the same category as any other unnatural enhancement, drugs etc.
You can'yt have your cake and eat it too.

Where does it end? What amount of enhancement is allowable? Can David Rudisha (not that he needs it) put some springs under his feet?

It will damage more than promote the cause of disabled sport.

This is an extract from the IAAF handbook rule 143.2. From my reading the blades are clearly on breach of the rule.

Shoes
2. Athletes may compete barefoot or with footwear on one or both feet.
The purpose of shoes for competition is to give protection and
stability to the feet and a firm grip on the ground. Such shoes,
however, must not be constructed so as to give an athlete any unfair
additional assistance, including by the incorporation of any
technology which will give the wearer any unfair advantage. A shoe
strap over the instep is permitted. All types of competition shoes must
be approved by IAAF.

[Colin]

HillsAths1, on 21 July 2011 - 01:11 PM, said:

This is an extract from the IAAF handbook rule 143.2. From my reading the blades are clearly on breach of the rule.

Yeah, that would apply to my David Rudisha hypothetical, but Pistorius' blades have already been approved due to legal action aided by very dodgy science and political correctness.

But that makes it even more absurd, i.e. that the David Rudisha hypothetical can be prevented due to existing laws, but the blades are allowed just because Pistorius has a disability.

[iangallagher16]

Well I'd rather have my lower legs in tact any day of the week.

Anyway it's not like he has put on his springs and qualified straight away.

[Paul Every]

iangallagher16, on 21 July 2011 - 12:20 PM, said:

not like he is gonna win the event but im pleased he got in. im all for it

Given that the improvements of amputees using increasingly efficient prosthetic technology is seemingly progressing at rate unmatched by the elite able-bodied athletes, where will the sport be in 10 or 20 years?

An Olympic final with 5, or perhaps 8, amputees? Would that please you?

[Fire Horse]

Quote Paul Every: "Given that the improvements of amputees using increasingly efficient prosthetic technology is seemingly progressing at rate unmatched by the elite able-bodied athletes, where will the sport be in 10 or 20 years?"  The one thing that can't be changed much even with nifty prosthetics, is how difficult it can be, and how painful, to run on the "residual limb/s".  Was Oscars' limb loss due to trauma?  In that case, it's a salvage operation from the start - preserving as long a lever as possible, with good enough tissue to cover the bone end (Are you squirming yet?).  I don't know of any lower limb amputee athletes who can tolerate the volume and quality of training that they would like to do, or be able to do, if they weren't having to manage their amputated limb/s, and all the accompanying trauma to the stump/s that goes with it.  So I'm thinking Oscar must be an alright runner to be able to run the times he does with prostheses on his legs.

[Colin]

Fire Horse,

Oscar's is a special case where he was born without fibula, legs amputated between ankles and knees (at 11months) and played 'normal' school sport eg rugby union etc, so he actually developed with prostheses. The blades he has now makes himn faster than what he used to be able to.
It is unlikely that someone undergoing later amputation would have the development time to adapt to this extent.

We wouldn't know 'how good he would have been', I think that is not relevant here. We do know that the blades do much more in terms of energy storage/return (spring) vs human lower leg, calf, tendon and it does so with a lower weight cost and more tolerant to extreme abuse (at the foot/achilles/calf level)...I am not talking about the counter argument in 'how difficult it must be' to do so with his knee in the brace etc etc.
We do know that this lower energy cost aids him during the second half of the race - when others are fading he actually continues to pick up speed. In this respect he could theoretically do even better at 800m if he trained towards that. Imagine Rudisha running 49/52 and Pistorius running 51/49 to smash 1:40
We do know that despite whatever natural talent he has that he does pick up speed when everyone else fades.

Independent science (see science of sport for summaries) have proven that he is assisted. IAAF were not able to match Pistorius' legal team and dodgy science with their own and basically buckled. Whether it comes back to cause an isue for them we don't know yet.

Edited by Colin, 21 July 2011 - 07:52 PM.

[Action]

Fire Horse, on 21 July 2011 - 07:06 PM, said:

..Was Oscars' limb loss due to trauma?  ...

He was born with a congenital absence of the fibula in both legs. When he was 11 months old, his legs were amputated halfway between his knees and ankles. (wikipedia).

The issue is that it is near impossible to accurately define what advantage or disadvantage the blades give him.  He has upgraded the blades a number of times, and you don't upgrade anything unless it is an improvement.  The IAAF suggested they were too long (better leverage) along with better power return and reduced lactic buildup, however the CAS overturned it on appeal as there wasn't sufficient evidence of advantage.  I think Paul is right, if the technology keeps improving we will have aided athletes winning all events.  Oscar is talented and has the genes to run, but whether his last 1 sec improvement over 400m is his heart or his blades is the problem!  And 1 sec at 400m is very much the difference between winning and losing...

[Fire Horse]

Action, on 21 July 2011 - 07:55 PM, said:

He was born with a congenital absence of the fibula in both legs. When he was 11 months old, his legs were amputated halfway between his knees and ankles. (wikipedia).

Mm, sorry, I could have read up on the guy, but not really that concerned either way.  Really, though, he had abnormal lower legs even before the amputations.  Now he has no feet, no achilles, no proprioception in his feet or ankles (because he doesn't have any), no accurate pressure receptors in parts of the skin flap over his stump (not like we have on our feet, which are quite specialised).  I'm not overawed by the science of the prostheses, I'm overawed that you all think you just strap your legs on and run an Olympic B qualifier.

[john stevens]

okay all the smart (UNI BRAINS ) HAVE HAD THERE SAY...at the end of the day the guy is just arunner like all of us...he not trying to chet,or kill someone,he is just f**king running and he is fast..so let him run at the big SHOW..PULL YOUR HEADS IN AND TURN THE BRAIN POWER OF.....

[Action]

Fire Horse, on 21 July 2011 - 08:02 PM, said:

... I'm overawed that you all think you just strap your legs on and run an Olympic B qualifier.

Didn't I say "Oscar is talented and has the genes to run, but whether his last 1 sec improvement over 400m is his heart or his blades is the problem!"?

He has now run an A qualifier. Can anyone categorically say if he breaks the (say) national record that is it his heart or is it his blades that gave him the extra spllt second?  The blades are an artificial device that has been shown to improve his ability over the equivalent natural runner.  His legal team neutralised those findings. If the science had proved that there was no advantage then bewdy, go for it.   However, that is not the case.

[Fire Horse]

I hear what you are saying, Action, but the scenario of "aided athletes" winning all the events in a few years time is a bit of a stretch of my reality, at least.  If the margin for gold medals is all in the prostheses, then where are the legions of athletes with double-leg amputations who can run the required times, going to materialise from?  Let's see now, there's Oscar,.. and Oscar,.. and wait, you forgot Oscar.

[iangallagher16]

Well said fire horse

[Paul Every]

Fire Horse, on 21 July 2011 - 08:57 PM, said:

I hear what you are saying, Action, but the scenario of "aided athletes" winning all the events in a few years time is a bit of a stretch of my reality, at least.  If the margin for gold medals is all in the prostheses, then where are the legions of athletes with double-leg amputations who can run the required times, going to materialise from?  Let's see now, there's Oscar,.. and Oscar,.. and wait, you forgot Oscar.

Perhaps I should have phrased the hypothetical situation more clearly.

At what point does fairness cease and unfair advantage begin?

On a hypothetical performance continuum of Oscar and future disabled athletes following in his prosthetic footsteps, when does it become unfair?

When the mechanically aided are precluding an able-bodied non-mechanically advantaged athlete from representing at the World Champs (a real and current possibility), when they are setting national records in open competition, when they are excluding another athlete from participating in an Olympic final or perhaps gaining a medal, or if in 2032 or 2060 prosthetic advances allow them to dominate an event at the highest level?

I'm not saying that all of the above will happen, but surely there is a philosophical point on the continuum of improved performance where each of us must draw the line.

Some of us think athletics has clearly reached that point. What I am asking the Oscar supporters is where do think lies the point of fairness?

Ian? Firehorse? JS?

Edited by Paul Every, 22 July 2011 - 08:16 AM.

[HillsAths1]

All that I can say is that the Lawyers from SA must be very good, the two most controversial cases in IAAF recent history and SA has prevailed.

[Colin]

Steve, whether or not the SA lawyers are good, both those cases were done at the IAAF/CAS level and nothing to do with SA. SA are obliged to consider picking both those athletes if they are cleared by IAAF and they qualify.

Fire Horse, on 21 July 2011 - 08:02 PM, said:

Mm, sorry, I could have read up on the guy, but not really that concerned either way.  

Yeah, that would have meant you couldn't argue emotionally about trauma and adaptation etc

Fire Horse, on 21 July 2011 - 08:02 PM, said:

Really, though, he had abnormal lower legs even before the amputations.  Now he has no feet, no achilles, no proprioception in his feet or ankles (because he doesn't have any), no accurate pressure receptors in parts of the skin flap over his stump (not like we have on our feet, which are quite specialised).

So with this biomechanical knowledge, can you please explain whether the blades provide more or less spring/energy return than achilles? Just start there and then we will move on to other stuff---you can add to the discussion on Science of Sport and counter their arguments.

Despite all the greater disadvantages we can list for those in wheelchairs , we still don't regard the wheelchair marathon time as the outright record.

Fire Horse, on 21 July 2011 - 08:02 PM, said:

... I'm overawed that you all think you just strap your legs on and run an Olympic B qualifier.

He didn't "just strap legs on". He put on his specially designed blades he has trained with that enable him to run faster. When the next , better model , comes out he will no doubt use that.

Edited by Colin, 22 July 2011 - 10:22 AM.

[iangallagher16]

It's quite a thought provoking thread and this may sound slightly daft and may have already been done but has an able bodied 400m runner strapped the springs to his legs and seen what he can do and how big an improvement this has given them? That would be interesting to find out

[halfwaydown]

iangallagher16, on 22 July 2011 - 11:31 AM, said:

It's quite a thought provoking thread and this may sound slightly daft and may have already been done but has an able bodied 400m runner strapped the springs to his legs and seen what he can do and how big an improvement this has given them? That would be interesting to find out

You're thinking about your dodgy knee, aren't you?
Should we expect to see some spring loaded running on the M7 shared pathway next weekend?

[iangallagher16]

Damn, I've been busted!

I'll do anything to help this sodding knee currently!

[HillsAths1]

There would be a number of considerations Ian in regards to what you propose, firstly as Oscar has no feet etc, then his overall weight(even allowing for weight of blades) is going to be less.

Secondly you would have to consider what happens when you from strap blades on to legs that do not have feet and achilles, for Oscar this works great(as he has none) for an able bodied athlete you would first have to neutralise the movement of the feet as this would likely be a negative impact.

Able bodied athletes are not permitted to enter races with shoes that have springs(they have been banned) so I cant see how the blades are any different.

Please be aware, I am in awe as to what he is able to do in regards to running with blades, but I dont believe that he should be permitted to compete in the Olympics etc as I think that he has an unnatural advantage. As Colin alluded to would the blades be considered if they were fitted with wheels(like Roller Blades) they would be much quicker getting around the track!

[SirPlod]

HillsAths1, on 22 July 2011 - 09:13 AM, said:

All that I can say is that the Lawyers from SA must be very good, the two most controversial cases in IAAF recent history and SA has prevailed.

It’s karma for the amount of times SA been shafted by SANZAR in rugby…  

[Fire Horse]

Colin, on 22 July 2011 - 10:20 AM, said:

So with this biomechanical knowledge, can you please explain whether the blades provide more or less spring/energy return than achilles? Just start there and then we will move on to other stuff---you can add to the discussion on Science of Sport and counter their arguments.

It's physiology I was talking, not biomechanics.  I haven't mentioned his prosthetic limbs in advantage or disadvantage terms at all in this discussion.  I will say this about them - they don't run by themselves.  At all.  And it is difficult to walk and run with prostheses, as a double-leg amputee.  Have you not seen the number of falls in the Paralympics?  
Really, I only put forward my thoughts on Oscar's running, to bring to the discussion the perspective of someone who has seen many an amputee clatter to the ground in a pile of crutches, and listened to them talk of the pain of walking on a prosthesis, or the frustration of coping with wounds that break down or won't heal, and let them get mobile again.  From that point of view, I can understand why Oscar has set himself the goal of representative sport, and the Olympics - something to strive for.

Edited by Fire Horse, 22 July 2011 - 08:34 PM.

[Colin]

Fire Horse, on 22 July 2011 - 08:14 PM, said:

It's physiology I was talking, not biomechanics.  

The way the achilles works in the gait cycle and the role of proprioception is not physiology but biomechanics.

Anyway, we are arguing about an unfair advantage in running 400m irrespective of his disadvantages in other activities, which we all accept and we all would rather not have to deal with that...you are bringing emotion into it every time. No need to.

cheers

[Fire Horse]

Colin, on 22 July 2011 - 09:59 PM, said:

The way the achilles works in the gait cycle and the role of proprioception is not physiology but biomechanics.

Anyway, we are arguing about an unfair advantage in running 400m irrespective of his disadvantages in other activities, which we all accept and we all would rather not have to deal with that...you are bringing emotion into it every time. No need to.

cheers

I'm not arguing.  Just thinking, having an opinion, you know?  And I'm glad you are getting "emotion" out of it, I guess, although for me, it's fact.  The first amputee I saw as a student therapist was a child, maybe 11-12yr old, who had an above knee amputation due to cancer.  He was getting up on crutches for the first time.  The supervising physio suggested putting a shoe on, which the kid's mum produced, along with a sock.  Without thinking, she bent over, held out the sock, and said "lift up", so she could put it on.  The kid obliged automatically, lifted up the remaining leg, and ended up in a heap of crutches on the gym mats.  We all looked at each other, in one of those "this would be funny if it wasn't so awful" moments, and I think the mum was laughing and crying, while the kid was busy recovering his dignity and trying to look cool.  The book, if it's ever written, might be called "it's not about the prosthesis".  It's about humanity, and ethics, and we're meant to have these thoughts.

[thomo]

Experts say South Africa's 'blade runner' Oscar Pistorius gains advantage from his technology

Quote

Exercise physiology professors Peter Weyand and Matthew Bundle provided the scientific proof which persuaded CAS to clear the Cheetah blades worn by Pistorius.

But they claim to have made their conclusions based on incomplete evidence at the time.

They have since concluded - and published their findings in the Journal of Applied Physiology - that Pistoriusw' prosthetics provide a significant advantage. They calculate the artificial limbs take as much as 10 seconds off the 400m time he could have run had he been born with lower legs.

[Fire Horse]

But then there's this article"North Carolina State University (2011, May 25). Hips take walking in stride, ankles put best foot forward in run. ScienceDaily."  Now what?  Oscar is hypothesised to be 10 sec (>20% of his 400m time) more efficient running in prostheses than he would be with intact lower limbs... but when running, another study suggests 47% of the power is generated by the ankles.  Does Oscar then start at -47% of the intact runner's power?  They'd have to be mighty prostheses to give him an overall gain of 10sec, starting from a 47% power deficit.

Edited by Fire Horse, 24 July 2011 - 11:26 AM.

[Long Arms]

iangallagher16, on 21 July 2011 - 12:20 PM, said:

not like he is gonna win the event but im pleased he got in. im all for it

well done to Oscar on achieving the qualifying time. Anything sub 45.00 may be in the hunt for medals..... global standards for 400m running have really fizzed in recent years which will help his cause for winning a medal.

I would not say he is "not capable of winning." His odds of winning are long. However I saw him pretty close to Warriner at the finish of  a 400m race in the states a month or two ago. I will be the first one to wish him luck if he is picked on the South African team and I come across him in the athletes village, on the training track, in the stands or anywhere else in Daegu in a month or so.

[thomo]

Bladerunner makes the cut The Oscar goes to World Champs

Quote

Double-amputee runner Oscar Pistorius was selected by South Africa's athletics federation for this month's world championships, calling it a dream come true to compete at the highest level against able-bodied athletes.

[biggers]

thomo, on 09 August 2011 - 08:27 AM, said:

Bladerunner makes the cut The Oscar goes to World Champs

[Jimboy]

Congratulations to this young man who has overcome such disability to qualify for the Games.
I would much rather see the likes of him win a gold medal than some of the druggies who have prevailed before.

[FreeDickland]

More fly paper for the legal profession methinks -----

[Tony78]

Oscar is a talented sportsman and I'm sure he would be as good or even better if he had flesh and bone legs. I think he's a great inspiration and wish him all the best.

[Long Arms]

definite final chance!

[biggers]

Tony78, on 10 August 2011 - 10:46 AM, said:

Oscar is a talented sportsman and I'm sure he would be as good or even better if he had flesh and bone legs. I think he's a great inspiration and wish him all the best.

I'm sure he is very talented and inspirational, but I think many people are relying on emotion rather than reason in this debate.

[cjr]

I think it is incredible what he is achieved and don't blame him for pursuing his dreams. Having said that I just don't see how he can be allowed to compete with able bodied athletes. How can something developed (and constantly being improved) in a laboratory be seen to be the equivalent of something we are born with? It is like allowing someone to use a calculator in a mental arithmetic competition. There are too many unknowns.

[biggers]

cjr, on 10 August 2011 - 04:52 PM, said:

I think it is incredible what he is achieved and don't blame him for pursuing his dreams. Having said that I just don't see how he can be allowed to compete with able bodied athletes. How can something developed (and constantly being improved) in a laboratory be seen to be the equivalent of something we are born with? It is like allowing someone to use a calculator in a mental arithmetic competition. There are too many unknowns.

I couldn't agree more!

[Colin]

For some unemotional scientific debate, Ross Tucker of Science of Sport has another couple of articles in response to the name calling from Pistorius.

[Paul Every]

Oscar selected for 400 metes and 4x400.

[langswm]

Yes, I saw the news on this last night and  was wondering when this old hoary chestnut of a topic would come up. Good luck to him I reckon. Hard to see him medalling in the individual, but their 4x400 team looks a good chance for a podium. Will be interesting to see if he gets selected to run in the final. Would be quite some theatre!

[Paul Every]

The following quote is edited from a post on the Slowtwitch Triathlon forum. For me, it sums up the ethical side of the debate pretty well.

"Of course they give him an advantage. He'd be a lot bloody slower without them.

I think don't he should be allowed personally. I think that athletes should only be allowed to do what they are physically capable of doing and race the races that apply to them. If you need to add mechanics then there is a separate event for you.

This isn't about life. This isn't about fairness. The race is not about inclusivity, it is about exclusivity. It is filtering the single most physically adept human being on the planet from absolutely everyone else at that event and giving them a gold medal. He is not the most physically adept, he doesn't have all of his legs.

Hardly anyone is physically capable of running at the Olympics. That's what makes them so special. You can't just go adding stuff until you make the grade. "

[Tony123]

Paul Every, on 06 July 2012 - 10:59 AM, said:

The following quote is edited from a post on the Slowtwitch Triathlon forum. For me, it sums up the ethical side of the debate pretty well.

"Of course they give him an advantage. He'd be a lot bloody slower without them.

I think don't he should be allowed personally. I think that athletes should only be allowed to do what they are physically capable of doing and race the races that apply to them. If you need to add mechanics then there is a separate event for you.

This isn't about life. This isn't about fairness. The race is not about inclusivity, it is about exclusivity. It is filtering the single most physically adept human being on the planet from absolutely everyone else at that event and giving them a gold medal. He is not the most physically adept, he doesn't have all of his legs.

Hardly anyone is physically capable of running at the Olympics. That's what makes them so special. You can't just go adding stuff until you make the grade. "

I agree

[Supersam1979]

I say let the man run and have the honour of marching into the stadium to represent his country. As Natalie du Toit (another South African) was in the Commonwealth games where she made the final in able bodied freestyle, he is a genuine motivator to those who were not born with all their limbs or lose one of their limbs through accident.

If these people are fit enough and talented enough to run against able bodied people then that is just fantastic. I hope he wins a medal. Back into the wilderness for me.

[biggers]

Tony123, on 06 July 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

Paul Every, on 06 July 2012 - 10:59 AM, said:

The following quote is edited from a post on the Slowtwitch Triathlon forum. For me, it sums up the ethical side of the debate pretty well.

"Of course they give him an advantage. He'd be a lot bloody slower without them.

I think don't he should be allowed personally. I think that athletes should only be allowed to do what they are physically capable of doing and race the races that apply to them. If you need to add mechanics then there is a separate event for you.

This isn't about life. This isn't about fairness. The race is not about inclusivity, it is about exclusivity. It is filtering the single most physically adept human being on the planet from absolutely everyone else at that event and giving them a gold medal. He is not the most physically adept, he doesn't have all of his legs.

Hardly anyone is physically capable of running at the Olympics. That's what makes them so special. You can't just go adding stuff until you make the grade. "

I agree

So do I.

[Paul Every]

Supersam1979, on 06 July 2012 - 11:29 AM, said:

I say let the man run and have the honour of marching into the stadium to represent his country. As Natalie du Toit (another South African) was in the Commonwealth games where she made the final in able bodied freestyle, he is a genuine motivator to those who were not born with all their limbs or lose one of their limbs through accident.

If these people are fit enough and talented enough to run against able bodied people then that is just fantastic. I hope he wins a medal. Back into the wilderness for me.

du Toit is definitely "fit enough and talented enough" to compete against AB people in open competition. She does not use a prosthetic.

Unless du Toit competed with a prosthetic foot/flipper, you can't really equate her case with that of Pistorius.

And if he does win a medal, how do feel about the fourth placed competitor missing his chance to stand on the dais?

Edited by Paul Every, 06 July 2012 - 11:45 AM.

[langswm]

I think the fairness/unfairness/advantage/disadvantage debate has been done to death a bit hasnt it. After all, its not as if this guys has sprung out of nowhere...if you'll pardon the dreadful pun!

People with far greater qualifications than alll of us have given him the OK to run....as he has done in Worlds before. It has been deemed he has no unfair advantage and accordingly should be allowed to run on his merits.

I hope he medals.....

[Colin]

langswm, on 06 July 2012 - 11:57 AM, said:

People with far greater qualifications than alll of us have given him the OK to run....as he has done in Worlds before. It has been deemed he has no unfair advantage and accordingly should be allowed to run on his merits.

Sorry mate, that is nowhere near correct. If we are going to talk about him at least we should have the correct facts here.

The first round of testing and all three scientific papers about Pistorius declared that he had an advantage. IAAF then banned him
He appealed to CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport), using analyses done by his supporters , Herr and Weyand the formner having a vested interest in the blade. Irrespective of the analyses, CAS determined that there were legal problems in IAAF's ban anyway, and thus the analyses were not even 'peer reviewed' and scrutinised. They overturned the ban. This was not done by scientists, but by lawyers/administrators who don't have 'greater qualifications than everybody else'.

Now as for the analyses itself, the link I gave above will clearly show how they set out to bamboozle CAS (legal not scientific people) and a proper review of data shows that he clearly has an advantage. Now in addition to that, developments to the device can even increase that advantage...just dial it up never ending hey.

Ross Tucker who is the author of linked blog is a fairly straight scientific guy with no biases (that has been pointed out anyway) and has no bone to pick.

It is not about "hey this would be great, let him run, its a level playing field"...no, it is about fairness for all, both able bodied and disabled and in any case it is not a level playing field.
To me it is a backward step because administrators are too scared to make unpopular decisions. That and the fact they don't understand science.

Edited by Colin, 06 July 2012 - 04:49 PM.