On 29 April 2008, double-amputee athlete Oscar Pistorius will appeal the decision of the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) to exclude him from able-bodied events at the Beijing Olympics.
While IAAF-commissioned research clearly shows that Pistorius' bionic Cheetah limbs give him an advantage, there is a possibility that his appeal might succeed.
Advertisement
To the bystander it may seem like an isolated case, but some experts believe that if Pistorius gets his way a ripple effect will be felt throughout the world of international athletics. According to exercise physiologist Dr Ross Tucker, it would represent the introduction of technology into the sport that may ultimately harm its credibility.
A case in point
The Pistorius case can be likened to a situation which is currently turning the swimming world on its head, Tucker says.
When the International Swimming Federation recently approved the use of the Speedo LZR Racer suit, arguing that it complied with FINA regulations as they stood at the time, it effectively allowed Speedo (and other manufacturers in the future) to push the 'Reset' button on swimming.
Just in the first few months of 2008, 37 world swimming records have already been broken – an astounding feat considering the fact that the average number of world records generally broken in the months leading up to an Olympic Games is five.
Tucker believes that this situation is directly linked to the Speedo suit, noting that "twenty years of sports history have been erased and rendered relatively meaningless by the never-seen-before technology in the pool".
A similar fate for athletics
A possible implication of Pistorius' participation in the Olympics is that a similar Pandora's Box would be opened for athletics, which could see world records broken one after the other as newer and better artificial aids are introduced.
But Tucker believes that this extreme scenario is unlikely, as it would be relatively easy to keep the situation under control by simply restricting the introduction of new technology to Cheetah limbs for amputees only.
However, the expert isn't convinced that this would be a solution either: "It may work, but it would be very difficult to enforce a standard of technology, even in the very tiny population of people who now participate with amputations and high-tech carbon-fibre blades".
The big problem, according to Tucker, is that technology will achieve two things: it will reduce the size of the disadvantage, and increase the size of the advantage.
"Whatever is found as 'acceptable' today will change over time, solely due to engineering developments," he says. "This means that you may well see seconds coming off performance times thanks to an engineering breakthrough such as a new material or a change in the shape of the blade." The equipment would need constant review and inspection – a situation which could no doubt become a logistical nightmare.
This may not be practical, but it certainly is possible. Unfortunately though, it isn't where the argument against Pistorius' participation ends.
Why Pistorius has an advantage
Tucker takes matters a step further by saying that what Pistorius does when he's out there on the track can't actually be classified as "running" and that it would be illegitimate for him to participate against other athletes.
"The research by the IAAF found some enormous differences in mechanics between Pistorius and able-bodied runners," Tucker says. "They found that what Pistorius is doing is not 'running' as we understand it from a biomechanical point of view. It's a never-seen-before movement, aided by technology that's not available to anyone else."
In a previous article on Health24, Tucker laid out the differences in Pistorius' movement pattern, saying that the most telling evidence that Pistorius has an advantage is this: when Pistorius runs a 400m race, he maintains his speed for longer and runs the second half of the race much faster than the first – something that's never done in a high-speed 400m event. Able-bodied athletes always get slower as the race progresses.
Tucker hypothesised that three factors could be giving Pistorius an advantage:
the spring action of the blades propells him forward;
the blades never fatigue because they don’t require the same muscle activity to store and release elastic energy; and
the limbs have a reduced mass, which means less work goes into accelerating them.
All these factors mean that Pistorius uses less energy than a normal runner – something which clearly has major advantages.
Interestingly, Tucker's theory was confirmed by IAAF test results which showed that:
energy consumption, measured by oxygen consumption, is 25% lower in Pistorius than in any other runner;
mechanical efficiency and energy return from the Cheetahs is 30% higher than that of human tendons;
the Cheetah blades contribute to a 30% advantage in energy storage and release during running.
Tucker notes that from a biomechanical, physiological and performance point of view, Pistorius is completely different from able-bodied runners. "His locomotion is different, his physiology is different, and the science suggests an enormous advantage. He is immune to fatigue as a result of this advantage, which is in the range of seconds, not milliseconds."
Naturally gifted runner?
We're also all assuming that Pistorius has a natural ability to allow him to run 400m in 46 seconds. According to Tucker, this assumption provides the starting point for a circular argument that has major implications for the final decision.
“Everyone assumes that Pistorius is a naturally-gifted, world-class runner, able to run 46 seconds without the blades," he says. "The problem is that he might not be. If the IAAF advantages are real, and he has perhaps 20 to 30% advantages, then his natural ability is in fact well short of this."
But, Tucker says, there might be another amputee out there who does have that ability, and this person, wherever he is, has the genetic potential to run perhaps 4 or 5 seconds faster than Pistorius.
"If they allow the technology, by allowing Pistorius to run, then we might very well see a case where another runner, perhaps two or three years from now, comes out and runs 41 seconds (the current world record is 43 seconds). That would be a major embarrassment for everyone, and the world would regret its decision from 2008, because then the presence of an advantage would be clear."
Tucker's point is that we’re all assuming Pistorius represents the pinnacle of athletic potential, when in fact he may be well below it. "The same technology on another athlete may blow the sport wide-open, and then we would have to back-track rapidly. Because we can never know this, we can only infer it from the IAAF data, and that means the ban should remain for the credibility of the sport."
Should all technology be banned?
The argument against Pistorius' participation is therefore twofold:
His participation creates a real problem for the IAAF in that it will make it extremely difficult to enforce laws. The international authority would either have to make the technology available to all athletes (as in the case of swimming) or they have to very specifically enforce and monitor the technology for Pistorius only.
Allowing Pistorius to run creates a situation where "competition equality" is damaged and athletes are suddenly taking part in mixed competitions, i.e. the other participants are running while Oscar is doing his adapted form of movement.
The answer, Tucker believes, is for the IAAF to be absolutely dogmatic and ban all forms of technology that may improve performance, or else they'll be giving manufacturers a chance to take advantage of the situation.
Bookmark with:
What are social bookmarks?