Welcome! › Forums › Running Forum › IAAF: Pistorius’ prosthetic legs provide less air resistance › Re: Re: IAAF: Pistorius’ prosthetic legs provide less air resistance
It may be a morbid thought but, if he is allowed to run, nobody would be disallowing anyone else from using the prosthetics. A point brought up in another article I read.
Of course, and I mentioned that above. It is an unreasonable view, morbid or not. That would be like saying that HGH and steroids should be permissible if they are allowed to every potential competitor — allowing something that could come at a significant physiological cost on the basis anyone could assume that same risk is unfair in and of itself. It is a highly unethical suggestion.
Beyond that, obviously he would not be running his races sans the prostheses, he would clearly not be “fast enough” without them.
Valid point. They are obviously performance enhancing for him. The question is where do you draw the line? This is a question I'm still struggling with but I'm willing to explore the idea at this point in time. While they are performance enhancing for him, do they give him an unfair advantage or simply level the playing field between himself and able bodied athletes? In many ways, I want to say they are obviously performance enhancing because, without them, he would be much slower.
Certainly, and yet there is ostensibly no valid basis for comparison.
Drag could be measured, spring could be measured. This is why I brought up the idea that maybe he knows what the results of these measurements would be. Is he not willing to work with the IAAF because he knows that measurements of drag, spring, etc. would show that his prosthetics give him an unfair advantage?
It is not merely measurements of drag, spring, etc., but how those particular measurements compare with those of the control, an able-bodied person. What would be used for the control subject in such a study? The drag on somebody else's leg, the spring of somebody else's lower leg (which is incredibly difficult to isolate), etc.? It would appear that there is too much difference to make any comparison hold.