posted Jul 27, 2007

Reallymonica?

God help us all. That way really will lead to farcical events. Basically anyone with any infirmity could develop techincal aids and be appropriately handicapped?

Do you realise how that would kill the sport of athletics immediately?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 27, 2007

What are we waiting for? What on earth is this expert going to elucidate us on? He may be able to compare the cheetah mechanically with a given existing lower limb. However, this is not the problem. By definition the lower limbs we wish to compare do not exist! And if we are just going to make a guess, why bother having photo finishes and timing down to 100th of a second? Lets just say anyone within a second of each other are all equal and within the error of the cheetah.
While the IAAF are trying to be fair minded I believe they should just kill off this nonsensical exercise before it goes too far. Any so called expert should also come out and say it's a farce. Although I doubt they will since they'll be turning down a few years of funding.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 28, 2007

Oh Lord Toppompey, I thought the group that has been debating this had been reaching some form of concensus that evidence is required.

Mr. T. has said that he should be allowed to run against able bodied athletes but just not in major comps and for medals (Mr. T will correct me if i am misquoting him)

But ultimately we are not going to agree on this, but it seemed to me that we could all agree on the need for evidence.

Are you seriously advocating a blanket ban before hearing any evidence? is this wise? Is a request for evidence a "mantra" as you say or is it an entirely sensible approach to the thorny questions that Pistorius presents.

Mr. T, Madthinker and others consider that Oscar will irrepairably harm athletics because they say it will make it "farcical", that is purely a matter of opinion. They could be right.

I don't think they are...

But that is my opinion.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 28, 2007

Really Monica, I think your approach has significant merit in it. I am not saying that it is the perfect approach and there would be a lot to work out before it could be acceptable, but at least it makes an attempt to balance the principles that we have been discussing.

Good for you!

Mr. T, seems a bit annoyed though.

However, providing that whatever system that is used ensures to the IAAF's satisfaction then I don't think it will do the harm that he is predicting.

I think Oscar is a real one off, but we will have to see. Just imagine the sort of role model he will be to millions of people world wide that may have lost limbs in accidents, land mines etc. All the debate over "spoiling" athletics for the short span of a career pales into insignificance compared to the sort of ambassador he could be.

Well done Oscar and you ReallyMonica!!!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 28, 2007

Danglyballs its just plain old toppompey not Lord toppompey. Please try and counter my specific point regarding why I believe evidence is not required.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 28, 2007

Plain old toppoopmey. The evidence countering your point are presented in detail in the 197 other posts before your 1. I suggest reading those to get the full detail on both sides of the argument. Danglyballs has presented his/her case in detail above.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 28, 2007

Toppompey - Sorry will drop the Lord...

Thank you The_real_ref that's the point that I was trying to make.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 29, 2007

sorry for labouring the point, but I must insist that toppompey's point has not been answered at all.

Let me make the stance clear. If it was possible to get 'real evidence' then this would be great. It is not. This would be a fruitless exercise that the IAAF to get 'evidence'. (Let's use these terms to avoid confusion).

The reasoning is as follows. Suppose the IAAF come back and say: "We have evidence that the cheetas are exactly as fast as human legs"

I will say: "Whose legs?"

The only fair answer by the IAAF would be "The legs that Pistorius would have had, if he had legs"

I would sasy "How can you possibly measure the speed of a fictitious set of legs?"

Now if anyone has the answer to that, then please post it, because I haven't found it in the previous 197 posts.

Furthermore, nobody has quite confirmed that they would happily send the IAAF for more tests for the cases of asthmatics, endomorphs and paraplegics.

(also nobody has provised a reason as to why able-bodied athletes cannot compete in wheelchair events)

I suspect that the whole thing will be a fudge so that the IAAF would avoid the outcry that would com from banning Pistorius. The scientists will say something like "It is unlikely that the cheetas give an advantage, and it is unlikely that Pistorius will actually win in any case"

The IAAF will take this to mean "The cheetas give no advantage", and will let him compete. Pistorius will race, but not win. The difficult decisions will be left for another day, but a dangerous precedent will have been set.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 31, 2007

FIN

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 5, 2007

If he will not be satisfied with the paraphlegic games then he should run with his stumps. This is the reason why we have the paraphlegic games.

add comment | complain about this comment