Image: Wikimedia Commons/Erik van Leeuwen
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Runners who've faced off against Oscar Pistorius say they know when the South African is closing in on them from behind. They hear a distinctive clicking noise growing louder, like a pair of scissors slicing through the air—the sound of Pistorius's Flex-Foot Cheetah prosthetic legs.
It's those long, J-shaped, carbon-fiber lower legs—and the world-class race times that come with them—that have some people asking an unpopular question: Does Pistorius, the man who has overcome so much to be the first double amputee to run at an Olympic level, have an unfair advantage? Scientists are becoming entwined in a debate over whether Pistorius should be allowed to compete in the 2012 London Games.
Pistorius was born without fibulas, one of the two long bones in the lower leg. He was unable to walk as a baby, and at 11 months old both of his legs were amputated below the knee. But the growing child didn't let his disability slow him down. At age 12 he was playing rugby with the other boys, and in 2005, at age 18, he ran the 400-meter race in 47.34 seconds at the South African Championships, sixth best. Now 25, the man nicknamed the “Blade Runner” has qualified for the 2012 Summer Olympics in London, just three weeks before the games were to begin. But should he be allowed to compete?
The question seems preposterous. How could someone without lower legs possibly have an advantage over athletes with natural legs? The debate took a scientific turn in 2007 when a German team reported that Pistorius used 25 percent less energy than natural runners. The conclusion was tied to the unusual prosthetic made by an Icelandic company called Össur. The Flex-Foot Cheetah has become the go-to running prosthetic for Paralympic (and, potentially Olympic) athletes. "When the user is running, the prosthesis's J curve is compressed at impact, storing energy and absorbing high levels of stress that would otherwise be absorbed by a runner's ankle, knee, hip and lower back," explains Hilmar Janusson, executive vice president of research and development at Össur. The Cheetah's carbon-fiber layers then rebound off the ground in response to the runner's strides.
After the German report was released, the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) banned Pistorius from competing. Pistorius hired Jeffrey Kessler, a high-powered lawyer who's represented athletes from the National Basketball Association and National Football League. It soon became clear that the IAAF's study was very poorly designed, so when Pistorius's team asked for a new study they got it. Soon scientists gathered at Rice University to figure out just what was going on with Pistorius's body.
The scientific team included Peter Weyand, a physiologist at Southern Methodist University who had the treadmills needed to measure the forces involved in sprinting. Rodger Kram, at the University of Colorado at Boulder, was a track and field fan who studied biomechanics. Hugh Herr, a double amputee himself, was a renowned biophysicist. The trio, and other experts, measured Pistorius's oxygen consumption, his leg movements, the forces he exerted on the ground and his endurance. They also looked at leg-repositioning time—the amount of time it takes Pistorius to swing his leg from the back to the front.
After several months the team concluded in a paper for The Journal of Applied Physiology that Pistorius was "physiologically similar but mechanically dissimilar" to someone running with intact legs. He uses oxygen the same way natural-legged sprinters do, but he moves his body differently.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
47 Comments
Add CommentIt is a (possibly) sad fact that in life everyone can't have everything. I would not like to be discouraging, but artificial legs would not seem to have a place in the world's top physical competition. If carbon fiber ankles prove to be superior to bone ankles, how soon will it be before top competitors need to choose to have their legs cut off and replaced. It's a slippery slope. Mr. Pistorius is amazing and deserves all kinds of accolades and accommodations. I'm not sure if this is the particular one (among many) he should get.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWould it be fair for a dyslexic youth to win the national spelling bee while using a dictionary because of their difficulties? Would there be meaning in choosing a winner and loser with this accommodation?
Wow someone would cut there legs off to get prosthetic's? I highly doubt that. Im sure this guy would love to have real legs like everyone else. Whos to say he wouldnt be faster with natural legs? Geez let the guy run he got a raw deal at birth so quit punishing him.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIts an advantage in every way imaginable. Props for overcoming such obstacles but lets call a spade a spade.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisgooner,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBefore you post a comment like yours you might want to do a little reading (the article above for example). You would find some studies stating, "a German team reported that Pistorius used 25 percent less energy than natural runners", "that Pistorius is mechanically different in a way that confers a serious competitive advantage", "world record holders in the 100-meter dash averaged 0.34 second. Pistorius swings his leg in 0.28 second", "rivals are swinging a lower leg that weighs about 5.7 kilograms, whereas his lower leg only weighs 2.4 kilograms"
You think amputation to create a competitive edge is unrealistic? You do know that all Olympic level gymnasts (and many other competitors) are crippled by the time they are 25 years old? You do know that many world-class athletes take dangerous performance enhancing drugs in an attempt to get an advantage? It's extreme, but not without precedent.
You responded to my first statement, but not the second: You would accept dictionary use in a spelling bee for someone who was born mentally disadvantaged?
This is a difficult precedent. Where do you draw the line?
That's a little naive. People get prosthetics all the time for vanity's sake. If they could, people most definitely would amputate for that extra edge only so long as it's not against the rules. In any case, I don't think he should compete due to the whole Olympic tradition of natural athletes showcasing the extremes of human fitness. His abilities are amazing, but he should be running in his own race with people in a similar disposition.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would ask this question, if a running shoe were invented that could store and release energy in a similar way, would it be banned? If so, then you have the answer...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a simple fact the scientists and this article have overlooked...Stride length. Pistorius' stride length depends on how long his prostetic legs are. If you were to increase the length of his prostetic legs by just a few inches, his stride length would increase and his 400m time would be significantly faster than it currently is. The fact that a simple change in prosthetic length can improve the athletes 400m time overnight, in my opinion shows there is an unfair advantage to the prosthetic legs. Furthermore the situation is complicated because Oscar was born without legs and so nobody can accurately say what the correct length of his prosthetics ought to be for his age / height. Had he been lets say a 6foot tall adult and lost both legs, we could accuratly say the prosthetic should be long enough to have him stand 6 feet tall and then the debate over the science behind carbon fiber efficiency etc. could continue. Since nobody knows how tall Oscar would have been if he were born with legs, we do not know how long his prostetics should be and so the current length may be on the long side (providing stride length advantage) or on the low side (not providing any advantage)...As a referance Tyson Gay (second fastest man) ran a 9.69 100m he stands 5feet 11 inches. Usain Bolt is 6 feet 5 inches, he is the World record holder at 9.58 100m...Usain bolt's leg turnover is not as fast as Tyson Gay's (Bolt takes 41 steps vs Gays 44-45. In the 0.11sec time difference between their 100m bests, Gay takes an extra 3-4 steps, hence his turnover is greater) yet Bolt hods the WR because his stride length is much longer than his competitors. In my opinion Stride length (artificially constructed) is the issue with Pistorius and his performances.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisObviously a person with an atlatl is not alowed to compete in an archery contest on a gun marksmanship competition.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFair point - to get rid of *all* technological effects on athletes as they are performing we'd have to have them compete naked, Ancient Greek style: no running shoes, no swimming suits, no helmets etc. etc. Which could be a bit difficult for the BMX athletes, never mind the long jumpers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBroadly speaking, though, I think we need more data. I'm glad Pistorius was given the benefit of the doubt here, but I'd like to see more studies done on athletes using prosthetics and for the Olympic authorities to be open to changing their opinion if the data suggests that the prosthetics are an advantage.
The other option, of course, is to make the Paralympics as important and prestigious as the Olympics and/or merge them.
@ArtM00
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHeight can be inferred from femur length.
The results from 1 person's running experience do not establish a general principle; they cannot. They can inspire a search for such a principle, and could fit in line with other research on this principle as an anecdote, but that's as far as they get. We cannot base firm conclusions on what Pistorius's advantage, if any, is.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStride length could be offset by increased prosthesis weight, or difficulty in coordinating longer strides, or other factors; what makes a runner fast is incredibly complex and hard to predict. The study of Pistorius is very interesting and good reason to continue investigations. The Olympics should carry on as it is, waiting for definitive scientific evidence, not making a false start based on an anecdote. Pistorius deserves his moment of glory as there is no question he is a superb athlete.
The saddest part is that it is likely the main push on the McDOlympicoke Committee comes from NBC, because they heard it would increase the TV ratings for the brief bits of airtime they devote to athletic events during their Coca-Cola-McDonalds show (and they may already have their Pistorius Up-Close-And-Personal series in the can).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRun two types of Olympic races. This is fairness for everybody.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust a point of clarification here. Pistorius was not born without legs, he was born without fibulas. These are actually the small bones in the lower legs and would not contribute to overall height. However, he still was amputated at a young age so determining what his actual adult height would have been would still be difficult regardless (although the actual importance of this is questionable as I don't believe there is enough research to state that stride length is the determining factor of speed). With that said, I would have to agree with Qaoileann, there are always some technological advances in all sports. Should we put a star next to all runners names since they started wearing sneakers? Or all swimmers who have started wearing full body suits? Is that unfair to earlier athletes who were not able to use these? Indeed there are possibly benefits that could be achieved with prosthetics given proper adjustments. But there are limits in place for what sort of technological advances players can already use: certain types of swimsuits, certain sneakers, various bicycles. Parameters in prosthetics could also be determined once proper research identifies the unacceptably advantageous adjustments. In the end, I personally cannot see any advantage of having no lower legs. The power required to ambulate with the loss of muscle below the knee puts a tremendous strain on not only the remaining leg muscles, but the entire body. He is an amazing athlete and deserves all the credit, prestige and accolades that come from all his hard work.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet the Olympian Athletes keep loin cloths and sandals; must be fair not stupid.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe that Olympic swimmers almost exclusively wear swimsuits which are designed using technologically advanced materials to reduce drag. According to FINA, it's 100% legal. The specialized running shoes mentioned earlier are another good example of using technology to increase physical abilities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think what is giving some people heartburn about Oscar is the fact that his "enhancements" aren't shaving hundreths of a second off times, but are instead resulting in potentially saving very substantial chunks of time from his runs.
I'd personally say that he should be allowed to run in this Olympic (he's earned that right!), and then the rules can be altered one of two ways--either allow NOTHING to be used that can improve an athlete's performance; or let all of the athlete's use whatever they wish to improve their competitive edge.
I foresee a future where there are 4 different olympics categories. Type 1 is mainline natural human athletes, type 2 will be handicapped athletes, type 3 will be mechanically modified athletes (such as Pistorius), and finally type 4 will be biochemically modified athletes (steroids anyone?). And who know, there might even be a type 5 where any kind of human modification is permitted. Type 1 and 2 already exist so why not the others?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy concern is why Oscar is being allowed to eat his cake and have it, competing with normal bodied people in the Olympics and one week after participating again in the Paralympics. I think his acceptance in the Olympics is more of the IOC trying to be politically correct rather than actual conviction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat about injury concerns. He has whatever % less of human to injure and is able to buy replacements, I assume.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is actually pretty simple. In a competition, if everyone is playing by the same rules, it is fair. It is therfore bot fair to allow him to use the prostheses or prohibit them. The real question is one of wether or not the rules cause to reflect the characteristics that it is desired to reflect.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ArtM00
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo taller people are always faster than shorter people? Hmmm.
What kind of people use the slippery slope argument?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html
i would think they do give him an unfair advantage.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisfor a normal person the heart has to supply oxygen to the lower aparts of the legs as well as the rest of the body.... but because Oscar has no lower leg parts it means there is more oxygen available for the rest of his body. the prostectic legs would give him that advange as they never get tired or achy like real legs would.
first off i'd like to silence lamorpa's analogy of the dyslexic spelling bee contestant that may use a dictionary because of his or her disposition. if you applied the analogy to an amputee runner, then the runner would be able to drive a motorized vehicle during a race because of his or her disposition. a more correct analogy would be a dyslexic spelling bee contestant that takes medication to help combat his or her dyslexia. if the medicated dyslexic contestant were to do good in the contest then he or she would receive praise for what they have accomplished despite their disposition. apply this revised analogy to an amputee runner and it makes sense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSecond off i would like to address the concept of a prosthetic leg being a superior to an actual leg. to all of you that think that it is superior to an actual leg, do more research and consider more then one study done. when you do you'll find that the prosthetic only releases a fraction of the stored energy when compared to an actual leg. an actual leg, that runs with a proper forefoot strike, can potentially release ~250% of the energy stored in a stride. studies have shown that a prosthetic leg can only release ~90% of the energy stored. so who really has the upper hand?
thirdly and to end off, i think a lot of the people posting negatively are stuck in the past and hung up on tradition. either that or they're just straight up dumb. their minds are clouded by thoughts such as "it shouldn't be that way, it never was" and "i liked it the way it was before, why change it?" those kinds of people are followers in life and are the ones that will most likely go nowhere outside of the small town they grew up in. the world will evolve and grow without them and they will be left behind in their simple lives. the Olympics have evolved and changed over time just like everything else has. swimmers now swim with full body swimming suits that are mechanically engineered to benefit the wearer. bobsleds are tested in wind tunnels and then engineered to be as aerodynamic as possible in order to give bobsledders an edge in a race. amputees are allowed to participate with the use of prosthetic limbs. prosthetic limbs are just another advancement that has come about over time and it should be embraced just the same as all the others.
If he's allowed to run, what happens when our prosthetics become mechanized or reach a point of surpassing human abilities without question. perhaps he should be allowed to run, but there needs to be restrictions on the types of prosthetics allowed. If he wanted could he not just slap on some tires and a small engine and "drive" to a victory, it's still a prosthetic. The line has to be drawn somewhere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile I admire his determination, I have to wonder if, among other things, the lower weight of the carbon fibre limbs does not provide a compedative advange for him. Additonally although he breathes the way that a non-handicapped runner breathes, does not the fact that he does not have to supply oxygen to his lower limbs, thus allowing more to be used in the rest of his body also provide an advantage?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUsually when I read the comments to one of these articles, I am turned off by people with more agenda than civility. It was nice to read comments that reflected informed differences of opinion, and I learned a little too.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSuccinct reply by damit68.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe should be in the special Olympics. Not having legs decreases his circulatory system and probably boosts his cardiac output compared to other athletes that have all their limbs. In a sport that requires endurance, this might be an unfair advantage.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe "blade-runner" has GOLD in our respect, he has GOLD in my respect. His artificial feet are his feet. They have good things (running fast) and bad things (he cant feel the ground, cant feel these feet)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo disqualification. If I were a judge in middle age, those who complain: everyone can get there feet off by amputation and get replaced them by these bladefeets, on their own costs. So don´t complain! Ask him, I think Oscar would prefer his natural feet, if he had the choice , dont be jailious to Oscars feet! (If this would be a normal social platform: Shut up, because you are affening a disabled man! Be ashamed! Oscar "disables" the healthy men in running!Next occassion we are discussing only aryans are allowed for sport events..so stop this misanthropic nazi drivel...NOW! Anti- disabled speech has to be removed from here. Nazis, shut up!
All should be in special Olympics. They are all immortal greek halfgods in the Olymp. Human should all go in one Humanpics, on Earth, so lets say Earthics. Olymp and Olympia is just somethings only for greek deities, and I dont know even one athlete who is a deity...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStandards can be set for various types of equipment, such as drag on swimsuits. Running equipment standards around "energy use" or other criteria could be set to avoid any "advantage".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiskymophobia thought that those who responded negatively were wedded to the past. I think it may be the opposite. Some of us are projecting into the future. Pistorius' artificial limbs just happen, at this stage of technology, to allow him to run comparable times to world-class runners with only natural limbs. If you project forward a bit, it is not hard to think that this is a very temporary state. In all likelihood, future technological improvement will soon leave no doubt that artificial limbs will quite readily surpass natural limbs. And it isn't at hard to imagine that soon aritifical limbs will allow a person with them to jump higher or longer than natural legs. Or how about a prosthetic limb that just happened to have a nice fin on it that allowed a tremendous advantage in swimming? Or how about someone who has a deficiency in their hands and gets prosthetic arms that give them a clear advantage in some other event?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo we seriously think that we are anywhere near the ultimate in prosthetic limb technology?
The issue is interesting at the moment because we are in approximate balance. The day will come when prosthetic limb technology will end up being clearly superior. Before someone jumps on their high horse and complains about those of us seriously doubting the fairness of this, they should think about the future, not the past.
I'm very proud of Oscar as a South African watching the Olympics and hoping for medals. He is not our only "special" case. We have Natalie du Toit swimming with able bodied swimmers, and winning, maybe because she has less drag because she is missing a leg, then there is Caster Semenya who competes with other women, even though she has more testosterone who we all know will give her an advantage (ask the East Germans ;p).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs much as I respect and admire these athletes, I would feel greatly upset if I were to compete against them, not because they are "special" but because they have overcome their disabilities to such an extent that they have surpassed what they would have been if they were normal.
Humans don't know what they are capable off if forced into strange situations, and is this not human too? to adapt and to overcome difficulties? this is why we moved out of the trees and into caves, learned to use tools, learned to use more of our brains. Adapt or die.
As humanity start to incorporate more and more technology into their lives and even their bodies, so our sports will have to learn to adapt too. If they have to handicap special athletes to make them comparable to able bodied ones, or give them all the same advantages, things will have to change and evolve along with us. Interesting times awaits us.
Most of these comments are not looking a the broader picture. In most sports it is about the equipment these days. Scientific American has just published a piece about Speedos swimming equipment which makes a swimmer faster. They are claiming significant improvements just from using their equipment, developed at enormous expense. These suits are not adapted to everyday use by the man or woman in the street. In fact the report says that the women's suits are entered through the armholes and take only 10 minutes to enter "when you get used to it".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt least with Oscar Pretorius' prosthetics they are developed to fill a need i.e. to enable a cripple to walk or run, and some of the design work will significantly help the manufacturers of prosthetics to develop better prosthetics for those who need them.
The significant fact of the matter is that the games are all about money these days, despite the fact that the athletes are nominally amateur. Speedo, and a lot of other companies would not spend enormous amounts of money on developing equipment if there was nothing in it for them.
Not least among the money grubbers involved in the Olympics is the IOC. The amount of money involved in organising the Olympics (and other events such as the soccer world cup and formula one racing) is huge, and the organisers are richly rewarded.
At the end of the day I dont know if there is any way around this. In some yachting events the necessary number of identical yachts are supplied by a manufacturer, and there is a draw before each race to decide who gets which yacht, which reduces the influence of the equipment, and emphasises the competitors skills. Maybe something like this could be applied more generally.
JRvZ
I think everyone has missed a major point here, would the IOC allow Husain Bolt to compete in the Para Olympics? I do not think so! He would have an obvious advantage against any runner with a leg disability, and would win every race, and would therefor also set new world records in that class every time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs has been said by most people here Oscar deserve our admiration, but he definitely should not be in the open Olympics, he has an obvious advantage over normal runners, and should be competing against other such athletes, their are a number of double amputee runners that will compete in the Para games, and they have not applied to compete in the open games, knowing that first and foremost it is unsporstman, which goes against the very grain of the Olympics.
Sorry, but it's totally unfair for Oscar Pistorius to compete against able bodied athletes. How can anyone possibly prove that his "legs" won't give him an unfair advantage. What's next, bionic limbs? It's great that he's been able to overcome his disability, but this is ridiculous.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is really simple. It's not about advantage, it's about artificial. Be 100% human, or go elsewhere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is curious the way it is being argued. Here a device is being used that obviously improves the athlete's own performance, but it is argued that this ok because it gives no advantage over a 'normal' body.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRealistically, how could a normal body be defined?
The IAAF rule doesn't make any mention of normal body. The rule prohibits:
'(e) Use of any technical device that ... provides the user with an advantage over another athlete not using such a device.'
Arguably this device gives this athlete an advantage over some other athletes: the ones that would beat him without prosthetics, but then lose to him with the prosthetics.
The easy answer here is that athletes with prosthetics should not be permitted to qualify for the Olympics, but this hinges on the basic principle that there ought be an even playing field for all qualifying athletes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhether a particular athlete, say, Pistorius, can perform certain specific tasks, such as move his leg from back to front, faster than other olympic athletes is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether any given athlete can meet the necessary qualifications to which all athletes are equally subject. And so, if all athletes can use mechanical devices to aid their performance, then amputees with prosthetics certainly should be permitted to qualify.
I see two main problems with permitting prosthetics:
1. It is counter to a principle of creating an equal playing field by which all athletes are subject to the same rules.
2. It is arbitrary in that it results in ad hoc decisions about who can and can't use certain equipment to aid their athletic performance.
The first one is rather obvious - some athletes (Pistorius, in this case) can use helpful equipment, but others can't.
for the second problem, consider what ought be done in the variety of cases where athletes have disadvantages if we permit equipment for some but not others. Perhaps track spikes shouldn't be permitted for any athletes - except for those who are shorter than a certain height. All short sprinters have an 'unfair' disadvantage - if amputees are treated with exception, what principle do we apply consistently to address the myriad other athletic shortcomings individuals have.
Finally, given the nature of the focus the dialogue has taken on this topic, it's worth noting that in Pistorius' case his prosthetics clearly do give him a relevant competitive advantage - they make him faster than than he would be otherwise.
And if that is acceptable, the same should hold for all other athletes, NOT whether the athlete with mechanical aid is faster than his or her competitors.
Well said, and I agree! Pistorious' physical state is drastically different from other competitors and therefore should not be compared.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisweird, I thought people can walk without fibulas (e.g. fibula grafting in maxillofacial surgery)since the tibia is the major bone giving support.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd why would one amputate a leg without fibula? You don't do that just because the leg can't be used for walking.
Anyway, I think it comes down to the matter of Prosthesis(replacement)vs Orthosis(assistance, prosthesis isn't part of the human body yet they function as a part of it and therefore should only be allowed in paralympics. Problem is prosthesis users usually don't have an alternative, maybe thats why they banned those record breaking swimsuits and allowed the blades.
As for physiologically similar yet mechanically dissimilar. Think of wheelchairs? or bicycles?
Don't want to be rude or anything, but he is disabled IMO, should he then not compete in the Para-Olympics? or does he compete in both?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, that is the problem. He competes in both. talk about eating your cake and having it :-)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI too am bewildered by his being able to compete in the "normal" Olympics AND the Disables Olympics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow can he be normal/natural etc. and disabled at the same time.
Maybe it is because of this @#$&& Political Correctness thing that is in fashion now.
Does South Africa not have enough able bodied athletes to send to the Olympics to compete? The scientific data clearly indicates what is referred to as a 7 second advantage (on the 400 m run). Additionally, South Africa currently has a male (Semenya) competing against females in the 800m run. While this story will also be one of 'political correctness', the point is, South Africa is sending its "best" relying on public opinion to win Olympic medals....because they have no other athletes that can comparably compete with the world. Is this working because so many humans are also incapable of achieving at such a high level (mostly because of lack of work ethic rather than no legs) and would like to knock all those 'uppity' hard working ‘normal’ people down a notch or two? Olympic committee, what are you doing? Are we officially at the point where normal athletes must take a second seat to the "oh poor me" story? At any rate, South Africa, is that all you really have? Two athletes (and I think someone mentioned a third swimmer) needing some type of advantage (cheetah legs or testis) are the best you have? What does that say about your people? Perhaps trying to make up for a politically incorrect past? If so, too far in my opinion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Oscar derives all of his power from what he had for breakfast." Athletes should be in a different race only when motors or alternate power sources are introduced, he says.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerfect. I'll be using my prosthetic bicycle in 2016.