“I tell kids in similar situations to never let anyone tell you who you are and what you can or cannot do…don’t let other’s get you down.” Robyn Shelton, 3rd base, Varsity softball team, no left leg.
“Pistorious unfairly rigged his Cheetahs” –American Paralympics champion Marlon Shirley who competed against and lost to Pistorious in the 2004 Paralympics
“If a racer wants to show up wearing 30 foot stilts made of Kevlar and bamboo, that’s OK” – Felix Gillette, journalist, in regards to the Paralympic committee’s failure to enforce height-adjustment rules.
“We are trying to bridge the gap between Olympics and Paralympics, between the disabled and the able-bodied” –Kevin Michael Connolly, Winter X Games silver medalist monoskier, and host of “Quest for Excellence”, a documentary that follows the lives of successful disabled artists
“[Professor] Peter Bruggemann [of the German Sports University] found that [Pistorious’] prosthetics were more efficient than the human ankle.” –the IAAF report on Oscar Pistorious’ prosthetic legs
“A bionic race would take away from the true competition. It is not my desire to give athletes a device that takes them beyond what their body can do” –Marlon Shirley
Monday, March 9, 2009
Monday, March 2, 2009
Other Arguments
Subtopic 2
Prosthetics can be perceived as a type of performance-enhancement. Pistorious’s prosthetics were proven to be more efficient than the human ankle, clearly giving him an advantage. The same way governing bodies in sports are there to protect the fairness and integrity of the game, any devices used to enhance performance should be closely examined and, if necessary, banned by these bodies. (Lance Armstrong was proven to have an advantage in cycling after his left testicle was removed)
Argument against: Like Pistorious, multiple other athletes use ‘Cheetahs” yet none of them have had the success that Oscar has had. Clearly, he must be doing something right.
Subtopic 3
In this subtopic, I will discuss unconventional ways to enhance athletic performance. Some view prosthetics as a way to make an athlete better, yet only recently have they been outlawed. Also, 'ergogenics' are ways that athletes use things like blood count to give their bodies a competitive advantage.
Subtopic 4
By allowing a ‘robotic’ man to compete against, and perhaps beat, an able-bodied athlete, the spirit of the Olympics is soiled in a way, because the Greeks believed that Man was the greatest machine under the sun. It would be breaking ancient traditions, and although old-fashioned, the Olympic committee has a duty to uphold the standings of those traditions.
Prosthetics can be perceived as a type of performance-enhancement. Pistorious’s prosthetics were proven to be more efficient than the human ankle, clearly giving him an advantage. The same way governing bodies in sports are there to protect the fairness and integrity of the game, any devices used to enhance performance should be closely examined and, if necessary, banned by these bodies. (Lance Armstrong was proven to have an advantage in cycling after his left testicle was removed)
Argument against: Like Pistorious, multiple other athletes use ‘Cheetahs” yet none of them have had the success that Oscar has had. Clearly, he must be doing something right.
Subtopic 3
In this subtopic, I will discuss unconventional ways to enhance athletic performance. Some view prosthetics as a way to make an athlete better, yet only recently have they been outlawed. Also, 'ergogenics' are ways that athletes use things like blood count to give their bodies a competitive advantage.
Subtopic 4
By allowing a ‘robotic’ man to compete against, and perhaps beat, an able-bodied athlete, the spirit of the Olympics is soiled in a way, because the Greeks believed that Man was the greatest machine under the sun. It would be breaking ancient traditions, and although old-fashioned, the Olympic committee has a duty to uphold the standings of those traditions.
Subtopic 1
On the non-Olympic level, there are numerous disabled athletes who have uncovered success on a normal playing field, against normal athletes. Most of these athletes have gained the attention of their local communities because they only have one arm or leg, and most of them are not competing above the high school varsity level.
The point is that kids can compete locally without the use of prosthetics. Most kids want to be considered ‘normal’ and refuse to wear their prosthetics during competition anyway. The spirit and nature of competition is not lost or hindered in any way, and when these athletes win a trophy, they can take pride in their work and effort, just the same as any ‘normal’ kid.
Especially since they do not employ prosthetics, these athletes deserve to compete against able-bodied athletes, since they are most definitely at a mental and physical disadvantage to those who have properly-functioning bodies.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Choosing sides
The overall research question is: Do paraplegic athletes with prosthetic limbs have an advantage over able-bodied athletes, and if they do, should they be banned from competing against these able-bodied athletes?
Pro side: Allow disabled athletes with prosthetics to compete against able-bodied athletes. People with disabilities have been encouraged to try and live ‘normal’ lives. They’ve been told “you can do anything you put your mind to.” What are we telling them if we don’t allow them to compete against ‘normal’ athletes; it’s simply not fair. The ‘advantage’ these athletes carry is not so different from that of ‘normal’ athletes who have extraordinary lung capacities, height/ weight, or other exceptional qualities. In fact, these athletes are probably at a disadvantage, as tests have proven that their muscles and bodies have to do extra work to compensate for their missing limbs. Their bodies carry less blood and therefore less oxygenated blood reaches the extremities, hindering their performance. The world of athletics thrives on exceptional human beings who overcome adversity and do extraordinary things. By limiting the kinds of people who can compete at the highest professional level, we are closing the door to future great athletes and role models of our generation.
Con side: Do not allow disabled athletes with prosthetics to compete against able-bodied athletes. It is not fair to those healthy athletes who train each muscle in their body specifically for countless hours, to be put at a disadvantage against these ‘robotic’ limbs. Injury prevention is a top priority for all coaches, trainers, and players. However, if “normal” players begin to realize that prosthetics, and advances in sports medicine equipment can aid in their performance, they might look to the extreme of hoping to acquire a dangerous injury to gain the same advantage as their “robotic” competitors. We don't want players in a competition who are "only as good as their prosthetics" and if we allow these athletes to compete, we run the risk of wondering where natural talent stops and scientific intervention begins.
Me: I’m definitely torn over this issue. Its ironic because a healthy athlete gets put at a disadvantage when science helps a disabled athlete. Under normal circumstances, you’d feel blessed to have a fully functioning, healthy body, but when you see a paraplegic putting up better stats than you 'because' of his prosthetics, you almost feel “gypped.” You know you worked hard, and so did he, but is his talent really there, or is it in his metal legs? Also, the question of injury presents itself; he doesn’t run the risk of tearing a calf muscle, but I do. could his metal legs in any way affect my performance against him? I suppose where I'm going with this is that athletes with prosthetics that give them an advantage in 'normal' competitions should not be allowed to compete.
Pro side: Allow disabled athletes with prosthetics to compete against able-bodied athletes. People with disabilities have been encouraged to try and live ‘normal’ lives. They’ve been told “you can do anything you put your mind to.” What are we telling them if we don’t allow them to compete against ‘normal’ athletes; it’s simply not fair. The ‘advantage’ these athletes carry is not so different from that of ‘normal’ athletes who have extraordinary lung capacities, height/ weight, or other exceptional qualities. In fact, these athletes are probably at a disadvantage, as tests have proven that their muscles and bodies have to do extra work to compensate for their missing limbs. Their bodies carry less blood and therefore less oxygenated blood reaches the extremities, hindering their performance. The world of athletics thrives on exceptional human beings who overcome adversity and do extraordinary things. By limiting the kinds of people who can compete at the highest professional level, we are closing the door to future great athletes and role models of our generation.
Con side: Do not allow disabled athletes with prosthetics to compete against able-bodied athletes. It is not fair to those healthy athletes who train each muscle in their body specifically for countless hours, to be put at a disadvantage against these ‘robotic’ limbs. Injury prevention is a top priority for all coaches, trainers, and players. However, if “normal” players begin to realize that prosthetics, and advances in sports medicine equipment can aid in their performance, they might look to the extreme of hoping to acquire a dangerous injury to gain the same advantage as their “robotic” competitors. We don't want players in a competition who are "only as good as their prosthetics" and if we allow these athletes to compete, we run the risk of wondering where natural talent stops and scientific intervention begins.
Me: I’m definitely torn over this issue. Its ironic because a healthy athlete gets put at a disadvantage when science helps a disabled athlete. Under normal circumstances, you’d feel blessed to have a fully functioning, healthy body, but when you see a paraplegic putting up better stats than you 'because' of his prosthetics, you almost feel “gypped.” You know you worked hard, and so did he, but is his talent really there, or is it in his metal legs? Also, the question of injury presents itself; he doesn’t run the risk of tearing a calf muscle, but I do. could his metal legs in any way affect my performance against him? I suppose where I'm going with this is that athletes with prosthetics that give them an advantage in 'normal' competitions should not be allowed to compete.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Overview
This year, I will focus my research paper on the use of prosthetics in sports. Very recently there has been an ongoing struggle between fairness and advantages in paraplegic athletes. There are ethical dilemmas which athletes, doctors, committees, and competitors face in dealing with these special cases. The eligibility of these disabled athletes is the topic in question. Whether certain prosthetics give any kind of athletic or performance-enhancing advantage to the bodies they are attached to.
It is an interesting question of ‘advantage’ in sports. One article I briefly skimmed noted that a 6’11’’ basketball player certainly has an ‘advantage’ over a 5’0’’ player of the same ability. Does that mean that the paraplegic athlete who has been given the benefits of science and technology has the same advantage of that 6’11’’ basketball player? Or is his different because technology has intervened?
The touchy subject of fairness comes up in this argument as well. We want disabled athletes to feel welcome. We want them to be able to compete just as well against able-bodied athletes, without either feeling the need to feel compassion for the other. These kids grow up their whole lives trying to be ‘normal’ and when we tell them they can’t compete with the ‘normal’ athletes we risk the integrity of competition itself.
I chose this topic because on my ‘interest inventory’ I noted how fascinated I am with the human body. I also realized my interest in ethics, and the morality that surrounds the medical professions. Of course I love sports, and my growing interest in Physical Therapy edged me towards the decision to study more about the training process of these disabled athletes, and what the world is doing to ensure the best athletes are competing against the best athletes, and the ‘advantages’ presented are ‘fair advantages.’
The overall research question is: Do paraplegic athletes with prosthetic limbs have an advantage over able-bodied athletes, and if they do, should they be banned from competing against these bodied athletes?
It is an interesting question of ‘advantage’ in sports. One article I briefly skimmed noted that a 6’11’’ basketball player certainly has an ‘advantage’ over a 5’0’’ player of the same ability. Does that mean that the paraplegic athlete who has been given the benefits of science and technology has the same advantage of that 6’11’’ basketball player? Or is his different because technology has intervened?
The touchy subject of fairness comes up in this argument as well. We want disabled athletes to feel welcome. We want them to be able to compete just as well against able-bodied athletes, without either feeling the need to feel compassion for the other. These kids grow up their whole lives trying to be ‘normal’ and when we tell them they can’t compete with the ‘normal’ athletes we risk the integrity of competition itself.
I chose this topic because on my ‘interest inventory’ I noted how fascinated I am with the human body. I also realized my interest in ethics, and the morality that surrounds the medical professions. Of course I love sports, and my growing interest in Physical Therapy edged me towards the decision to study more about the training process of these disabled athletes, and what the world is doing to ensure the best athletes are competing against the best athletes, and the ‘advantages’ presented are ‘fair advantages.’
The overall research question is: Do paraplegic athletes with prosthetic limbs have an advantage over able-bodied athletes, and if they do, should they be banned from competing against these bodied athletes?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
