I never made any comment about Oscar Pistorius during the Olympics because, well, I just didn’t feel it mattered that much. But I’ll do so now because of this. In short, Pistorius was beaten in competition by someone with better prosthetics, and he didn’t like it. (hattip: Althouse)
Pistorius should not have been allowed to compete in the Olympics, because it should be obvious to everyone that he doesn’t belong in competition with non-disabled athletes because there is no clarifying purpose to his competition. The whole point of competition is to clarify who is the best. When a variable like prosthetics are thrown into the equation, that distinction has been clouded because everyone will suspect the prosthetics of having given an unfair advantage.
It’s unfortunate that he doesn’t have lower legs, and it’s fantastic he’s been able to push the envelope as far as he has. But if he’d actually been able to medal, how could anyone escape the conclusion that he was there only because of his prosthetics? We already know he has a different set of prosthetics for competition versus his normal life- that right there should be all we need to know that his track performance isn’t entirely tied to his training.
That’s what the article demonstrates about competitors with prosthetics- they can be gamed by equipment selection.
What will the Olympics do when the next Pistorius comes along at 6′ 5″ with prosthetics that give him (or her) a shot at a medal? Because believe you me, the only reason for the lovefest with Pistorius at the Olympics was because he was a complete non-threat for a medal. As soon as that changes, you can bet your bottom dollar that the other athletes will complain, loudly and often. That’s the nature of the athletic competition at that level.
The Olympics, and other current world-level events, should craft a simple rule that prohibits competition with assistance of any sort. Life may not have been “fair” to Pistorius (whatever that means), but spreading that “fairness” to those without disabilities doesn’t improve competition. It complicates it to the point of making it meaningless.
One reply on “Pistorius Had It Coming”
After reading the article, I tend to disagree. OP is trying to legitimately make the argument that paraolympians/athletes should be able to complete against olympian/athletes. In order to do that he knows that he has to overcome the questions of competitive advantage, which is the hurdle that he most recently cleared to get in the olympics. Many people feel that the legs offer an advantage, even though, you know, they are a disadvantage. In order to keep those voices at bay, there has to be some type of standardization to the system that ensures that people aren’t taking advantage of their, you know, disadvantage.
I think OP is good for sports, competition and overall, the fight against adversity. The same way that Lance Armstrong inspired millions of people to fight, regardless of what he was doing, he was fighting, and winning, and he is the greatest cyclist ever. OP may never be the greatest runner ever, but maybe someday a paraolympian will have the chance to become the greatest ever. If OP breaks those barriers now, he is also responsible for making sure the barriers don’t get put up again later.
Human nature is not to fight, it is not to take the difficult road. While many people do not take the easy way, most unfortunately do, even when life has tried to kick them down the more difficult path. I like what he is doing and what he is saying. If an athlete with no legs, using the standardized benefits of prosthetics as, you know, legs, can’t compete against an athlete using the state of the art drug of choice at the time to win an olympic competition…what is this world coming to?