Dominic Lawson in the Independent comments on the Pistorius controversy at some length. Pistorius is a man with no feet, who runs in athletic events using a pair of carbon-fibre leg extensions. He has made the transition from disabled events to able-bodied events. In 2007, the IAAF banned his extensions from able-bodied events after receiving a scientific report which said they give an unfair advantage.
A year later, they reversed this decision without adequate explanation. Sports scientist Dr. Ross Tucker complained that Pistorius own scientists had said that he gains a ten second advantage. It appears as if IAAF abandoned principle in order to take advantage of his popularity and fame. They did so in the knowledge that he wasn't good enough to win a gold medal. Who is to say that someone else will not emerge who is, possibly as a result of a car accident? Pistorius is slow out of the blocks, but fast towards the end of the event. What will they do if he changes to the 800 metres? The regulators have opened Pandora's Box.
Hugh Herr of MIT says that in the future, competitors in the Paralympics will run faster than in the regular Olympics. He is not necessarily correct in my opinion, as the runners in the regular Olympics are allegedly free to use Pistorius devices. Lawson imagines they will not do so as it would require radical surgery, but the need for this is not obvious to me. A differently-shaped attachment bracket would suffice. The able-bodied runner using them would not get as much advantage as Pistorius, because of the weight of his feet, but I suspect he could still get some, especially if the devices were made even longer.
If the authorities were to specify that athletes with feet were not allowed to use the devices, even more unpleasant possibilities could arise. It's clear that Pistorius is not a great athlete, or he would win easily. Suppose one of the near-top athletes was desperate enough to win that he had his feet chopped off? A lot of competitors have been willing to do themselves horrifying amounts of harm to win at sport.
Where does it all end? What is the distinction between a prosthesis and a piece of transportation machinery? It is not obvious, once the criterion of not conferring advantage over natural feet has been abandoned. Are roller-skates acceptable? Bicycles? Presumably not, but on what basis are they to be refused if Pistorius device is acceptable? Are stilts a prosthesis? Pogosticks? Pistorius runs, but equipped with the right device, why not bound along like a kangaroo?
Lawson suggests that "surely the time has come to insist that those taking part in able-bodied athletics should do so without anything attached to their lower limbs beyond standardised running shoes." I'm sure he is right, but this idea is insufficient to solve the problem, as running shoes are currently not well standardised. Efforts to enforce standardisation would encounter fierce resistance from the manufacturers. If they are allowed to have different brands, and engage in technical innovation, the problem will recur in disguised form. If a manufacturer develops a new 'shoe', which the authorities think is not just a shoe but an enhancement, then courtroom battle will be joined, with large sums at stake. The authorities need to get ahead of the game, and develop appropriate rules without waiting for technical developments of an unacceptable type. It is necessary to come up with a technically rigorous definition of a shoe. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Golf failed to grasp this nettle many years ago, and has had serious trouble ever since. They failed to adequately specify what constituted golf equipment. As a result new clubs were developed which allowed players to hit the ball too far, with the result that the course bunkers and streams are now in the wrong place.
Lawson briefly discusses the controversy surrounding Caster Semenya, a 'female' athlete who has been subject to a prolonged investigation to discover whether she is actually female. Again, the IAAF has reversed itself, first banning, then allowing her to compete. Lawson points out that new medical knowledge has blurred the distinction between male and female, and suggests that segregated women's sport should simply be abolished. I don't know if this suggestion is tongue-in-cheek, but it is clear that confronted with persons of intermediate sexuality, the authorities are in a muddle.
Sport has historically lagged behind innovation, which often causes harm rather than bringing benefit. Another dangerous technical challenge is emerging. High-tech nanobots are being developed which allow delivery of drugs to specific sites within the body. Medically this is beneficial, as it reduces side-effects, but it will make drug testing much more difficult, perhaps impossible. The drug will not appear in the athlete's urine in any recognisable form. Athletics is in big trouble, and its rulers seem unequal to the challenge.
No comments:
Post a Comment