Been watching a lot of athletics lately and wondering how “the fastest man on no legs” will change my former pastime.
Yep, that’s the debate that raged in the Radio Sport studio last week and somehow spilt over into the NZ Herald as a “racist” slur.
South African 400m runner Oscar Pistorius has been the feel-good story of the IAAF World Championships in South Korea, progressing through to the individual semi-finals despite having his lower legs amputated as an infant.
Running on carbon fibre prosthetics (hence his other nickname, “The Blade Runner”), his 45.07s personal best is a full second faster than the New Zealand national record.
Pistorius first created headlines three years ago when he set his sights on making the South African team for the 2008 Beijing Olympics.
The list of Paralympians that have gone on to compete at the Olympics is very small and all are women. One of them is Kiwi archer Neroli Fairhall, who also won gold at the 1982 Brisbane Commonwealth Games from her wheelchair.
At Beijing, Polish table tennis exponent Natalia Partyka and South African swimmer Natalie Du Toit became the first athletes to appear at Paralymics and Olympics in the same year. Partyka contested the teams event without a right hand, while Du Toit finished 16th in the 10km open water race after losing her left leg in a motor scooter accident seven years earlier.
But neither required mechanical assistance to compete.
Initial testing suggested Pistorius’ blades actually gave him a marked advantage over his able-bodied rivals and the IAAF banned him. He protested to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, claiming the tests only measured his top straight-line speed and didn’t factor in his slower acceleration, so the court overturned the ban.
Ultimately, Pistorius didn’t achieve the qualifying time and also missed selection for the 4x400m relay team. Three years later, his performances clearly place him in top world class and the issue has resurfaced.
When you think about it, 400m is probably the perfect distance for Pistorius. His personal bests over the shorter sprints – 10.91s for 100m and 21.41s for 200m – indicate he may not have the top speed or pickup of his able-bodied rivals.
But anyone who has ever run the one lap hard can tell you, it’s not just about how fast you run, but also how well you can maintain form when that tidal wave of lactic acid hits you down the home straight. Under those circumstances, not having leg muscles that seize up in the final metres seems like a distinct benefit.
Now, I love an underdog as much as the next guy, I totally respect all he’s achieved in his career (apologies if that sounds condescending), and was cheering as loud as anyone when he guided the South African team to a national record and relay final at Daegu.
Still, I can’t help feeling that the arbitration court has opened up a real can of worms that may become quite self-serving if it’s called upon to rule on further technology issues in track and field.
The sport has the same drug problems as any other sport and we won’t dwell on them right now. But otherwise, athletics remains relatively “pure” – contests are won by those that simply run fastest, throw furthest, and jump highest and longest.
Tactics definitely play a part and occasionally new techniques (like Fosbury Flop in high jump) will revolutionise events, but generally, technology plays little part in the outcome.
Perhaps the only discipline that currently relies on gadgetry is the pole vault, where competitors are experimenting with carbon fibre construction to replace fiberglass poles.
Occasionally, officialdom will tinker with rules as needed. When javelins began overshooting stadium infields, they adjusted the implements’ balance to limit their flight, an unpopular, but very necessary precaution.
And I fully support the new “one-and-done” false start rule that eliminates much of the gamesmanship in sprinting and ultimately rewards reaction over anticipation.
But track and field already struggles with one arbitrary set of standards for drugs. Pistorius and his legs raise a similar question on the technology front – how much is too much?
The IAAF came up with an answer when they tried to ban Pistorius the first time, eliminating "any technical device that incorporates springs, wheels or any other element that provides a user with an advantage over another athlete not using such a device". The arbitration court threw that rule out.
Sure, you might look at Pistorius’ simply constructed legs now and scoff, but hands up if you remember astronaut Steve Austin, the man barely alive. They rebuilt him, alright ... better ... stronger ... faster.
Bionics are here, people. They might not be up to “Six Million Dollar Man” level yet, but local company Rex Bionics has begun selling an apparatus that enables paraplegics to get out of their wheelchairs and walk.
Sooner or later, you just know someone will front up to a track meet and ask the question.
This comment from 400m world recordholder Michael Johnson seems to sum it up: "I'm supportive of Oscar because the rules state that he can compete.
"My position on the rule is that probably more work should be done. Now that there's this controversy again, I think people are unsure."
By the way, I was intrigued by the IAAF ruling that Pistorius could only contest the lead-off lap – run in lanes – in the relay and then, apparently, only from the inside lane at the very back of the field. Maybe officials feared that his blades posed some kind of threat in an unlaned, free-for-all melee, although realistically, you’re probably more likely to get spiked, or cop a loose elbow or baton in such a situation.
Or they might have worried about him falling over and impeding others around him. This didn’t seem to be a concern when he drew lane seven - between two other runners - of the 400m semis.
Perhaps it was just some small measure of payback for the inconvenience of having to let him run at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment