Artifical Limbs Allowed following overruling

Members Area In the News
1

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hB5lril82X-c-GZC-Pdscy8aODrw

LAUSANNE (AFP) — South African Paralympic champion Oscar Pistorius won an appeal at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) Friday that could pave the way for an historic participation in the Beijing Olympics.

The disabled 21-year-old sprinter runs on specially adapted carbon fibre blades after having his legs amputated below the knee when he was 11 months old because he was born without fibula bones in his legs.

The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) had banned the 400m runner from all competitions involving able-bodied athletes because of claims that the artificial legs he uses give him an unfair advantage.

However, CAS ruled Friday against the IAAF decision, adding: “… it is revoked with immediate effect and the athlete is eligible to compete in IAAF events while wearing the Ossur Cheetah Flex Foot Prosthetics, as used in the scientific tests requested by the IAAF and presented as an exhibit at the CAS hearing.”

The decision is a huge boost to Pistorius’ bid to compete in the able-bodied events in Beijing.

However, to do so the South African now has to overcome the minimum Olympic qualifying time of 45.95sec, or 45.55 if another South African runs less than 45.95. Pistorius’ personal record is 46.46.

After hearing the news the South African said: “Today I can pursue my dream of competing in the Olympic Games. If it’s not for Beijing, it will be for London in 2012.”

Pistorius, who has an 11-month-old baby, has, thanks to his prosthetics, won Paralympic titles and challenged the times set by top-level able-bodied athletes.

However, a scientific investigation into his springy prosthetics carried out by the Institute of Biomechanics at Cologne University last November found that they gave him a clear competitive edge over such athletes.

Pistorius lodged an appeal with CAS in February.

And CAS’s three-man panel decided that the IAAF, which claimed that Pistorius benefited from a ‘technical device’, did not prove that claim to a sufficient extent.

The CAS statement added: "On the basis of the evidence brought by the experts called by both parties, the Panel was not persuaded that there was sufficient evidence of any metabolic advantage in favour of a double amputee using the Cheetah Flex-Foot.

“Furthermore, the CAS Panel has considered that the IAAF did not prove that the biomechanical effects of using this particular prosthetic device gives Oscar Pistorius an advantage over athletes not using the device.”

CAS stated that their decision in this case would not open up the floodgates for athletes with disabilities.

"The CAS Panel has emphasised that the scope of application of this decision is limited to the eligibility of Oscar Pistorius only and, only, to his use of the specific prosthesis in issue in this appeal.

“It follows that this decision has no application to the eligibility of any other athletes or any other model of prosthetic limb.”

Despite his disability Pistorius went through school as a keen athlete, taking part in rugby, water polo, tennis and wrestling.

He only took up running competitively in January 2004 after he sustained a knee injury while playing rugby.

Only a few months later, aided by his ‘Bladerunner’ limbs, Pistorius went on to win Paralympic Gold in the 200 metres at the Athens Games, where he also won bronze in the 100m.

It was not until March 2007 that the IAAF voted in an amendment to IAAF rule 144.2 (e) for the purpose of regulating technical devices “that incorporate springs, wheels or any other element that provides the user with an advantage over other another athlete not using such a device”.

2

No surprise here, the IAAF study failed to measure enough variables, therefore the validity of their conclusions could be questioned.

3

Without sitting here and analyzing all of the facts…just let the dude run. He’s gonna get blown up anyway and not affect the final outcome plus he will generate huge interest for a struggling sport.

4

And now that one-legged female swimmer should wear a flipper to give her propulsion she lacks due to her missing limb.

The folks at Speedo who designed the sharkskin suit worn by most of this year’s world recordbreakers should also design her a flipper which should soon enable her or some woman better than her to beat Michael Phelps and surpass Mark Spitz’s achievement of seven gold medals at the one Olympics.

In fact all women should be given dispensation to afix whatever contraptions they like in order to be able to compete on equal terms with the highest-achieving males in each and every sport.

And Jeremy Wariner should be permitted to wear some type of blades in order not to be at a disadvantage to Pistorius in the second half of their 400m races.

Let the synthetic revolution in sports begin.

5

Friday, 16 May 2008 Pistorius is eligible for IAAF competition

Oscar Pistorius (RSA) competing in Rome - Golden League (Getty Images)
Monte-Carlo - The Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”) this afternoon has declared that Oscar Pistorius (RSA) is eligible to compete in competitions under IAAF Rules.

The decision is a culmination of a process in which Mr Pistorius and the IAAF have co-operated together to resolve the issue of whether the “Cheetah” prostheses Mr Pistorius wears give him an advantage in competition. While the IAAF has been keen to give Mr Pistorius every opportunity to participate in its events, it had to deal with some concerns that he may be gaining an unfair advantage.

As a result, in November 2007, Mr Pistorius and the IAAF voluntarily engaged in a process of testing under the auspices of Professor Brüggemann at the Sportshochschule in Cologne. Professor Brüggemann provided his report in December 2007. Following this report, the IAAF Council took the decision that, because Professor Brüggemann had found that the prostheses gave Mr Pistorius an advantage, he was not eligible to compete.

Mr Pistorius referred the matter to CAS where further expert advice was obtained and reviewed. The hearing before CAS was conducted in an open, constructive and co-operative fashion with all parties keen to establish the truth.

The CAS Panel has today delivered its decision. It has decided that, at the moment, not enough is known scientifically to be able to prove that Mr Pistorius obtains an advantage from the use of the prostheses. Consequently, it has cleared him to run.

President Lamine Diack has made the following comment:

"The IAAF accepts the decision of CAS and Oscar will be welcomed wherever he competes this summer. He is an inspirational man and we look forward to admiring his achievements in the future.”

IAAF

6

My point is that the only thing I hear sports fans (who aren’t big track fans) talk about is the guy with the prosthetic leg. I think it will generate much more interest in athletics at the games. I really don’t care either way but it will definitely expose more people to the sport. If he was in the USA he wouldn’t even make the trials so I don’t think people are going to go cutting their legs off for prosthetics just yet.

7

I thought he was still quite a way off making the qualifying standard (2 sec?). Next he’ll be taking court action to get a dispensation for that saying he would have made the time except for the distraction of the IAAF appeal. :rolleyes:

8

Here is the actual ruling from CAS

http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/document/1085/5048/0/Pistorius%20award%20

Some interesting stuff in there.
The IAAF instructed Prof. Bruggermann to only conduct testing on the straight portions of the 400m - since he’s already accelerated by this time, and doesn’t have to negotiate a curve with his prosthetics.

The IAAF members who organized the study only prepared a summary of the study done by Bruggermann to the IAAF Council, and this summary was not given to Bruggermann to approve, and that it was in fact not completely accurate.

IAAF Council members who abstained from the vote were considered to have consented to declare Pistorius inelligible.

The rule that is “broken” by Pistorius’s blades was only introduced a short time before the test occurred. Rule 144.2(e) is very ambiguous in nature.

Dr Locatelli of the IAAF said that the rule did not preclude Pistorious from competing in the 100m or 200m events, because (I’m re-phrasing here) the blades are a disadvantage over that distance when compared to human legs.

The Cheetah Flex Foot has been unchanged in its design since 1997, and has been used for 10 years by disabled athletes. Pistorius is the first and only athlete using it to be remotely competitive against able bodied athletes.

The decision tries hard not to set precedent. The CAS panel says both that further testing might show that Pistorius has an advantage from his blades, and that the decision does not mean that he can then use any improved version of the flex foot. It also says that the decision is completely unrelated to any other athlete or prosthetic, even if they are using the very same prosthetic.

9

Your argument resonates like the words of a conservative religious right. No need to fear the “synthetic revolution”. The study fails to show an advantage of wearing prosthetics when reviewed by a third party.
This doesn’t prove that prosthetics don’t have an advantage. What it does show is the IAAF researcher’s bias. In order to keep Oscar out of the OG, the IAAF shot themselves in the foot. Sometimes science wins over politics.

10

I should add prosthetics has yet to proven to have an advantage, nor is there proof that they don’t have an advantage.

11

From what I’ve read, this wasn’t exactly some impartial third party that showed it “didn’t help.” Rather, it was a group that was sought out by Pistorius’s group and testing methods were not open to scrutiny from the IAAF or others. On a similar note, when the IAAF conducted its testing, it allowed any and all people that Pistorius’s camp wanted to be around to be around and investigate the methods and testing procedures.

12

Monte-Carlo - The Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”)

Judged the evidence from both sides. They are the impartial third party.

13

When I first heard the news about the appeal I thought, “Oh great - some bleeding hearts allowed him in.” After reading the CAS report on their decision, it’s clearly the correct decision, even though I strongly believe the limbs do provide an advantage. The IAAF just did a terrible job of trying to show this. If you read through it Davan, you will likely come to the same conclusion.

14

Wow, you guys are going nuts. I definitely don’t want to get in the middle of this one. All I will say is they still have to qualify the 4x400 first, something they have not done yet (at least that’s what the news has said). I might be wrong though.

15

Religious right? Get a grip.

I don’t care that much if he “runs” in the Olympics or not. I think he will be the main attraction at the zoo if he does.

I fully comprehend the legal status of his claim for “equal rights” but I’m for athletics in it’s most fundamental form. I don’t like technology intruding into running events. But if it must, then so be it. Open the flood gates. They can start by bringing back the “brush spikes” and let everyman do his best.

But I was serious about the one-legged swimmer. She’s got to be considering the use of some kind of apparatus like a flipper …

Despite what CAS have stated about this ruling on Oscar not applying to anyone else, the court has set a precedent…

16

Amputee Du Toit qualifies for Beijing
Simon Baskett , Reuters

Published: Friday, May 16

SEVILLE, Spain (Reuters) - South African amputee Natalie Du Toit qualified for the Beijing Olympics on Saturday after she finished fourth in the 10km race in the Open Water World Championships.

[b]The 24-year-old, who lost her left leg when she was hit by a car while riding her scooter in 2001, clocked a time of two hours two minutes 7.8 seconds, just 5.1 seconds behind winner Larisa Ilchenko of Russia.

The 10km open water race is making its debut as an Olympic event in Beijing.[/b]

Du Toit almost qualified for the Sydney Olympics in three events at the age of 16 but she suffered the accident a year later.

She became the first amputee to race in the finals of a major able-bodied swimming competition when she made the final of the 800m freestyle at the 2002 Commonwealth Games.

She missed out on qualification for the 2004 Athens Olympics, but did compete in the Paralympics the same year where she won five gold medals and a silver.

She also won gold when competing against able-bodied swimmers in the 1,500m freestyle at the All Africa Games in Algiers last year.

Du Toit has since switched to the long distance open water events, saying: “I have always had a dream to take part in an Olympic Games, and losing my leg didn’t change anything.”

Another South African, sprinter Oscar Pistorius who is a double amputee, is also trying to qualify for the Olympics.

Unlike Du Toit, he has been banned from competing because the carbon-fibre blades he has attached to his legs when he runs are deemed to give him an advantage. Du Toit does not use a prosthetic limb when swimming.

Pistorius has appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) about the decision.

17

WEYAND’s SPRING THEORY FINDS AN AN ADORING AUDIENCE AT THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT

Study Revives Olympic Prospects For Amputee Sprinter

ScienceDaily (May 16, 2008) - Based on Rice and MIT findings, the Court of Arbitration for Sports in Lausanne, Switzerland, has ruled that Pistorius is eligible to participate in International Association of Athletics Federations sanctioned competitions.

If he qualifies for the 2008 Beijing games, Pistorius would be the first disabled athlete ever to run against able-bodied athletes in an Olympic event.

A world-renowned team of experts in biomechanics and physiology from six universities, led by Professor Hugh Herr of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Media Lab, refute scientific claims that the prostheses worn by Oscar Pistorius, a 21-year-old South African bilateral amputee track athlete, provide him with an unfair advantage in the 400-meter race.

Their conclusions were based on data collected at the Rice University Locomotion Laboratory, under the direction of Professor Peter Weyand.

Pistorius hopes to run in the 400-meter race at the Beijing Olympics this summer.

Based on the team’s findings, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne, Switzerland, has ruled that Pistorius is eligible to participate in International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) sanctioned competitions. If he qualifies for the 2008 Beijing games, Pistorius would be the first disabled athlete ever to run against able-bodied athletes in an Olympic event.

The team’s findings were presented to the CAS April 29-30 by Herr and Professor Rodger Kram of the University of Colorado at Boulder, and provided the foundation for Pistorius’ appeal to overturn the IAAF decision that previously banned him from running against able-bodied athletes in races that are governed by IAAF rules.

The team’s findings were presented at the CAS, where Pistorius was represented by the international law firm of Dewey & LeBoeuf on a pro-bono basis.

In addition to Herr, Weyand and Kram, the panel of experts included Professor Matthew Bundle from the University of Wyoming, an expert in the energetics and mechanics of sprinting performance; Craig McGowan, from the University of Texas at Austin, a leading authority on muscle, tendon and joint mechanics;

Alena Grabowski, from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, an expert in human locomotor energetics and biomechanics; and Jean-Benoît Morin from the University of Saint-Etienne, an expert in the mechanics of human running performance.

None received compensation for their research or participation in the hearing.

The authors plan to submit the study to a peer-reviewed journal now that the legal case has been settled.

The scientific team was asked to evaluate the IAAF’s initial claim that the Cheetah Flex-Foot prostheses (J-shaped, high-performance prostheses used for running) worn by Pistorius give him an advantage over able-bodied runners. The team concluded that the scientific evidence put forth by the IAAF investigation to ban Pistorius was fundamentally flawed.

“While an athlete’s performance in sprints of very short duration is determined almost entirely by mechanical factors, in races of longer duration, such as the 400m, performance depends on both mechanical and metabolic factors,” said Herr, a bilateral amputee who heads the MIT Media Lab’s Biomechatronics research group.:slight_smile:

Based on this performance link, the scientists refuted the IAAF findings on two major points: the speed-duration relationship and rates of metabolic energy expenditure.

Specifically, the scientists concluded that:

  • Pistorius’ ability to maintain speed over the course of longer sprints–his speed-duration relationship–is essentially identical to that of able-bodied runners, indicating that he fatigues in the same manner as able-bodied sprinters.

  • Pistorius’ rates of metabolic energy expenditure do not differ from elite non-amputee runners. In particular, he has nearly the same running economy, or rate of oxygen consumption at submaximal speeds, and a similar maximal rate of oxygen consumption as elite non-amputee runners.

“Based on the data collected at Rice, the blades do not confer an enhanced ability to hold speed over a 400m race,” Weyand said. “Nor does our research support the IAAF’s claims of how the blades provide some sort of mechanical advantage for sprinting.”

“The study commissioned by the IAAF claimed that Pistorius has a 25 percent energetic advantage at 400m race speeds. That claim is specious because anaerobic energy supply cannot be quantified,” Kram said.

In summary, the team of experts unanimously concluded that the IAAF allegations were not scientifically valid.

18

Religious right? Maybe that was a bit far. But I did interpret some fear mongering in your response, e.g. the beginning of the synthetic revolution.

These scenarios need to be dealt case by case. Justifying the use of swimming aids by the use of prosthetics for runners doesn’t make sense.

Every new WR in swimming is a by product of technical innovations. Not only have suits reduced form drag, but also modified lane ropes has reduce surface drag. Today’s pools are significantly faster.

No need to worry about Oscar setting New World records, he merely wants to qualify.

19

Their conclusions were based on data collected at the Rice University Locomotion Laboratory, under the direction of Professor Peter Weyand

If P. Weylands on your side thats one big advantage.


Davan wrote

From what I’ve read, this wasn’t exactly some impartial third party that showed it “didn’t help.” Rather, it was a group that was sought out by Pistorius’s group and testing methods were not open to scrutiny from the IAAF or others.

Maybe the CAS decision should be overturned because he had too many experts on his side. Now according to Davan seeking out a group of experts to fight your case is not impartial. Maybe Oscar should have relied on anecdotal experiences of his coach to persuade the court that the prosthetics doesn’t offer an advantage.

Also according to Davan the experts that Pristorius’s used didn’t have their findings subject to scrutiny to others. Yet these findings will be published in the JAP journal for peer reviews.

20

Based on this performance link, the scientists refuted the IAAF findings on two major points: the speed-duration relationship and rates of metabolic energy expenditure.

Specifically, the scientists concluded that:

  • Pistorius’ ability to maintain speed over the course of longer sprints–his speed-duration relationship–is essentially identical to that of able-bodied runners, indicating that he fatigues in the same manner as able-bodied sprinters.

  • Pistorius’ rates of metabolic energy expenditure do not differ from elite non-amputee runners. In particular, he has nearly the same running economy, or rate of oxygen consumption at submaximal speeds, and a similar maximal rate of oxygen consumption as elite non-amputee runners.

“Based on the data collected at Rice, the blades do not confer an enhanced ability to hold speed over a 400m race,” Weyand said. “Nor does our research support the IAAF’s claims of how the blades provide some sort of mechanical advantage for sprinting.”

“The study commissioned by the IAAF claimed that Pistorius has a 25 percent energetic advantage at 400m race speeds. That claim is specious because anaerobic energy supply cannot be quantified,” Kram said.

In summary, the team of experts unanimously concluded that the IAAF allegations were not scientifically valid.

I pointed out in January that IAAF conclusions were questionable, and if they submitted their findings to peer review journals than the credibility of such findings would be brought into doubt. Now when I did raise the creditability of the IAAF study, I got hammered on here by several poster who absolutely sure that IAAF was right.

The BBC reported how OP had an 25% advantage. I wonder if the BBC will retract their earlier claims, or will they air these findings by Professor Weyland? Let’s hope justice will be served.