Pistorius decision pending

Members Area In the News
1

IAAF call time on Oscar Pistorius’ dream
By Tom Knight
Last Updated: 2:03am GMT 10/01/2008

Have your say Read comments

Oscar Pistorius’ dream of competing against able-bodied athletes at the Beijing Olympics will end today with the conclusion of a report into his carbon-fibre blades.

Blades of glory: but Oscar Pistorius’ prosthetics rule him out
The South African, 21, will be told by the International Association of Athletics Federations that his J-shaped blades constitute a contravention of their rule banning technical aids.

The IAAF decision follows a series of tests carried out last November on Pistorius and his prosthetics.

Conducted at the German Sports University biomechanic laboratory and with a £50,000 bill paid for by the IAAF, the tests were designed to establish if the £2,000 Cheetah Flex Foot gave the South African an advantage.

The IAAF refused to discuss the content of the report but in comments to a German newspaper, Professor Peter Bruggeman, who led the tests, said: “He has a considerable advantage compared with athletes without prosthetic limbs who have undergone the same tests.”

advertisement
The decision by the IAAF’s ruling Council will come as a bitter blow to Pistorius, who wanted to capitalise on his Paralympic success in Athens by competing in the Olympics in Beijing.

He pushed his case throughout last summer, running in the South African championships and two races on the European circuit.

Pistorius, who was born without fibulae in both legs and underwent a double amputation below the knees at the age of 11 months, finished second in a 400 metres B-race at Rome’s Golden League meeting.

He then came to Britain, where he lined up in a Grand Prix 400m against a world-class field, including the Olympic champion, Jeremy Wariner.

The much-hyped event turned out to be something of a damp squib, with Wariner pulling up after a couple of strides and Pistorius finishing a distant last.

Pistorius insisted that his blades offered him no advantage. He said: “There’s been talk about the blades being bionic but this model is what we call a passive foot.

“The output energy is not as much as the input energy, so the energy you take to compress the prosthetic isn’t what it gives out, which means it definitely does not give an unfair advantage.”

Film of his race in Rome, which formed part of the research, showed, however, that, unlike able-bodied runners, he was able to cover the second half of the race much faster than the first, reaching his top speed around the final bend.

Unless Pistorius decides to seek a second opinion, which would be expensive and time-consuming, his ambitions on the track must lie with the Paralympics, which start in Beijing on Sept 6.

2

Not very fair. Just like cricket umpiring sometimes you just have to accept the wrong decisions made against you.

3

How do we know the decision is wrong?

4

The IAAF tested for advantages for prosthetic. Testing material stiffness. However they failed to test for any biomechancial disadvantages for running with prosthetics.

5

“Film of his race in Rome, which formed part of the research, showed, however, that, unlike able-bodied runners, he was able to cover the second half of the race much faster than the first, reaching his top speed around the final bend.”

Silly boy - Oscar should have run the first 200m flat out something around 200m PB pace, guaranteeing he would have come home slower than his first 200m.

Then again, it’s a pretty stupid argument to begin with and the ‘testers’ should acknowledge that maybe Oscar went out more conservative than his opponents, instead of using it (negative splitting the 2nd 200m) against him.

6

’
Yes he was manipulated. I am sure if they tested coupling times or contact points in reference to COM. They would have found data that showed some disadvantages of running with prosthetics.

7

They should just let him in with the stipulation that if he wins, then he’s banned:)

8

They should just let him in with the stipulation that if he wins, then he’s banned

9

If I knew I’d be considerably faster with the prosthetics and was already a high-level runner, I’d take the machete to mine.

This whole thing is so silly. Sharmar’s right - why wouldn’t they test for the obvious disadvantages?

10

Their obviously serving their own interests. I am sure if Oscar went to most university biomechanics department they would freely test other kinetic variables that would show the bigger picture.

11

According to the media - BEFORE the tests were done - Pistorius, his coach and his agent were very enthusiastic about the professional attitude of the IAAF and the professor in Germany. Now, AFTER the tests and the results - not in favour of what they want - they request a second opinion, will not accept the outcome of this one test, etc. I don’t understand the change in thinking.

The results are clear - he HAS an advantage with the “Cheetahs”, as he calls his ‘legs’. Furthermore - no tests were done on the advantage re the lactic acid buffer … With these extra tests, it will be clear that he has more advantages than disadvantages.

Why the big interest? Why all these arguments, threats to sue the IAAF, etc? (Arrogant and uncalled for statements levelled at the IAAF were made by Pistorius in the media.)

My recommendation for the Pistorius team will be - ACCEPT the outcome, practice for and take part at the Paralympics … where he will be on the same level as the other athletes. And where he will receive the recognition for his ‘legal’ performances.

12

Your comments are misguided. It is highly probable if the IAAF tested other variables then the results would indicate that prosthetics offer no significant advantage. As a physiologists my recommendation to the Pistorius team is to dispute the validity of the conclusion because the wrong kinetic variables were measured.

13

Pistorius vows to fight moves to ban him

11 January 2008 (16:37)

Double-amputee sprinter Oscar Pistorius said on Friday he will appeal “at the highest levels” if the IAAF bars him from competing in the Beijing Olympics on grounds that his prosthetic racing blades give him an unfair edge.

“I feel that it is my responsibility, on behalf of myself and all other disabled athletes, to stand firmly and not allow one organisation to inhibit our ability to compete using the very tools without which we simply cannot walk, let alone run,” Pistorius said. “I will not stand down.”

The IAAF postponed until Monday its decision on whether the 21-year-old South African can compete in Beijing. The federation is widely expected to rule that Pistorius is ineligible because he gets a mechanical advantage from his racing blades.

German professor Gert-Peter Brueggemann, who conducted tests on the prosthetic limbs, said they give him a clear edge over able-bodied runners.

But Pistorius said he was “even more resolute” in his belief that the “Cheetah” limbs to do not give him any competitive boost.

“Should the IAAF elect to use this information to ban me from competing in IAAF sanctioned events, I will appeal this decision at the highest levels, while also continuing with my quest to race in the Paralympic Games and hopefully the Olympic Games,” he said at a news conference.

The ruling by the International Association of Athletics Federations was first expected on Thursday but was postponed for a second time until Monday.

“The IAAF has now received a letter from the athlete Oscar Pistorius,” the federation said in a statement. “The IAAF will not make any announcement on this case until Monday.”

IAAF president Lamine Diack and the 27-member IAAF Council will assess that letter over the weekend.

Pistorius could appeal any decision, including taking the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne, Switzerland.

“It is my hope that the IAAF will congratulate me and welcome me to the Olympic stage, thereby living up to its credo to `encourage participation in athletics at all levels throughout the world regardless of age, gender or race, for I am one of those persons, too,” Pistorius said.

Pistorius worked with Brueggemann in Cologne over two days of testing in November to see to what extent the j-shaped carbon-fibre “Cheetah” extensions to his amputated legs differed from the legs of fully-abled runners.

Brueggemann told Die Welt newspaper last month that, based on his research, Pistorius “has considerable advantages over athletes without prosthetic limbs who were tested by us.”

“It was more than just a few percentage points. I did not expect it to be so clear,” he added.

Brueggemann and his scientists tested Pistorius’s energy consumption and compared it with data of able-bodied 400-metre runners of the same speed.

Pistorius said he was disturbed that Brueggemann had spoken of the results before he had received them himself and “can only wonder as to his motivation and who facilitated this action.”

“While I appreciate the consideration and the expense that the IAAF has taken upon itself to evaluate my case, the experts I have spoken with believe that the data that has been collected from the testing considers too few of the variables that need to be examined to make a decision of this magnitude,” Pistorius said.

The IAAF adopted a rule last summer prohibiting the use of any “technical aids” deemed to give an athlete an advantage over another.

Ossur, the Icelandic company which is a leader in the production of prosthetics, braces and supports and also made Pistorius’s blades, has said the blades do not provide an edge over able-bodied athletes.

Pistorius has set world records in the 100, 200 and 400 in Paralympic events. To make the Olympics in Beijing, Pistorius would still need to qualify for the South African team and make the qualifying times.

Pistorius was born without fibulas - the long, thin outer bone between the knee and ankle - and was 11 months old when his legs were amputated below the knee.

He began running competitively four years ago to treat a rugby injury, and nine months later won the 200 meters at the 2004 Paralympic Games in Athens.

Pistorius - nicknamed the “Blade Runner” - competed in the 400 at two international-level able-bodied meets in 2007. He finished second in a “B” race in 46.90 seconds at the Golden League meet in Rome on July 13 and, two days later, was disqualified for running out of his lane in Sheffield, England.

14

And when he wins his appeal to CAS I hope he enters the Olympic high jump because it’s about time the 9ft barrier was broken…but let him break the 800m WR first, something under 1:40 seems possible based on his second half results in the 400m.

I’m sorry. I think Oscar is a brave, articulate and inspirational guy but I also think he has no place on the track at the regular Olympics.

15

I think Oscar & his coach were very naive when they knew what the IAAF planned on testing. There could be only one result when testing material stiffness & elastance of prosthetics v human leg. Sometime’s a little bit of background science does come in handy.

16

Two things…

In his case, he wasn’t even going to make the B standard to qualify, and having him run in the relay would be asking for a DQ.

Thing #2, I don’t think the IAAF is really dense enough to think he has an advantage, but rather think that eventually prostetics will outpace human flesh and bone and don’t want to have to recant on this ruling(presumably an umbrella one).

17

I agree totally on the issue of creating precedence, thin edge of the wedge and all that. The IAAF need to try to keep it as natural as possible (and I may be drawing quite a long bow here, but perhaps that is one consideration as to the continued survival of the walk as an Olympic discipline : surely the most natural of athletic disciplines).

I also speculated on relay exchange zone matters, though I’m sure the safety aspects of this could be resolved (albeit perhaps at the expense of performance).

18

OSCAR IS OUT. AND FOR THOSE WHO CHALLENGED THE CONTENT OF THE TESTING, IT DOES APPEAR THAT THE EXAMINATIONS OF THE PROSTHETICS WAS ONLY ONE OF MANY MATTERS CONSIDERED BY THE TEAM IN COLOGNE - AS HAD BEEN REASONABLY ASSUMED.

OSCAR SHOULD NOW CONCENTRATE HIS EFFORTS ON BREAKING ABLE-BODIED WORLD RECORDS WHILE HE COMPETES - PRESUMABLY AGAINST OTHERS USING “CHEETAH” BLADES - IN THE EQUAL COMPETITION PROVIDED IN PARALYMPIC EVENTS. KK

Oscar Pistorius - Independent Scientific study concludes that cheetah prosthetics offer clear mechanical advantages

Monday 14 January 2008

Monte Carlo - The IAAF has received the results of an independent scientific study carried out by Professor Peter Brüggemann at the German Sport University in Cologne. This study made a biomechanical and physiological analysis of long sprint running by a double transtibial amputee athlete Oscar Pistorius (RSA) using “cheetah” prosthetics, and also compared this athlete with five able-boded athletes who are capable of similar levels of performance at 400m.

The tests, which took place on Monday 12 and Tuesday 13 November in the Institute of Biomechanics and Orthopaedics, were initiated by the IAAF with the approval and participation of Oscar in order to see whether the prosthetics used by him should be considered as technical aids which give him an advantage over other athletes not using them, in contravention of IAAF competition rule 144.2.*

The objective results of this study are that:

  • Pistorius was able to run with his prosthetic blades at the same speed as the able bodied sprinters with about 25% less energy expenditure. As soon as a given speed is reached, running with the prosthetics needs less additional energy than running with natural limbs.

  • Once the physiological potential of Oscar Pistorius and the able-bodied control athletes had been estimated, using three different methods, it is clear that Pistorius’ potential was not higher than that of the controls, even though their performance results were similar.

  • The biomechanical analysis demonstrated major differences in the sprint mechanics used by a below-knee amputee using prosthetics when compared to athletes with natural legs. The maximum vertical ground reaction forces and the vertical impulses are different in a highly significant way and the amount of energy return of the prosthetic blade have never been reported for a human muscle driven ankle joint in sprint running.

  • The positive work, or returned energy, from the prosthetic blade is close to three times higher than with the human ankle joint in maximum sprinting.

  • The energy loss in the prosthetic blade was measured at 9.3% during the stance phase while the average energy loss in the ankle joint of the able bodied control athletes was measured at 41.4%. This means that the mechanical advantage of the blade in relation to the healthy ankle joint of an able bodied athlete is higher than 30%.

It is evident that an athlete using the Cheetah prosthetic is able to run at the same speed as able bodied athletes with lower energy consumption. Running with prosthetic blades leads to less vertical motion combined with less mechanical work for lifting the body. As well as this, the energy loss in the blade is significantly lower than in the human ankle joints in sprinting at maximum speed. An athlete using this prosthetic blade has a demonstrable mechanical advantage (more than 30%) when compared to someone not using the blade.

IAAF Council has been able to review the full report and has decided that the prosthetic blades known as “cheetahs” should be considered as technical aids in clear contravention of IAAF Rule 144.2. As a result, Oscar Pistorius is not eligible to compete in competitions organised under IAAF Rules.

Note for editors concerning test procedures and parameters:

  • Analysis was carried out by a team of more than 10 scientists, including staff from the physiology laboratory of Professor J. Mester (Institute of Training Science and Sport Informatics).

  • 12 high speed cameras (250 frames per second) were used to record 3D kinematics, with another 4 highspeed cameras to observe sagittal plane motion

  • Force platforms were used to record ground reaction forces and point of force application

  • Athletes ran the 400m test with a K4 mask to record max VO2. VO2 testing was also carried out in the laboratory (Wingate and Ramp Test) on static bicycles. Blood lactate records were taken regularly

  • A 3D scanner was used to record body mass and anthropometric measures of all the control athletes

  • The prosthetics were also subjected to material testing

  • IAAF Rule 144.2 extract

Relates to the use of" technical aids" during competition

This rule prohibits:

(e) Use of any technical device that incorporates springs, wheels or any other element that provides the user with an advantage over another athlete not using such a device.

IAAF

19

According to that study, they found that the ankle joint delivered greater power output with prosthetics. However, in sprinting, power is generated higher up the chain at the hip joint. What happen’s from the knee joint and lower is to some extent less relevant.

Clearly they tested the wrong variables. Why isolate what happens at the ankle joint?

Of course prosthetics will give greater strain energy. However, why not measure power output at the hip joint ?

Additionally why didn’t the testing involve coupling times and breaking forces?

The consensus in the literature is that joint segment interactions do not work in isolation. Testing the ankle joint won’t show what is happening in the entire kinetic chain.

20

According to that study, they found that the ankle joint delivered greater power output with prosthetics. However, in sprinting, power is generated higher up the chain at the hip joint. What happen’s from the knee joint and lower is to some extent less relevant.

It’s amazing they didn’t know that.

Clearly they tested the wrong variables. Why isolate what happens at the ankle joint?

How do you know they tested the wrong variables. Have you read the Cologne report, or just the IAAF report edited by a journalist

Of course prosthetics will give greater strain energy. However, why not measure power output at the hip joint ?

Maybe they did.

Additionally why didn’t the testing involve coupling times and breaking forces?

Again, maybe they did.

The consensus in the literature is that joint segment interactions do not work in isolation. Testing the ankle joint won’t show what is happening in the entire kinetic chain

Amazing they didn’t know that either.

Or did they!