|  | Current Issues | No.51 September 2007 |

Oscar Pistorius – The Story Alison Burchell |
Oscar Pistorius was born on 22 November 1986 without fibula. Before he was 1 year old, his parents had to take an agonising decision to amputate his legs below the knee. He led a normal life, went to mainstream schools and in about 2002 was discovered by another Paralympic amputee athlete, Fanie Lombaard, playing rugby. He apparently had no problems, except having to retrieve his legs when they fell off in the somewhat physical game, and also played waterpolo. He competed for the first time in an event for the disabled in March 2004 in the 100m and 200m making the qualification times. He competed on helicopter blades which were adapted to be prosthetic legs. In about July 2004, he went to the USA, invited by a top US Paralympian, to get a new set of blades on which he competed in Athens where he won gold in the 200m and bronze in the 100m against athletes with only one leg amputated. The rest, as the saying goes, is history. In January 2007, it became clear that Oscar was going full out to challenge the system to be allowed to compete in the Olympics. Perhaps we need to take a proactive approach, both in SA and internationally, to push the line of inclusion and saying that we should be finding ways, as the athletics family, to include the disabled in our events wherever we can. Oscar, this past season, has competed in our national athletics able-bodied track series and this should be used as an example. Further, our national athletics organisation has included athletes with a disability in its events on an invitational basis. In 2006, athletes with and without a disability were equally recognised by Athletics South Africa when performances in the Melbourne Commonwealth Games were acknowledged. We should also remember that disabled athletes competing in the Olympic Games is not a new phenomenon. For several Olympics, the IAAF has included a demonstration event for wheelchair racers in the 1 500m for men and 800m for women. Over and above that, in the 1960s, a wheelchair athlete competed in the archery event in the Olympic Games and similarly, in the early 20th Century, an arm amputee competed in the track events. The issues here are complex: why are some athletes with a disability in denial, wanting to compete in the Olympics and therefore giving the impression that the Paralympics are second class to the Olympics? To provide some thoughts: for example, Natalie du Toit, was disabled later in life and when she just narrowly missed out on selection for Sydney in 2000, training for Olympics remained a way of life. Oscar wants to do the Olympics but still acknowledges the Paralympics in terms of an equal standing with the Olympics – the Paralympics are really "parallel to the Olympics" NOT "Paraplegic Olympics". there have also been some arguments that because Oscar is missing a significant part of his body, he produces less lactic acid and therefore has an advantage in terms of his recovery - there is no scientific proof. However, since the IAAF has begun a more sophisticated scientific approach, proof will hopefully be forthcoming. we need some scientific research done and this will be a challenge in terms of getting a multi-disciplinary approach (biokinetics, mechanical engineering and others) and the right "guinea pigs" against whom Oscar will be compared. at the end of the day, if it is not conclusive that Oscar does or does not have an advantage, he should in principle be allowed to compete. However, this will then raise the "spectre" of what to do with the other disability groups - the visually impaired, the wheelchair racers etc so it becomes an issue of where do you draw the line. The IPC's line is that it caters for persons with a disability who may not reasonably compete against those without a disability and hence its classification system. Thus each case should be assessed on its merits at the time. along this line, there is a fundamental difference between Oscar and Natalie competing, at the current time, in the Olympics precisely because of the issue of "perceived fairness or advantage". Natalie is included in Swimming SA's squad for the open water event at the Olympics - or could be included. If she is, the issue relates to the fact that she would compete, if selected, without a prosthetic device and clearly will be at a disadvantage without half a leg. Oscar however will compete with 2 prosthetic devices and when I watched him doing the 400m at Pilditch on 23 March 2007, he began slowly as he does not have an ankle and calf muscles (so there could be a disadvantage) and in the last 200 - 300m, he motored so he finally came second (which could be an advantage). It is thus probable that perceptions play a role and this is where the research comes in. he competed in Manchester (the Paralympic World Cup) with the same legs he used in Athens so the improvement needs to be measured from Athens 2004 to Manchester 2007. the next issue, linked to research, will be how do you measure his legs? Will it be when he is sitting down or when he is standing as when he is standing, he will effectively be shorter thus indicating that there is additional spring as a result of his prosthetic legs. This links to the issue explained in the article below about measuring his arms finger tip to finger tip to ascertain the length of his legs if he had them. the final issue is that Oscar still has to make the qualification time set by the IAAF. If/when he does that, he then needs to be nominated by ASA in terms of their recommendation to our Olympic committee, SASCOC, on selection for Beijing which will be that he should be a medallist. At the end of the day, Oscar is a good athlete - bottom line! He also has a right to dream. Ultimately, this also provides an opportunity to push nationally and internationally for federations to embrace the disabled into their fold including ensuring the same services being provided by them to athletes without a disability be extended to those with a disability. Another issue is that in the USA, there is a wheelchair young woman who is fighting for her right to compete in the state and national athletics championships. Her problem is that there is no-one competing against her - another wheelchair athlete. Like the African-Americans, she is fighting for her rights and she is being ostracised by some. She is taking the issue through the courts and thus ending up getting people opposing her. Again the issue is embracing change rather than trying to avoid it and that is something that we need to do. Like the fight for equality in the USA (and here) for equal rights for persons of colour, then women, then those with a different sexual orientation etc, we cannot run away from ensuring that the rights of disabled people are (re)claimed. We can also refer to the new UN Convention signed in March 2007 committing several signatory countries to address the rights of the disabled in all spheres of life and this issue is as good a place to start as any. The following article appears on the front page of today's New York Times with a near full page spread included on page 21. This article, to me, suggests the following: The trend toward coverage of Paralympic athletes in major US media outlets continues. The debate over access to conventional sports opportunities for athletes with disabilities continues. An open dialogue is needed among disabled and non-disabled sportspersons and within the disability sports movement on the issues highlighted by this article. The article also raises some questions: Why do athletes with disabilities feel compelled to disavow their disability in order to feel accepted as elite athletes? Why are assistive devices and accommodations (prosthetics, wheelchairs, parking spaces, etc.) perceived to be an unfair advantage? How will we respond as a community to the bias, objectification, and apparent lack of hard science to counter the IAAF's arguments? An Amputee Sprinter: Is He Disabled or Too-Abled? New York Times By JERA LONGMAN MANCHESTER, England, May 14 - As Oscar Pistorius of South Africa crouched in the starting blocks for the 200 meters on Sunday, the small crowd turned its attention to the sprinter who calls himself the fastest man on no legs. Pistorius wants to be the first amputee runner to compete in the Olympics. But despite his ascendance, he is facing resistance from track and field's world governing body, which is seeking to bar him on the grounds that the technology of his prosthetics may give him an unfair advantage over sprinters using their natural legs. His first strides were choppy Sunday, a necessary accommodation to sprinting on a pair of j-shaped blades made of carbon fiber and known as Cheetahs. Pistorius was born without the fibula in his lower legs and with other defects in his feet. He had both legs amputated below the knee when he was 11 months old. At 20, his coach says, he is like a five-speed engine with no second gear. Yet Pistorius is also a searing talent who has begun erasing the lines between abled and disabled, raising philosophical questions: What should an athlete look like? Where should limits be placed on technology to balance fair play with the right to compete? Would the nature of sport be altered if athletes using artificial limbs could run faster or jump higher than the best athletes using their natural limbs? Once at full speed Sunday, Pistorius handily won the 100 and 200 meters here at the Paralympic World Cup, an international competition for disabled athletes. A cold, rainy afternoon tempered his performances, but his victories came decisively and kept him aimed toward his goal of the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing, even though international track officials seek to block his entrance. Since March, Pistorius has delivered startling record performances for disabled athletes at 100 meters (10.91 seconds), 200 meters (21.58 seconds) and 400 meters (46.34 seconds). Those times do not meet Olympic qualifying standards for men, but the Beijing Games are still 15 months away. Already, Pistorius is fast enough that his marks would have won gold medals in equivalent womenA's races at the 2004 Athens Olympics. PistoriusA's time of 46.56 in the 400 earned him a second-place finish in March against able-bodied runners at the South African national championships. This seemingly makes him a candidate for the Olympic 4x400-meter relay should South Africa qualify as one of the worldA's 16 fastest teams. "I don't see myself as disabled," said the blond, spiky-haired Pistorius, a former rugby and water polo player who declines to park in spaces reserved for the disabled. "There's nothing I can't do that able-bodied athletes can do." An Equalizer or an Edge? Still, the question persists: Do prosthetic legs simply level the playing field for Pistorius, compensating for his disability, or do they give him an inequitable edge via what some call techno-doping? Experts say there have been limited scientific studies on the biomechanics of amputee runners, especially those missing both legs. And because Pistorius lost his legs as an infant, his speed on carbon-fiber legs cannot be compared with his speed on natural legs. Track and field's world governing body, based in Monaco and known by the initials I.A.A.F., has recently prohibited the use of technological aids like springs and wheels, disqualifying Pistorius from events that it sanctions. A final ruling is expected in August. The International Olympic Committee allows governing bodies to make their own eligibility rules, though it can intervene. Since 2004, for example, transgender athletes have been allowed to compete in the Olympics. "With all due respect, we cannot accept something that provides advantages," said Elio Locatelli of Italy, the director of development for the I.A.A.F., urging Pistorius to concentrate on the Paralympics that will follow the Olympics in Beijing. "It affects the purity of sport. Next will be another device where people can fly with something on their back." Others have questioned the governing body's motivation. "I pose a question" for the I.A.A.F., said Robert Gailey, an associate professor of physical therapy at the University of Miami Medical School, who has studied amputee runners. "Are they looking at not having an unfair advantage? Or are they discriminating because of the purity of the Olympics, because they don't want to see a disabled man line up against an able-bodied man for fear that if the person who doesn't have the perfect body wins, what does that say about the image of man?" According to Gailey, a prosthetic leg returns only about 80 percent of the energy absorbed in each stride, while a natural leg returns up to 240 percent, providing much more spring. "There is no science that he has an advantage, only that he is competing at a disadvantage," Gailey, who has served as an official in disabled sports, said of Pistorius. Foremost among the I.A.A.F.'s concerns is that Pistorius' prosthetic limbs may make him taller than he would have been on natural legs and may unfairly lengthen his stride, allowing him to lower his best times by several seconds in the past three years, while most elite sprinters improve by hundredths of a second. "The rule book says a foot has to be in contact with the starting block," Leon Fleiser, a general manager of the South African Olympic Committee, said. "What is the definition of a foot? Is a prosthetic device a foot, or is it an actual foot?" I.A.A.F. officials have also expressed concern that Pistorius could topple over, obstructing others or injuring himself and fellow competitors. Some also fear that, without limits on technological aids, able-bodied runners could begin wearing carbon-fiber plates or other unsuitably springy devices in their shoes. Among ethicists, Pistorius' success has spurred talk of "transhumans" and "cyborgs." Some note that athletes already modify themselves in a number of ways, including baseball sluggers who undergo laser eye surgery to enhance their vision and pitchers who have elbow reconstruction using sturdier ligaments from elsewhere in the body. At least three disabled athletes have competed in the Summer Olympics: George Eyser, an American, won a gold medal in gymnastics while competing on a wooden leg at the 1904 Games in St. Louis; Neroli Fairhall, a paraplegic from New Zealand, competed in archery in the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles; and Marla Runyan, a legally blind runner from the United States, competed in the 1,500 meters at the 2000 Olympics in Sydney. But Pistorius would be the first amputee to compete in a track event, international officials said. A sobering question was posed recently on the Web site of the Connecticut-based Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. "Given the arms race nature of competition," will technological advantages cause "athletes to do something as seemingly radical as having their healthy natural limbs replaced by artificial ones?" wrote George Dvorsky, a member of the institute's board of directors. "Is it self-mutilation when you're getting a better limb?" Limits and Accommodations Historically, the I.A.A.F. has placed limits on devices that assist athletes. It prohibits an array of performance-enhancing drugs. And it does not allow wheelchair athletes into the Olympic marathon, given that wheels provide a clear advantage in speed. But the governing body has also embraced technological advances. For instance, it permits athletes to sleep in tent-like devices designed to simulate high altitude and increase oxygen-carrying capacity. As disabled athletes improve their performances, the I.A.A.F. is certain to be faced with more decisions about accommodating them. Last February, Jeff Skiba, who has one leg amputated below the knee, competed in the high jump at the United States indoor track and field championships. Some I.A.A.F. officials say Pistorius' application should not be treated dismissively. Although he would not be considered a medal candidate, his appearance at the Beijing Games could provide an inspiring story. "There is no real grounds to say he should not be allowed to compete" in the Olympics, said Juan Manuel Alonso of Spain, who heads the I.A.A.F.'s medical and antidoping commission. "We'd like to have more information and biomechanical studies." His own fear, Pistorius said, is that the governing body, which has not contacted him, will ban him on supposition, not science. "I think they're afraid to do the research," Pistorius, a business student at the University of Pretoria, said. "They're afraid of what they're going to find, that I don't have an advantage and they'll have to let me compete." Pistorius, whose stated height is 6 feet 1 ? inches while wearing his sprinting prosthetics, says that the devices are within an allowed range determined by the length of his thighs. The peak length of his stride, he said, is 9 feet, not 13 feet as some I.A.A.F. officials suggest. There are many disadvantages to sprinting on carbon-fiber legs, Pistorius and his coach said. After a cumbersome start, he needs about 30 meters to gain his rhythm. His knees do not flex as readily, limiting his power output. His grip can be unsure in the rain. And when he runs into a headwind or grows fatigued, he must fight rotational forces that turn his prosthetic devices sideways, said Ampie Louw, who coaches Pistorius. "The I.A.A.F. has got no clue about disabled sport," said Louw, who has coached Pistorius since 2003. Insufficient credit is given to Pistorius' resolve in the weight room and on the track, Louw said, describing one intense workout that requires him to run 350 meters in 42 seconds; 300 meters in 34.6 seconds; 200 meters in 22 seconds and 150 meters in 15.4 seconds. "The kid is a born champion," Louw said. "He doesn't settle for second best." Having worn prosthetics since infancy, Pistorius did not have to adjust to artificial legs after he began competing, as many disabled athletes do. He won a gold medal in the 200 at the 2004 Paralympics in Athens. "These have always been my legs," he said. "I train harder than other guys, eat better, sleep better and wake up thinking about athletics. I think that's probably why I'm a bit of an exception." One who is attempting to broaden the definition of an Olympic athlete. "You have two competing issues - fair competition and basic human rights to compete," said Angela Schneider, a sports ethicist at the University of Western Ontario and a 1984 Olympic silver medalist in rowing. The I.A.A.F. must objectively define when prosthetic devices "go from therapy to enhancement," Schneider said. The danger of acting hastily, she said, is "you deny a guy's struggle against all odds - one of the fundamental principles of the Olympics." Contact Alison Burchell General Manager Disability Sport South Africa South Africa Email: burchell@mweb.co.za http://www.icsspe.org/portal/index.php?w=1&z=5 Oscar Pistorius – The Story Alison Burchell