Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Sports

Whether you're into football, athletics, tennis, golf or cricket, join the dicsussion on our Sport forum.

Original poster

Random Oscar Pistorius Question

152 replies

YoullLaughAboutItOneDay · 31/08/2012 13:59

I have a question about Oscar Pistorius I am hoping someone can answer. All my Google search terms just return general articles and I am going a bit Paralympics crazy with all my background questions about the events, classifications and athletes so I am desperate to know!

He competes as T44 (single amputee) even though he is classified T43 (double amputee). Is this because the single amputee category is faster and more competitive?

Also, he had a big legal battle to compete in the Olympics over whether his carbon fibre legs gave him an advantage. Was there ever any similar controversy over him competing as T44?

OP posts:
NigellasGuest · 03/09/2012 20:36

How do you know YummyMummy is not dyslexic? I hate to say it but I used to look down on people who spelt certain words wrong, until it turned out my DD was dyslexic and then I became a little less quick to judge. Just saying.

ceebeegeebies · 03/09/2012 20:38

Great post iismum Smile

I guess he could have different legs for each games but that would make his training impossible so he has had to choose.

It was also interesting that when the medallists were stood at the back of the podium waiting to collect their medals with what are presumably their everyday legs on, Oscar was noticeably taller than the Brazilian (although, it was distracting watching Oscar and his glasses...definintely a touch of Clark Kent about it )

Yummymummyyobe1 · 03/09/2012 21:43

Thank you NigellasGuest I do indeed have dyslexia and I do on occasions mis-spell certain words as a result. Thank you again.

mcmooncup · 03/09/2012 22:33

If you look at this video from last year you can see that Alan Oliviera was at least 3-4 inches shorter than OP. Then if you look to a replay of the race from last night........well AO is taller than Oscar. Hmm

Original poster
YoullLaughAboutItOneDay · 03/09/2012 22:48

This Guardian article is interesting. Oscar could legally be 9cm taller by IPC rules, but chooses to use shorter blades to be legal for IOC competition. I'm impressed by that.

Also very noticeable at the medal ceremony that Oliviera was noticeably shorter than Oscar on his 'day' legs.

I suspect that, as paralympic athletics evolves, the rules there will get tighter.

OP posts:
mcmooncup · 03/09/2012 22:52

Yes, that's why I don't think it is sour grapes/bad loser. As I see it, OP was not criticising the athlete, he was criticising the rules that allow the blades to give you an advantage......when he has fought pretty hard to prove that blades don't give you an advantage. He had complained about to the IPC already, it wasn't something he had just come up with when he lost. I wonder why the race was so delayed last night......whether this was actually being discussed beforehand?

TheFallenMadonna · 03/09/2012 23:09

This is why I'm sad about his ill judged words.

It's all about him still, and not Alan Oliveira.

mcmooncup · 03/09/2012 23:30

I can see that it could look like it's all about him, but I remain hopeful that it was about fairness. Please don't just be another letdown

He knows due to the testing he had to have for able bodied competition that there is a point where blades do/can give an advantage. And the IPC rules allow this to continue..........which seems a bit ludicrous. It is clear that Alan O has grown..........should they really be allowing this?

wannaBe · 04/09/2012 00:04

I don't think OP should be allowed to compete in the paralympics if he is allowed to compete in the Olympics. My reasoning is this:

The ethos around the paralympics is that athletes who are talented but who, by virtue of their disability, have a disadvantage over able-bodied athletes, be given a platform on which they can compete on as level a playing field as possible.

Oscar Pistorius has faught for, and gained the right to compete against able-bodied athletes, and he is therefore considered to be at less of a disadvantage than his counterparts.

IMO if you are able enough to compete with the able-bodied athletes, then you clearly have a greater advantage over the less able-bodied athletes, and to claim that you are competing with them on equal footing seems unfair to me.

The comparison I made earlier when talking about this was with goalball, where all the team members are blindfold so are all at the same disadvantage, even though some of them will have residual vision iyswim. It would be unfair to have some team members with vision and some without, and thus they all have to be without.

The team assistant for the SA athletics team (Neels Matthyser) is a friend of mine (we were at school together), it'll be interesting to see what his take is...

SoupDragon · 04/09/2012 06:56

IMO if you are able enough to compete with the able-bodied athletes, then you clearly have a greater advantage over the less able-bodied athletes, and to claim that you are competing with them on equal footing seems unfair to me.

Except he was beaten by another paralympic athelete.

Less newsworthy seems to be the fact that the Polish table tennis gold medalist played in the Olympics too.

SoupDragon · 04/09/2012 06:58

I think "disqualifying" a disabled athlete because they are "too good" is wrong though. Do you disqualify the gold medalist every time because they are clearly better than the rest?

Pistorious clearly qualifies for the category he is running in. Should he not be allowed to compete because he is too good?

Is the Paralympics only about mediocrity?

mellen · 04/09/2012 07:17

"Oscar Pistorius has faught for, and gained the right to compete against able-bodied athletes, and he is therefore considered to be at less of a disadvantage than his counterparts. "

I dont think that is logical. I understood that he was allowed to compete with able bodied athletes because he wanted to and because he wasnt felt to be advantaged by his blades, rather than because he was considered to be at less of a disadvantage than his counterparts, who I expect would also be able to compete with able bodied athletes of they met the requirements re blade length.

wannaBe · 04/09/2012 08:09

it's a very grey area IMO.

ultimately, the paralympics came about in order that athletes with disabilities be able to compete on as equal a playing field as possible, given that as a rule, having a disability does put you at a disadvantage when competing in sporting events.

Oscar Pistorius felt that his disability didn't put him at a disadvantage in comparison to his able-bodied counterparts, and as such opted to compete in the olympics. If he is good enough to compete in the olympics, then surely it can't be argued that his disability puts him at a disadvantage over other athletes, and negates the reasons for being in the paralympics, i.e. that his disability means he can't compete on an equal footing with able-bodied athletes.

Now, there are equally people who argue this shouldn't be allowed, as, given he has blades, he essentially does have an advantage over able-bodied athletes in that his blades can always be adapted/tweeked to make them better, yes in conjunction with guidelines but still, a runner has a pair of legs, he can train to improve his technique, but none of the other athletes can have their legs made lighter/more streamlined/longer in the same way that Oscar Pistorius could do with his blades.

so there is opinion on both sides but IMO he should compete in one or the other - not both.

mellen · 04/09/2012 08:33

"Oscar Pistorius felt that his disability didn't put him at a disadvantage in comparison to his able-bodied counterparts, and as such opted to compete in the olympics."

Is that the case? I had assumed that he competed in the olympics because despite his disability he thought that he could compete, not that he was saying that it didn't make a difference.

wannaBe · 04/09/2012 09:03

it amounts to the same thing.

If he feels he can compete equally with able-bodied athletes then obviously he doesn't see his disability as disadvantagious to his ability to compete, iyswim otherwise he wouldn't be seeking to compete against able-bodied athletes would he?

Kewcumber · 04/09/2012 09:18

"he doesn't see his disability as disadvantagious to his ability to compete" maybe he does - who knows how good he could have been with two legs? I thought in order to compete in the Olympics his blades were assessed and deemed not to give him an advantage (hence being allowed to compete at all) in fact he cannot accelerate away from the blocks as fast as athletes with either one or two legs.

If any athlete with a disability is so good that they have reached teh standard of athletes with no disability it would be a travesty not to allow them to compete against whomever they choose. No-one says to Usain Bolt - I'm sorry you've got too good so you can't compete any more.

Pistorious isnt the only paralympian who competes/has competed in the Olympics , I haven't heard any arguments about the others (though perhaps their events are not as sexy as track).

SoupDragon · 04/09/2012 09:28

"ultimately, the paralympics came about in order that athletes with disabilities be able to compete on as equal a playing field as possible"

I disagree. They came about in order that athletes with disabilities can compete.

SoupDragon · 04/09/2012 09:30

Where does it state that a Paralympic athlete must feel disadvantaged because of their disability?

NigellasGuest · 04/09/2012 09:30

yummymummy no problem - perhaps people will start to think twice before they post about the spelling/grammar of others.

this thread is - let's face it - about disability and tolerance is it not?

Gilberte · 04/09/2012 09:46

There is something tactical about racing against people all season at one height and then whipping out your trump card 3 weeks before the paralympic final and taking your opponents by surprise.

Having said that it is perfectly legal and similar to something the British cyclists do.

Apparently after Bejing they put away their carbon fibre/ titanium or whatever they are bikes and practice and race in between on less technically sophisticated models. This trains the cyclists to work harder and then when are they are just peaking they start using their competition bikes again which gives them an advantage when it matters (akin the Roger Federer using a wooden raquet all season then whipping out his championship raquet at a grand slam).

OrangeandGoldMrsDeVere · 04/09/2012 10:01

Did you hear the interview on R4 re OP's remark about the winner having an unfair advantage due to stride length.

Except OP completed in 92 and AO in 98

So OP still has a longer stride

wannaBe · 04/09/2012 10:10

"No-one says to Usain Bolt - I'm sorry you've got too good so you can't compete any more." That's not comparrible though, is it? Because if it is then Usain Bolt should be allowed to compete in the paralympics, and he's not. why not?

It's not about paralympic athletes having to feel disadvantaged - it's about the fact that as a rule, their disabilities mean that it's not possible to compete on the same level as non disabled athletes. A runner with VI needs a guide for instance; amputees cannot maintain a similar running speed; field athletics has to be adapted according to the disability and as such techniques and thus distances are not comparrible.

If a VI athlete can maintain a similar running time without a guide there's no reason they shouldn't compete in the olympics and the rules shouldn't preclude them from doing so. But then it's not beyond reason to question why they should be able to compete against other athletes in the paralympics, all of whom have to run with guides and thus are unlikely to meet similar times.

Equally Oscar pistorious has the skill (or the technology, that is IMO unknown) to compete against able-bodied athletes. he has been recategorised into a higher category in the paralympics precisely because there is no competition in his actual category. so yes, that is akin to saying "you're too good, you can't compete in that category any more,"

I think TBH his attitude doesn't help. He competed in the olympics and didn't win - fair enough. But there is then the risk that someone like him who feels he can compete against able-bodied athletes should automatically win once competing against disabled ones, because he is better than them, as he is able to compete where most don't even dare to dream. And then when he didn't win he had a temper tantrum and showed himself up as a bad loser and started to blame the very technology that put him up there with the olympians in the first place.

You can't have it both ways.

peeriebear · 04/09/2012 10:14

Yes that was raised on The Last Leg that night MrsDV.
I can see his frustration; he raised the point weeks before about the longer blades, and then was beaten by a runner on the longer blades exactly as he'd feared. The way they point a mike in their faces before they can get their breath back and ask "So how do you feel?" I'm not surprised he said what he did. He's apologised, bent down and hugged the winner on the podium and will have talks with the IPC in private.
Anyway if you've all gone off him I can have him come and live in my shed according to my plans. :)

peeriebear · 04/09/2012 10:19

Surely if he was moved up because he was too good to compete against other T44s, he'd be the only T44 in the T43 race? But there were roughly equal numbers of each in the race.

Swipe left for the next trending thread