Katawa Shoujo Forums

Something that piqued my interest: it seems Emi could well be seen running in the World Championships this year, hopefully in the years to come too.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/athletics/14697896.stm

Guy named Oscar Pistorius, born with defect legs, is running in the World Championship using blades very similar to those Emi uses.
His legs originally were bent and missing some bones. They were straightened, then amputated although very slightly. (Strange to say they took out the least they could, since we're talking about legs here. Sort of like taking out your fingers, "we took out the least we could so you'd retain at least something in your hands...?")
He has been using prosthetics pretty much ever since, normally he uses the kind of prosthetics that resemble a human feet and only uses the leg blades for running. It is said that standing on the leg blades is sort of like standing on the balls of your feet since you don't have a heel, you can't really do it all day long.

In 2008 Pistorius was originally banned from competing in able-bodied World Championships due to some research data that pointed out that he has a mechanical advantage over normal human feet while running at high velocity in a straight line. The ban was lifted after a petition, partly (?) due to the fact that it is much harder to launch oneself to speed at the beginning of the race with the blades on (a normal human uses calf muscles, but Pistorius has to use his hips due to not having calfs) and thus has a big disadvantage in addition to having a disadvantage in the curves, since the blades are very rigid sideways making it harder to keep balance.

He passed the semi-finals, finishing third.
Oh, and for the record, he has won Paraolympic gold multiple times.

Does that mean that someone with the blades would have an advantage on a longer run, but a disadvantage on a shorter run?

Hmmh... I do think that it means that someone with leg blades would have an advantage on long to very long runs, for instance in a Marathon. (The study that originally was used to ban Pistorius from able-bodied WCs indicated that while running straight he uses approximately 25% less energy compared to a normal runner.) However, when running on a normal stadion track the curves might actually be such a big problem that the advantage gained on the straight parts gets overshadowed.

ie. No idea.

Since he finished third in the semi finals it doesn't seem like the start and extra work keeping balance in the curves hurts him too awfully bad. I can see that spending extra energy in the curves could cause him to tire quicker than the able bodied runners, though. As for a marathon, would the blades even be stable when running up and down hills? Seems to me the grade of a hill may shift the contact area of the blades and affect thier springiness and balance.

A true point. So basically he'd have a big advantage running a straight, long line with no elevation on it *grin* "That's what I'd call a niché!"

One does not simply Emi into World Championship.

AapoAlas wrote:Something that piqued my interest: it seems Emi could well be seen running in the World Championships this year, hopefully in the years to come too.

Hopefully not, in my opinion. It's a championship for able-bodied people for a reason. His performance is dependent on the kind of mechanical springs he uses and therefore fails the basic premise of athletics: physical competition between people on the same conditions.

Competition between able-bodied athletes? Yes
Competition between disabled athletes using the same kind of blades? Yes
Competition between able-bodied and "mechanically-aided" athletes? Competition between disabled athletes with different kinds of blades? This is not F1.

pedrosorio wrote:Hopefully not, in my opinion. It's a championship for able-bodied people for a reason. His performance is dependent on the kind of mechanical springs he uses and therefore fails the basic premise of athletics: physical competition between people on the same conditions.

They don't seem to give him that great of an advantage. I mean, he isn't exactly blowing away all the other competitors. Finishing third puts him on par with the other runners. So if they are close in performance, I think it should be fine for him to compete.

pedrosorio wrote:

AapoAlas wrote:Something that piqued my interest: it seems Emi could well be seen running in the World Championships this year, hopefully in the years to come too.

Hopefully not, in my opinion. It's a championship for able-bodied people for a reason. His performance is dependent on the kind of mechanical springs he uses and therefore fails the basic premise of athletics: physical competition between people on the same conditions.

Competition between able-bodied athletes? Yes
Competition between disabled athletes using the same kind of blades? Yes
Competition between able-bodied and "mechanically-aided" athletes? Competition between disabled athletes with different kinds of blades? This is not F1.

Honestly, I think there's probably only so many different kinds of leg blades out there. As pointed out earlier, his blades have both pros and cons. He gets more return energy than a regular ankle, but he also has problems starting, stopping, and taking corners, so I think it really evens out. I think there's merit to at least trying this once, seeing how it turns out.

G3n0c1de wrote:

pedrosorio wrote:Hopefully not, in my opinion. It's a championship for able-bodied people for a reason. His performance is dependent on the kind of mechanical springs he uses and therefore fails the basic premise of athletics: physical competition between people on the same conditions.

They don't seem to give him that great of an advantage. I mean, he isn't exactly blowing away all the other competitors. Finishing third puts him on par with the other runners. So if they are close in performance, I think it should be fine for him to compete.

But that's not the point... When does it stop being "fine for him to compete"? If he gets to the finals? If he gets a medal? It's not fair for him and for the other competitors to treat him differently. And they are clearly competing on different terms so it doesn't make sense. Other men with the same blades would never reach world championships, while some could have beaten the world record by now. They're clearly not competing on even terms and that makes it more of a circus than an athletics competition.

toast wrote: Honestly, I think there's probably only so many different kinds of leg blades out there. As pointed out earlier, his blades have both pros and cons. He gets more return energy than a regular ankle, but he also has problems starting, stopping, and taking corners, so I think it really evens out. I think there's merit to at least trying this once, seeing how it turns out.

Exactly the point: his blades have both pros and cons, higher energy efficiency, lower acceleration efficiency. Who is to say it evens out? Different blades would give him a different performance, so what is his "real performance"? We don't and will never know, because he can't compete without blades. The point of athletics is a match of physical unaided performances by different athletes. Sure, it's perfectly reasonable to have disabled athletes compete against each other with these blades, as long as they all use the same blades, but it makes no sense to pit normal vs "enhanced" humans. If we accept it, where do we draw the line?

Right now, people like Pistorius have prosthetics that let them compete with regular athletes on an approximately even level. I do not believe that all advantages or disadvantages he might have cancel out so nicely that a competition where the winner is decided by hundredths of seconds can ever be completely fair, but if "to the best of human knowledge" he has as much chance of winning as others, why shouldn't he be allowed to compete. There are lots of other sports where external circumstances are an important factor - changing winds in ski jump competitions come to mind.
It's going to get more complicated when prosthetics reach a level that is superior to "ordinary human flesh". Maybe then we'll have to have a third olympics for the augmented humans.

pedrosorio wrote:When does it stop being "fine for him to compete"?

Easy, when it's no longer fair. Of course advances in prosthetic technology will eventually surpass natural human limits. But this is in the future. Right now he is on par with the other runners, so its still fair.

For example, in Mario Kart, you can choose different kart types and classes, all with different strengths and weaknesses. They compete in the same races, and any one of them can win based on how you use them and what track it is. I view it like this. For now, they are an pretty close competitive footing.

Also, first time I've ever seen the word "enhanced" thrown around to describe a disabled person. ... Really? These prostheses do not make him post human or anything like that. They don't give nearly enough benefits to be seen as 'enhancements' in the actual definition of the word either. They are simply the best we can do to replace a lost limb. I'm sure, if given the choice, he would choose to have two human legs.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure a group of officials at the world championship talked this over, and deemed it to be okay, so there's that.

I'm sure he'll get criticism over how his prosthetics give him an unfair advantage. Simple response to that: have any of his competitors seriously considered amputating their own legs? The point at which the answer is "Yes" is the point at which we need to worry about a separate competition for people with prosthetics.

G3n0c1de wrote:

pedrosorio wrote:When does it stop being "fine for him to compete"?

Easy, when it's no longer fair. Of course advances in prosthetic technology will eventually surpass natural human limits. But this is in the future. Right now he is on par with the other runners, so its still fair.

This goes directly to the heart of the problem. A different athlete from Pistorius with amputated legs, with the same blades would probably never reach his level, but with a different technology (i.e. future) could probably reach world championships. Now what? Each disabled athlete gets to have blades that make him competitive with the best in the world? Pathetic.

For example, in Mario Kart, you can choose different kart types and classes, all with different strengths and weaknesses. They compete in the same races, and any one of them can win based on how you use them and what track it is. I view it like this. For now, they are an pretty close competitive footing.

That's why I said in my first post "This is not F1". In motorized sports it makes perfect sense to have teams that tune motors and car designs and it's a human+machine competition. It's perfectly cool and I also enjoy watching it. What you perhaps don't understand is that the culture of athletics is very different from that. It's man vs man, nothing else.

Also, first time I've ever seen the word "enhanced" thrown around to describe a disabled person. ... Really? These prostheses do not make him post human or anything like that. They don't give nearly enough benefits to be seen as 'enhancements' in the actual definition of the word either. They are simply the best we can do to replace a lost limb. I'm sure, if given the choice, he would choose to have two human legs.

I have studied biomedical engineering, and I've heard it several times before. Anytime we provide a human being, disabled or not, with more than what he has naturally by means of technology, we are enhancing him/her. Prosthesis are the most visible of these enhancements but pacemakers can be included in this category as well, and believe me, the number of enhancements and enhanced humans is not going to stop increasing anytime soon.

You have an interesting point there, however. Any artificial, mechanical replacement - in my opinion - should never be used in such competitions because of the points I've made above, however if tissue engineering develops to the point where his legs could be restored, it would be okay for him to compete, of course.

The problem is you are appealing to the "pity argument" there: "They are simply the best we can do to replace a lost limb." - they're not, and the evidence is he doesn't wear those blades during his normal life, only competition. And "I'm sure, if given the choice, he would choose to have two human legs.", the fact that he would do that given the choice, does not give him the right to compete with other athletes on different terms. It sounds like they let him compete because he doesn't have the choice as if they were giving him some kind of consolation prize.

Perhaps you don't understand my points, but modifications to these prostheses could easily make him go and beat the world record without any difference in his performance per se, and that is just disgusting from the point of view of athletics. We have no way of gauging what is his "real" ability compared to the able bodied athletes and so his marks mean absolutely nothing, this is the fundamental problem.

pedrosorio wrote:This goes directly to the heart of the problem. A different athlete from Pistorius with amputated legs, with the same blades would probably never reach his level, but with a different technology (i.e. future) could probably reach world championships. Now what? Each disabled athlete gets to have blades that make him competitive with the best in the world? Pathetic.

They wouldn't reach his level because they aren't on the same level athletically. His training and conditioning is what makes him competitive, not only his legs. Also, try reading my post, I do say that when prosthesis surpass human ability, then it begins to favor the ones who use them. At that point, you may have an argument, but what I'm saying is that we aren't there yet.

That's why I said in my first post "This is not F1". In motorized sports it makes perfect sense to have teams that tune motors and car designs and it's a human+machine competition. It's perfectly cool and I also enjoy watching it. What you perhaps don't understand is that the culture of athletics is very different from that. It's man vs man, nothing else.

It's still Pistorius' physical training that got him into the championships. If this were an actual problem, then many more disabled athletes would have qualified. But I do wonder what his competition thinks of this situation. I hope they have respect for his accomplishments.

I have studied biomedical engineering, and I've heard it several times before. Anytime we provide a human being, disabled or not, with more than what he has naturally by means of technology, we are enhancing him/her. Prosthesis are the most visible of these enhancements but pacemakers can be included in this category as well, and believe me, the number of enhancements and enhanced humans is not going to stop increasing anytime soon.

I still have to disagree that these are being called enhancements. Like the prostheses, the pacemakers are there to correct a problem. And even then, they aren't foolproof cures. Yes, naturally, they'd have to live with these problems, and they are being corrected through technology. But these are only good enough to be on par with other 'natural' humans. Also, wouldn't this make 'glasses' an enhancement? Because it's using technology to help someone with their vision, when they'd normally just have to deal with it.

I do agree that actual 'enhancements' are coming, and will probably be the future of humanity. This is cybernetics and trans humanism. But I would hold off on calling them 'enhanced' until

1. They actually improve upon the structure that is being replaced in healthy humans.

2. People get them even when they are perfectly healthy, they just want the improvements.

This is when the 'problem' they are correcting is being human. There are probably examples out there already that do this.

The problem is you are appealing to the "pity argument" there: "They are simply the best we can do to replace a lost limb." - they're not, and the evidence is he doesn't wear those blades during his normal life, only competition. And "I'm sure, if given the choice, he would choose to have two human legs.", the fact that he would do that given the choice, does not give him the right to compete with other athletes on different terms. It sounds like they let him compete because he doesn't have the choice as if they were giving him some kind of consolation prize.

Not sure I follow... Yes, those are his legs that are specifically designed for running. It's still the best we can do to replace his ability to run naturally. And even at that, he is on par, not exceeding the others. If the 'different terms' still make him on even footing with the other athletes I really don't see this as a problem. They're letting him compete because he is a deserving athlete. He can compete with the other runners on their terms.

Perhaps you don't understand my points, but modifications to these prostheses could easily make him go and beat the world record without any difference in his performance per se, and that is just disgusting from the point of view of athletics. We have no way of gauging what is his "real" ability compared to the able bodied athletes and so his marks mean absolutely nothing, this is the fundamental problem.

Is it really that easy? Because I am under the impression that he gives it his all every race, and his prostheses are tuned for maximum performance. That would be his "real" ability. But if what you're saying is true, this means that his legs are being specifically tuned to make him competitive with the other runners. In that case, I can see where your concerns are coming from.