Sports and the Law: Oscar Pistorius’s Claim has Strong Legs to Stand on
[Ed. note: This is the second column by ATL’s new sports columnist, Marc Edelman. You can read more about Marc, and check last week’s inaugural column (in case you missed it), by clicking here.]
Twenty-one year old South African runner Oscar Pistorius had his heart set on running the 400-meter event at the 2008 Summer Olympics. However, on January 14, the International Association of Athletics Federations (“IAAF”) ruled that Pistorius was ineligible to compete because he has artificial legs.
According to the IAAF, Pistorius’s j-shaped carbon-fiber prosthetics (sometimes known as “cheetahs”) give him an advantage over runners with natural legs. As a result, the IAAF put the kibosh on what should have been the feel-good story of the 2008 Beijing games.
The story of Oscar Pistorius is truly remarkable. Born with a congenital disease that prevented the fibula in his legs from forming properly, Pistorius, at the age of 11 months, had both of his legs amputated below the knee. A few years later, he was fitted with his first prosthetics.
Read the rest of the column, after the jump.
Despite having artificial legs, Pistorius’s parents did not treat him differently from able-bodied children. His parents encouraged him to compete in sports such as rugby, tennis, water polo, and wrestling. To their delight, he proved quite talented.
In high school, Pistorius decided to join the rugby team. Competing against able-bodied athletes, he suffered a serious knee injury that required rehabilitation. While rehabbing his injury, Pistorius started to run short distances.
Pistorius made his formal debut as a runner at the age of 17 in the 2004 Summer Paralympics, competing against both single- and double-amputees. Despite not having much running experience, Pistorius set the Paralympic record in the 200-meters, finishing in just 21.97 seconds. Pistorius then went on to shatter the Paralympic record in the 100 meters and the 400 meters.
By 2005, Pistorius was not only beating Paralympic runners, but he was leaving old records in the dust. Seeking higher competition, he began competing against able-bodied athletes. In March 2007, Pistorius’s time of 46.56 in the 400 meters earned him a second-place finish against able-bodied South African national champions. His time seemed to place Pistorius within grasp of an Olympics bid, if not for concern about the IAAF rule prohibiting technological aids that affect the purported “purity of the sport.”
Although the IAAF makes decisions about technological aids on a case-by-case basis, the IAAF ultimately decided that Pistorius’s artificial limbs give him an unfair advantage. This is a point over which many medical experts disagree. It is also a position with which the National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”) disagrees, having allowed women’s runner and double amputee Aimee Mullins to compete in Division I athletics for Georgetown University despite using “cheetah” legs.
Before completely chastising the IAAF’s decision, it is worth noting that there is a real slippery slope argument here. Indeed, the day may come when science will make artificial body parts that are so far superior to the real things that athletes wanting Olympic championships badly enough might choose to remove their healthy body parts, leading a race to the bottom. We have also seen this kind of race to the bottom emerge in the world of professional modeling, where models regularly undergo invasive bodily surgery to gain a competitive edge.
Then again, Pistorius’s case is not about someone wanting to replace his real legs to get an edge. Nobody questions that Pistorius’s legs were amputated when he was a baby because he did not have fibulae. Pistorius’s artificial legs were meant to serve as the next-best alternative. In addition, even if his j-shaped carbon-fiber alternatives were to have certain advantages over human legs, the IAAF has not disqualified athletes for undergoing other medical procedures that yield superior results. For example, the IAAF has not disqualified athletes for having undergone laser eye surgery that produces better than 20-20 vision. So, why should Pistorius be treated differently?
Pistorius is currently appealing the IAAF’s ruling to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne, Switzerland. However, because the Olympics appeals process is slow, he does not expect a decision in time for the 2008 games. Of course, there is a chance that the Court of Arbitration for Sport eventually will overturn the IAAF decision, paving the way for Pistorius to run in the 2012 Olympics. Yet, even that outcome is uncertain.
Beyond the appeals process, Pistorius could attempt to overturn the IAAF decision in other ways. For example, he can try to get major Olympic sponsors to apply pressure to bring about a rule change, as well as try to follow in the footsteps of Casey Martin and bring suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) — although, of course, an ADA suit would be a tremendous stretch on jurisdictional grounds.
For now, it seems highly unlikely that we will see Pistorius running in Beijing. Although Pistorius’s claim has strong legs to stand on, his artificial legs may be just too special for this year’s Olympics.
* * * * *
Marc Edelman is an attorney, business consultant, published author and professor, whose focus is on the fields of sports business and law. You can read his full bio by clicking here, and you can reach him by email by clicking here.
(28) 
Comments
I volunteered a Special Olympics once and some of those retards can really run. Others, not so much, and none of them can ride a horse.
seems to me a compromise could have been reached.... let him run but w/o eligibility for a medal should he win... you get the feel-good factor, he gets to compete against the best, and able-bodies athletes who may feel he has an advantage don't feel cheetah'd (couldn't resist)... odd for the olympics, so riddled with doping scandals to miss a great PR scoop on a platter like this... bring back Dick Pound!
Kudos for recognizing where this might lead were Pistorius allowed to run. However, it may be that your tendency to feel sorry for him has colored your analysis of a result that might destroy the foundation of fair play in athletics. To begin with, the artificial legs that Pistorius wants to use are designed for and essentially used only for racing. Contrast that with laser vision correction, which helps vision not only on the athletic field, but also in every other aspect of life. That Pistorius did not choose to go through life as a double amputee should be of no consequence in evaluating the performance enhancement that he gains from using the artificial legs to run. Further, you neglect to note that, although runners often suffer foot and ankle injuries, Pistorius seems unlikely to develop either, for the simple fact that he has neither feet nor ankles.
The IAAF governs track & field only, so Mr. Edelman's point about 20-20 vision is irrelevant. You don't need eyes to run.
Also, the ruling was not against Mr. Pistorius but against his artificial legs. Cheetah were designed to maximize performance. What the IAAF ruling suggests is that they should have been designed to approximate the performance of human legs.
Any track athlete who is familiar with Mr. Pistorius's test results will tell you that Cheetah give him a huge advantage. Mr. Pistorius's supporters are playing the disability card, but that's not what this is about. All Mr. Pistorius has to do is switch to legs that approximate the performance of human legs in tests, and the IAAF will approve them. He doesn't want to do that, however, because then he'd be too slow to make the Olympics. In fact, he's already too slow; he needs to shave about a second off his personal best just to be eligible. A second is an eternity in the 400m dash.
Marc earned his undergraduate degree in economics from the Wharton School and his advanced degrees in both law and sports management from the University of Michigan.
GO BLUE!!!!!!!!!
"You don't need eyes to run"!?
holy shit dude are you serious? have you ever tried running with your eyes closed. I haven't . . . but I can imagine that it would end poorly. I suppose one could use some sort of sound beacon and follow that and that might work on a track . . . but one still would not necessarily know where the other runners were etc & etc. In conclusion I think your statement is silly and not well thought out and that is unfortunate because it detracts from an otherwise (possibly) valid point
I found this to be a well-thought out piece, and I am dismayed by the idiotic responses it is getting. I read this blog for just the sort of interesting intellectual stimulus to be found in this piece, and so kudos to Mr. Edelman. Lat, I think your readership has really taken a distressing turn.
As for the topic of this piece, certainly there must be rules for how an athlete can equip himself--i.e., shoes with springs on the bottom would be banned (but what about Nike Shox?). If a runner is allowed unfettered opportunity to equip himself, just because he is missing a body part, then that is clearly an unfair advantage, because technologically can clearly exceed what the human body is capable of (why not just put wheels and a motor on the artificial legs?). That said, I think some sort of new standard needs to be put forth, so that people like Pistorius can still realize their dream, but the competitive athletic field is not destroyed. I have confidence that with some hard thinking, a revised set of rules can be properly crafted--it just remains to get people to do that.
Marla Runyan is a legally blind marathoner who competed in the 2000 Olympics.
I don't think the part about the 20/20 vision was limited to track, but other Olympic sports. However, I think the distinction between natural and artificial enhancements raised in the comments is a good point. Tommy John surgery corrects an arm injury to a point where it is better than before, but still using natural elements. Yet, for example with Bo Jackson, an artificial hip replacements undercorects the injury. Here the artificial cheetah blades overcorrect the injury (deformity) to a point where the athlete is better off than if he had legs. So, the arguments could be made that instead of cheetah blades, we should give the athlete a segway or a race car, how far would we go in allowing artificial overcorrections? There is a apparent limit to natural overcorrections such as Tommy John, but not artificial as they go well above and beyond the normal tolerances of the human body.
12:34:
"legally blind" does not mean "incapable of seeing" as supposed by the previous posts. There are people who are "legally blind" who can still see well enough to get around without any help. Try again
THIS GUY STOLE MY IDEA FOR ROBOT LEGS
"the music was kind of loud"
"does it scare you"
"no, i just don't like techno"
"you would if you had robot ears"
Tommy John surgery may make your arm better, but it does not make your arm a machine. This guy's artificial legs are not human tissue, they're machines that are supplying a significant amount of the energy expended when he runs. That's a pretty basic distinction. It's blindingly obvious that he should be excluded from the Olympics.
12:43,
What about my comment was incorrect?
What is wrong with a race to the bottom? I'd like to see people willing to become cyborgs compete for my entertainment.
The olympic motto is "Swifter, Higher, Stronger." It doesn't say anything about not using artificial enhancements. Screw this outdated concept of "fairness."
12:34:
The implication of your post was incorrect: as I understood your post, you meant to imply that eyes are not necessary to run and cited Marla Runyan as an example. However, my point was that just because she is legally blind does not mean that she cannot see well enough to view the ground around her and to see whether there are other runners in her vicinity. Thus, to the extent that you were trying to show that eyes are not necessary in order to run, you example fails (unless Ms. Runyan is indeed totally incapable of seeing . . . which may very well be, I don't know). I could go on but I think I have illustrated why I think your example fell short
12:43,
Well, for my part, I'll argue that your inference was incorrect. I meant to only imply that it is possible for someone legally considered blind to achieve incredible success as a runner. While I don't believe that someone who is completely without sight would have that kind of success, the point is that having laser vision correction isn't in the same ballpark as running with prosthetic legs. You simply don't need great vision to succeed in a track event.
Best Comments Ever!!
12:34
If that is what you meant then we agree. But read in context of the other comments, I believe that I drew a proper inference from your original post. That said, let's consider your most recent post: if its possible to be legally blind and achieve success as a runner my response is so what? That doesn't mean anything if said legally blind person still has enough sight to be able to see the ground in front of them and the runners around them. The whole thread about eyesight started because someone made the proposterous proposition that eyes aren't necessary to running. But even a legally blind person has some sight and so you, at least implicitly, concede that some sight is necessary. And if that is true then we have no real disagreement.
1:43,
How about a "Ringing Buck's Bell" title? 2retards1helmet?
12:43,
I make no claim to any of the previous comments regarding not needing eyes to run. I made my original comment to point out that, at least you don't need great eyes to run. Edelman suggested in his post that laser vision correction is somehow on par with artificial running legs--that is what led to the comments regarding eyes and running.
"You could swim blind, easily..."
Close your eyes while swimming, and I can guarantee you that you will not make this statement again.
I'm surprised nothing was written about the superbowl.
When I wrote previously that eyes are not NECESSARY to run, that was accurate. The point I tried to make (very poorly, I admit) was that vision is not a characteristic that concerns the IAAF because eyes -- no matter their quality -- do not themselves enhance or diminish how fast one can run. A blind man may run into a wall, but he can run as fast as his legs allow until he does.
12:33: The IAAF rules set clear limits for the 'spring' produced or conserved (coefficient of restitution) by footwear. Under the ruling at issue, prostheses are not disallowed provided they don't produce or conserve more spring than natural legs. Period. Tests agreed upon by Mr. Pistorius and the IAAF established that the Cheetah do, so they are banned. Mr. Pistorius himself is not banned. All he has to do is use different prostheses that approximate the performance of natural legs in tests, and the IAAF will allow him to compete.
vrystaat!
JT has some superhuman body enhancements and they have nothing to do with JT's vocal chords.
Another reason we won't see him in the 2008 Olympics is because he hasn't met the qualifying standard yet. The B standard is is 45.95 and the A standard is 45.55, so while he is getting close to the times neccesary to qualify for the Olympics, he hasn't made it yet.
It should be noted those are the times to even be considered, in addition to those times you have to be selected by your country (in this case South Africa).
This decision is based on the hypothetical of him running fast enough times, but the IAAF decision isn't the only thing keeping him from the Olympics
Can someone please change the graphic that accompanies these posts? It's cheesy, low-budget and ugly. Thanks.
Marc: Thanks for your thoughtful post. I just want to make super clear to the first commenter here that the Paralympic Games are the second largest sporting event in the world, and are for physically disabled athletes. They are NOT the Special Olympics, which were created for people with "intellectual" disabilities.
This game-changing issue raises scientific, ethical and philosophical questions, and for the past three months, ESPN’s investigative journalists have interviewed Oscar, his family, coach, prosthetist, friends, competitors, lawyers, and Ossur, too. They also interviewed Prof. Bruggemann, the German doctor who originally tested him on behalf of the IAAF.
You can learn more and form your own opinions on April 15th:
- Good Morning America will air a segment between 7:00-9:00am
- ESPN’s E:60 will broadcast an 8-to-10 minute feature between 7-8pm.
- Nightline will look into the story at 11:30pm.
In addition, ESPN Magazine’s April 21st cover story will delve into Oscar’s case.
How do I know? I handle public relations for Ossur, the company that makes Oscar's Cheetahs. Ossur is behind Oscar 100%, and claims that he does NOT have an advantage, despite the fact that he is running on their prostheses. Ossur would like people to form their own *informed* opinions. It is our hope that ESPN did a good job of pulling together an objective review of the situation.
Thanks,
Beverly Millson