Disable-sports and paralympics: when the technology gives wings to the athletes

Sport club for people with a handicap is generally a particular field of sport due to hudges differences between motor abilities.
For that reason, it’s raising many debates: different sets of problems about the consideration of disability, equal opportunities, classification of athletes and categories in which they compete.
In order to make possible the concept of sport event, a table between athletes is in consequence necessary. The authorities had put in place diferent plans allowing to take into account the diferent types of deficiencies: categories of events, time and point penalties, etc...

In spite of a system which trying to be the most complete and objective, some abuses reveal its limits.

In particular, there is an ethical question when the performances of athletes with disabilities, helped with technologies, are almost the same than the ones realized by uninjured athletes.

please select a subject on the right

INTRODUCTION.............. the Pistorius case

.




It's about these questions around technology and performances that we would like to debate, setting out in particular the case of Oscar Pistorius, and the controversy that it raised just before the last Paralympics (click video link below: pistorius controversy)

• pistorius controversy

Oscar Pistorius is a 400m runner suffering from bony difformities. He has been amputated under both knees. In consequence, he has very efficient prosthesis which are the result of a high level technology. His performances activated him to ask for the right to compeet in the same class than fit athletes. His request is at the origin of a controversy within international sport authorities about the hypothetical advantage he could obtain thanks to those prosthesis.

DEBATE'S THEME

Here are diferent reference points that we propose :

Suggested in the form of questions about which we would like you to think about and debate, it represents main points of view of diferent actors of the discussion which has been taken turns by media for several weeks.

- Can we consider that is cheating to hijack scientific progresses allowing to obtain better scores than physiological standard could bring?

- Conversely, wouldn’t it be unfair to deprive athletes with damages from their disabilities, of benefits that new technologies could bring?

How could a piece of carbon becoming a leg?

For several years, the question of the advantage given to the disabled athletes by technical adaptations didn't raise a real problem for anyone.

From the creation of Paralympics in 1960 to the end of the century, these adaptations weren’t really sophisticated and materials used hadn’t have a high level of technique. In consequence, each competitor had to find the best technical solutions in using kind of rudimentary equipements, but all of these inventions hadn’t been able to give a significant advantage.

Nowadays, things have changed. Due to the development of sport for disables and to the thundering evolution of both technologies and materials, these adaptations are about to became technical tools that are having a real impact on ) part of performances. And as a result, some athletes are now able of achievements that are getting closer and closer to uninjured athlete's ones. It's about these huge evolutions that controversies are born around the "Pistorius case".

But we have to wonder if these controversies are really justified. For many people who have a true knowledge of disable-sports and medical sides of the disabilities, these controversies are simply ashamed and improper . In fact, motor déficiency will obviously stay a déficiency for ever. Then, it seems clear that disable athletes that manage to succeed in a high level of performances owe it to their extraordinary adaptation abilities before everything. How could somebody seriously consider that Pistoius, double leg-amputeed, could be in a superior position beside an able-bodied runner? Being without legs will always be a handicap, and if there's something unfair in the situation, it seems obvious that he's the first to endure it. Under these circumstances, technical innovations are not giving to Pistorius an advantage on his uninjuried opponents. At least, it’s only allowing to make up for the handicap.

Furthermore, in many people's point of view, this debate around athlete's equipment is totally absurd: does someone had already heard about ski champions complaining about the fact that they are equiped not as well as their opponents?

The implications of technology in athletics?

Technological provision in the participation of handicapped athletes in valid competitions sets certain ambiguous problems. Here we explain the issues that can arise from such a situation.

Regarding the Pistorius case and according to the conclusions made by the report of the German professor Gert-Peter Brüggemann, the "stilts" in carbon grain used by the athlete of Pretoria must be considered to be as a technical help and, because of this, are apparently in disagreement with the rule 144.2 of IAAF ".

This rule forbids "the use of any technical implement including springs, clockwork or quite other element which confers an advantage on an athlete in comparison with the one who does not use it ".

Besides, the use of prosthesis confers some advantages to Pistorius on the 400m, his running of predilection. If Pistorius finds it difficult to start, he manages to maintain his speed at the end of running due to the absence of lactic acid in muscles. If prosthesis technology advances to the point of allowing athletes to acquire worldwide titles, records, reputation and glory, will it be intentional men amputation, as an additional sacrifice linked to a career in the only purpose to achieve glory? Nonetheless, what will happen to the athletes with a too heavy disability to be overcome by technology? It would be the end of Handisports. If physiological differences are not taken into account why wouldn’t female compete with males?

Some extents have to be neglect. The fact that Pistorius is a competitive athlete who outclasses his adversaries in handisports and would hold out on the valid athletes should not be extended to a broad generality.