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.
No comments:
Post a Comment