The case of Oscar Pistorius
is one that sets a new and interesting precedent for the Olympics, and for the
world in general. Not the case of murder, but the case of a disabled athlete
running in competition – and coming out victorious – against able bodied
athletes at the top of the world. The 2012 London Games could usher in a new
era in the Olympics, and the world… or they could usher in an entirely new
division in the way the world views “humanity.”
Pistorius’ prosthetics
were at first counted against him in the same category as performance
enhancers, with fair scientific reasoning behind it. His carbon fiber and
titanium Cheetah’s weigh less than half of what an able bodied runner’s lower
leg weighs, which allows him to swing his leg an average of .11 seconds faster
than any sprinter with flesh and blood legs. However, there are a number of
downsides that mitigate the speed he can manage in a straight line – he cannot
run well in wet weather, he can’t stop well, and it takes him more time than
most of his competitors to speed up or slow down. (Eveleth)
Pistorius – a man who
has no leg bones below the knee, holds the current record for his current
event, proving that people who are defined as “disabled” by much of the world
can in fact match and outdo able bodied people at the top of their abilities. Whats
especially interesting, is that if you compare Oscar Pistorius to the definitions
of “disability” within the Americans with Disabilities Act – “whether an
impairment substantially impairs a major life activity”,
This is great for Pistorius and
others like him – Such as the dozens of other Paralympic runners with
prosthetic limbs. In a sense, their prostheses can be called performance
enhancers – they quite literally enhance someone without the ability to walk,
much less run – and they don’t only enhance physical performance. For someone
born with a birth defect, or disabled by an accident, the confidence and
spiritual enhancement that can come of that functionality being restored can be
a massive impetus for them. From an interview with another paralympian and
celebrity, Aimee Mullins, “it’s not in spite of or despite their conditions”
that makes them push as hard or harder as the able bodied to be extraordinary
because of it. (Thnkr) She was born with the same condition as
Pistorius, the fibulae of her legs missing, and working against able bodied
peers and competitors, became a celebrity icon, doing everything from fashion modeling
to continuing to run competitively.
The original ruling barring
Pistorius from competing was one placed by the IAAF – International Association
of Athletics Federations, on the grounds that his blades gave him a mechanical
advantage and was overturned by the CAS – The Court of Arbitration for Sport –
which is the highest tribunal of world sports in an appeal by Pistorius. The
possibility of The secondary ramifications
if such a ruling had been allowed to stand could have been destructive, and
might well have given a precedent necessary to allow the declaration that
people with prostheses or missing body parts were no longer entirely human, and
so would be disqualified from participation in the Olympics, from potentially
being classified with the rest of us. It makes sense to separate athletes based
upon able bodied and disabled to a degree – it keeps things on a level playing
field, and ensures that there is no hint of a decision being handed some ones
way out of pity.
But when the line in ability becomes one of parity in skill, we shouldn’t
be trying to ensure an athlete who can compete at Olympic levels isn’t allowed
to – if such a ban stands, then we would likely end up with an Olympics for
people “enhanced” beyond their natural abilities by modern technology or bionic
upgrades, and an Olympics for un augmented people, who cannot compete on an
equal level with the augmented humans. Create a precedent for barring someone
once, and eventually it will be used to show why someone should not be able to
participate in other activities – its rare that a ban or a prejudice start in a
single giant leap, far more often it’s a slippery slope of things that make
logical sense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mokPWCTPZY
