Comments on The Science of Sport: Oscar Pistorius gets a 10 second advantage in a 40...

intresting ideas i think you have a ppoint but let...

2010-01-11T20:52:23.662+02:00

intresting ideas i think you have a ppoint but let's just say he can't so the other racers don't ask questions. depdown i know he should but somebody will always diagree so the public needs to do what i am doing in my report. chose a dicision because you have evidence and can back up even if your heart isn't entierly there. happy posting -anymous

Hi Anonymous Not sure which position you're tryin...

2010-01-11T20:48:10.240+02:00

Hi Anonymous

Not sure which position you're trying to argue. But there is plenty on this site - just go to the tabs on the top, and click on both the "2009 stories" and the "2008 stories" and you'll find plenty of articles on this case, with a lot of discussion of the key issues.

Regards
Ross

Hey- i am doing a report and am against this does ...

2010-01-11T20:42:06.112+02:00

Hey- i am doing a report and am against this does anybody have anything to support this case?

Hi Ross! Thanks for that follow up. I understand...

2009-12-01T02:56:34.742+02:00

Hi Ross!

Thanks for that follow up. I understand the time constraints they were under, and I agree that they probably, as you noted, dipped into the first resource available. I'm just surprised that, since they knew from the outset how the argument was going to be framed, they weren't better prepared. However, without replicating the study and reaching a different conclusion, finding research refuting the 'advantage' claim might have been difficult. The McEnroe "are you serious" line, and the general tone of their last statement, really didn't make much sense coming from top notch scientists. It struck me as part spin, part damage control, and part frustration. But your overall analysis is probably more accurate: amateurish.

I can't wait to see how the rest of the research community weighs in on all of this!

Thanks again for your insights!

HI Ken I was surprised, but that's probably a con...

2009-11-30T06:27:34.915+02:00

HI Ken

I was surprised, but that's probably a consequence of the process. If this was anything like the usual journal "point-counterpoint" issue, then what would happen is that the first submission (in this case, by Weyand) is made, and the editor then sends it to the main protagonist for a response (Herr et al.), but that is time-bound.

I remember doing a similar one for a journal, and I had only a week to reply. This one may have been different, but I can't see it being too much longer. So they wouldn't have had too much time, and probably just dipped into the first resource that was available.

So that's the reason, but it doesn't condone that their defence was constructed around that. It came across as very amateurish, because what you say is true - they watched TV to counter the Weyand point.

Ross

Hi Ross! Were you surprised that the Grabowski pa...

2009-11-27T22:59:38.878+02:00

Hi Ross!

Were you surprised that the Grabowski paper, cited in the counterpoint piece,used swing time data gathered from a Beijing Olympics Highlight DVD to substantiate their claim that "low mass and inertia do not facilitate unnaturally fast leg swing times"?

I thought the Weyand/Bundle response was perhaps too kind when they noted the following:

"Low shutter speeds, frame-rates (30Hz), wide fields of view, and force-video offsets make television-estimated swing times highly uncertain."

At 30hz, it seems that the swing conclusions were based on someone clicking a remote on a standard DVD player. Am I missing something here?

Hi Ken Thanks for the comments you've posted. To...

2009-11-27T22:00:58.770+02:00

Hi Ken

Thanks for the comments you've posted.

To respond to your last one, I think so. It seems to me, based on what is coming out now, that there was some difference from the outset, but that the "technicality", or compromise, as you called it, allowed the initial research to be put out and interpreted by the media (no doubt 'aided' by some clever PR work).

Sure, it was a technicality, and they're now falling back on the issue that the initial statements referred only to the IAAF research, which was proven inadequate in the first round at CAS in 2008.

But to my mind, it seems that this evidence of an advantage has existed since the testing began, and how the process could proceed without full disclosure is beyond me.

It's either a cover-up driven by commercial interests, or a scientist who had an agenda (and here, Hugh Herr seems the likely one), or it's just a very flawed process, to allow a decision to be made on what are apparently very narrow terms!

Weyand's comments to Sports Illustrated (in my latest post) seem to indicate that he was unhappy from the outset, but that something kept the truth from coming out sooner. I'd love to know what that was.

Ross

Hi Ross! The following is an excellent point: "I ...

2009-11-27T04:40:46.918+02:00

Hi Ross!

The following is an excellent point:
"I have spoken with the management of the US Paralympic team, and they say that the athlete is only as fast as his able-bodied side."

This is pretty much what Kram et.al. tried to establish in their counterpoint:
"We hypothesize that unilateral amputee sprinters run with equally rapid leg swing times for their affected and unaffected legs. If that hypothesis is supported, it would dispel the idea that lightweight prostheses provide a leg swing time advantage."

However, your counterpoint is spot on:
"I was astounded that they'd apply the findings of a study on single leg amputees to a double-limb amputee. Completely different mechanics, and, according to Weyand, largely irrelevant, because the advantage is not on the ability to exert force on the ground."

In Dr. Weyand's first statement:"Based on the data...

2009-11-26T19:50:02.767+02:00

In Dr. Weyand's first statement:"Based on the data collected at Rice, the blades do not confer an enhanced ability to hold speed over a 400m race," I believe he was referring to the ASR test results, which showed that Pistorius fatigues just as sprinters with intact limbs would.

His second line: "Nor does our research support the IAAF's claims of how the blades provide some sort of mechanical advantage for sprinting" appears to be addressing
the actual IAAF 'case' against Pistorius, and the CAS's conclusion that: "the IAAF did not prove that the biomechanical effects of using this particular prosthetic device gives Oscar Pistorius an advantage over other athletes not using the device."

Now, were those statements simply 'compromises' to get all researchers to sign off on the paper? And in so doing did this allow for a specific "agenda" to be pushed forward?

Ross, Whereas I appreciate your thoughtful respon...

2009-11-22T18:14:45.244+02:00

Ross,

Whereas I appreciate your thoughtful response, you have to make a huge, unscientific leap of questionable faith to state or assume Pistorius would be a rather common 55 - 56s 400m runner. It seems the argument presented here can have no real resolution because Oscar's able-bodied speed is impossible to determine. Guessing is not science.

I believe in (simple) reality, and given the large numbers of amputee athletes, that if your or Weyand's views were to be supported, there would be at least a handful of performances that would equal and likely crush existing able-bodied world records.

The human body is still a mystery in many ways. Many considered we'd never break a 4 minute mile, yet those brilliant minds had to face the reality of Sir Roger Bannister's feat. You cannot and will not know what Oscar Pistorius' able-bodied performance might be, you'd have better chances guessing the winning lottery numbers immho.

I have seen the stubby prosthetics Oscar learned to walk on, they have little to no relevance to the very different Cheetahs or even the most basic modern prosthetics of today. I do not yet have running blades, but I have been told they are a very different beast to master with little comparison to how I am running on my Renegade LP right now. "Night and day" difference is what Canadian WR marathoner Rick Ball has told me.

As an aside, most people won't - and I've already been asked about this - make a distinction between single and double leg amputees when it comes to running blades. To think my peers will think I have an unfair advantage goes a long way to ruining my love of running and competing.

Although I believe any such study may be flawed, perhaps considering athletes who have been able-bodied and lost their legs might at least shed some relevant light on the subject. Even so, the huge variance of aging could easily skew any result.

Before any such pronouncements of scientific fact are made, I think you better have definitive proof than the assumptions you are using to back up your finding(s). Few even knew Oscar was cleared to run as an abled-bodied athlete in Beijing, still remembering the so-called prior judgment of his mythical "advantage."

Have you consulted with MIT with their simple findings?

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2009/1104/2?rss=1

Regards,
- Richard Blalock

Hi Richard I don't think you've missed Pistorius ...

2009-11-22T08:14:05.264+02:00

Hi Richard

I don't think you've missed Pistorius running by as you blinked, but I do think you've missed the point here.

The reason Pistorius has not beaten LaShawn Merrit is because he's not good enough an athlete to do it, simply put. If Weyand is right, then Pistorius is a 55 to 56 second 400m runner, who runs 46 thanks to the technology.

What you are arguing, that no amputees have broken able-bodied WR, is a simple argument too. A single-leg amputee will never be able to run as fast, because they are unbalanced as a result of different mass and length on the sides. That is key. I have spoken with the management of the US Paralympic team, and they say that the athlete is only as fast as his able-bodied side. Problem is, he's slower, because of the loss of balance

That's why some brilliant athletes are running around 11 seconds in a 100m in the single leg category. These are guys who might have been capable of 10 seconds.

However, a double amputee is a whole new story. The thing about Pistorius, which I'm sure you are aware, is that he learned to walk on prosthetic limbs, his learning process ensuring that he doesn't have the balance deficit that most people would have. Add to this that he participated in sport from a young age, that he had the money to afford expensive limbs and technology, and you have the ingredients for a why a double amputee is competitive.

My point is, the same arguments cannot apply to a single leg and double limb amputee. And when that double has had an entire life to master their use, then the result is an athlete who is not physiologically world class, but uses their equipment really well. That's the secret to Pistorius - the ability to use his equipment.

Ross

I have looked but have yet to find evidence of any...

2009-11-21T23:51:56.116+02:00

I have looked but have yet to find evidence of any WRs in running by amputees to be faster than their able-bodied competitors.

Not a single one.

Perhaps I missed this huge advantage, and blinked and lost Oscar blasting past LaShawn Merritt in Beijing and crushing the world record in the process.

Sometimes realty is all the science we need. And while we're at it, demand Al Gore give back his political prize.

- Richard Blalock
Amputee 4/14/2009
First race 11/14/2009

Swimming bans suits that allow everyone a slight m...

2009-11-21T15:24:59.527+02:00

Swimming bans suits that allow everyone a slight mechanical advantage, and track and field allows a bionic man who is gaining a 10-15% advantage...all sports need to start making clear guidelines for sports technology or debates like this will never subside.

_______________________________
http://swimscience.blogspot.com/

Are there any photosequences available showing a s...

2009-11-20T11:37:06.670+02:00

Are there any photosequences available showing a side view of Pistorius in action? I'd like to see a comparison with the trajectories of a top sprinter.

It seems that most of his advantage comes from the...

2009-11-20T04:48:01.090+02:00

It seems that most of his advantage comes from the cheetahs being lighter than a real lower limb. Would it therefore be possible to insist that they be made the same weight, thereby negating almost all of his advantage?

bobd, computer models are not the main reason man ...

2009-11-19T22:58:09.411+02:00

bobd, computer models are not the main reason man is blamed for recent global warming, it is direct measurement of the isotopes of carbon in the atmosphere, which are unique to burned fossil fuels.

i more or less agree with your other sentiments though.

I can see how a prosthetic would confer an advanta...

2009-11-19T19:45:12.930+02:00

I can see how a prosthetic would confer an advantage, but it's sad that it's so dramatized. I am aware that 10 secs is a huge advantage in something like a 400m sprint( I recently lost by about 15 secs the other day to a friend on a friendly competition). However, as a soldier currently deployed, and an avid runner and lover of competition, my greatest fear is that I'll lose a leg and never be able to compete again because of the issues that people have with runners using prosthetics. Some sort of even ground needs to be found, because it's not fair to an amputee that their life and dreams are shattered because of an accident out of their control.

Yes Dudley, Weyand is a bit inconclusive in genera...

2009-11-19T16:55:40.555+02:00

Yes Dudley, Weyand is a bit inconclusive in general. He does contradict himself with the two papers, but I would say the "Faster top running speeds are achieved with greater ground forces not more rapid leg movements" is insignificant and almost off topic. If you talk about swing time like he does you are only addressing half the equation of speed. What about the distance? Let's talk about the angular velocity of the limbs and see where we get.

+If amateur runners reposition their legs as fast as pro sprinters(at maximum speed) and O.P. 15% faster he is outside normal humans' range so therefore suspicious.

미르차

Hi Steven Thanks for the post - good to hear from...

2009-11-19T08:31:50.497+02:00

Hi Steven

Thanks for the post - good to hear from you! I'll respond to your other email separately!

I saw that study. I was astounded that they'd apply the findings of a study on single leg amputees to a double-limb amputee. Completely different mechanics, and, according to Weyand, largely irrelevant, because the advantage is not on the ability to exert force on the ground. So I don't know if the media portrayed the single-leg study in that way, or if it was the CU researchers, but it was shameful exploitation. It was like taking cross-country skiing and comparing it to running as far as I'm concerned, so different are the mechanics.

It seems clear to me that there is something up with the researchers, because that point-counterpoint in JAP degenerated into a rather angry argument by the end, accusations of disrespect being lobbed about. SO I don't know what's gone on with the scientific team, or when the 'split' occurred, but it just seems to me that decisions have been made with only partial disclosure.

So as Mcgrathe, Bobd and Dudley have all alluded to, there is something missing from this picture, and the decision should never have been reached.

As for the arguments, Dudley, you're right, the point-counterpoint thing, which happens all the time, does represent two different interpretations of the same data. I remember being involved in one, related to fatigue and the role of the brain, and they end up going around in circles a little. Happens all the time. So I agree that there remains a question mark, but I just feel that this question mark should at least have been presented to the CAS 18 months ago, since it seems clear that this belief about his advantage has existed since back then. For some reason, it didn't surface when the decision was made, and that's bizarre.

Ross

I am not sure that the Weyand et al. argument is a...

2009-11-19T03:50:49.168+02:00

I am not sure that the Weyand et al. argument is all that conclusive. It is interesting to read the counterpoints discussed by Dr Rodger Kram. http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/reprint/01238.2009v1

Weyand is giving his opinion, not surprisingly based on past research that he has done in the field of sprinting. One of his articles is "Faster top running speeds are
achieved with greater ground forces not more rapid leg movements", which contradicts his point that Pistorius can run faster because he is able to reposition his legs 15% faster than recent 100m World Record holders.

More research is definitely needed to put this one to bed. Studying one bilateral amputee athlete, who has probably modified his gait to run with artificial limbs is not good enough to make this type of conclusion. In saying this , I still believe that artificial limbs do provide the advantage to the amputee over an able bodied athlete, particularly in the longer sprint races.

I'm sorry about all the people that this will offe...

2009-11-19T02:54:16.480+02:00

I'm sorry about all the people that this will offend, but the reality is that this whole case is just another example of the bleeding heart altruistic left trying to inject their emotional position into everything science be damned.

It is no different than when they allowed Casey Martin to ride his golf cart in PGA tournaments and the whole unscientific BS about man made global warming caused by carbon dioxide. Allowing Oscar to compete with elite runners is no more scientific than computer models are that blame carbon dioxide for man made global warming. It's all politics and has no basis in reality.

Great news to hear this, but as you say it raises ...

2009-11-19T01:52:15.601+02:00

Great news to hear this, but as you say it raises huge questions about the credibility of the CAS investigation.

I suspect that the original quote "Based on the data collected at Rice, the blades do not confer an enhanced ability to hold speed over a 400m race" will be justified by a technicality - perhaps they will argue that the advantage conferred by the blades is not "an enhanced ability to hold speed" but some other form of advantage which effectively equates to the same result.

As you mention, all they seemed to do was disprove the IAAF's proposed mechanism - essentially saying "You're right, but you don't know why you're right so he should still be allowed to run"

I await developments anxiously.

On another SA note, any more comments on the Semenya case following the last few developments - Cheune's admission and suspension in particular?

I haven't read the research behind this article in...

2009-11-19T01:48:27.211+02:00

I haven't read the research behind this article in our local paper... but for a differing view, overall:

CU-Boulder study: No advantage for runners with prostheses