Miles's blog

There is often conflict and confusion when advancing technology bumps up against sports rules and practices created when such technology was unthinkable.  In 1976, Renee Richards caused a stir when she wanted to play professional tennis.  The problem was that Renee had previously been a mildly successful amateur tennis player named Richard Raskind.  Following a sex change operation, the newly-female Richards sought to use her prior tennis skills, and 6 foot, 2 inch frame, to take on the women.  The tennis establishment resisted, but Richards won the right to play in court, going on to have a short professional career. 

Forgetting the issue of whether courts of law are the best places to make these decisions, the entire concept of the fairness of allowing someone to be placed in a better situation through the implementation of modern technology presents a very tough challenge.  Apparently the downside of changing gender has been a sufficient deterrent to prevent a flood of transgendered athletes.  (I would think that the required use of a public toilet would forever discourage a man from wanting change his gender.)

The Olympics is now facing a technology problem of a completely different kind.  Oscar Pistouris ran the 400 meters for South Africa despite have suffered a double amputation of his legs below the knee at age 11.  Pistouris is certainly the fastest runner in Paralympics competition, and he is competitive in the open competition, reaching the semifinals in London.  Pistouris runs on two strong-looking metal blades which would appear to allow for a level of springiness giving him a competitive advantage over everyone else.  Originally, the governing body of track and field barred Pistouris from racing against those without prosthetics (“able-bodied” does not seem like an apt term because Pistouris certainly is plenty able), however the Court of Arbitration for Sport (and who these people are and why they should have the final say eldudes me) overturned that decision, ruling that Pistouris should be allowed to compete.  That makes Pistouris the only athlete competing in both the Olympics and the Paralympics.

While I respect both Pistouris’s accomplishments and his tenacity, I am troubled by his participation in the Olympics.  The Court of Arbitration for Sport ruled his prosthetics give him no competitive advantage, a ruling I do not accept.  And even if true, it is not difficult to imagine that someone will invent prosthetics, for running and other sports, which do provide an unfair advantage.

Even if Pistouris’s prosthetics themselves do not provide enough spring or leverage enough to give him extra speed, his physical condition itself, when assisted by technology, does give him some benefit.  By having no limbs below the knee, Pistouris’s heart need not pump blood either as far or to as much tissue as the hearts of other runners.  I cannot believe that this alone does not give his body a benefit as the race wears on.  Unlike his competitors, Pistouris need not worry about a sprained ankle or broken toe.  He seems to be able to screw spikes directly into his blades, so I imagine he can alter them for the track surface and weather. 

The advances of technology certainly will create prosthetics which will increase speed.  What if Pistouris was a swimmer?  Could he strap fins to his legs?  It takes little imagination to see how custom prosthetics could help volleyball players, swimmers, and many others.  Should Lee Majors be allowed to win a gold medal?

I would be more comfortable with Pistouris’s involvement if he ran wearing the same prosthetics he uses in his daily life, which I presume are modeled closely on a human body.  Renee Richards, after all, did not become a woman merely while playing tennis.  But Pistouris runs on blades, much different I assume than what he wears to a formal banquet.

I realize lines must be drawn.  It would be absurd to abolish all forms of technological aid.  Shooters should be able to wear glasses and have laser eye surgery.  Athletes who undergo surgery to repair injuries of course cannot be banned, even if the surgery requires permanent implantation of pins, or even a pacemaker.  I hope someday to see a heart transplant recipient on the Olympic medal stand.  But somewhere a line must be drawn.  A repaired anterior cruciate ligament is not equivalent to replacing your lower leg with springs nor your hands with paddles.   I don’t know where the limits of assistance must stop.  Are implanted pumps for insulin too much of an advantage for athletes with diabetes? 

Sports are compelling because we marvel what other humans can do that we can only dream about.  Usain Bolt’s speed, Gabby Douglass’s graceful athleticism, Michael Phelps’s power in the water draw us to watch because they do things no one else can do.  Introducing a technological component diminishes our sense of awe.  I want to cheer my heroes to reward their hard work and physical gifts, I do not want to applaud the quality of their technicians.

This is not to diminish Pistouris’s achievements or denigrate his efforts.  I have no doubt he has worked as hard as any athlete there.  But his success is based in part of technological enhancements outside of that which no other athlete uses.  To me, his situation goes too far.