Trying to Outrun Ignorance: or, Read First, THEN Comment
Aug 1st, 2012 by Kimberly
I did it again, dear readers. I read the comments underneath a news article.
Go ahead, shake your head and say you told me not to do it. You’re right. I should know by now that reading the reactions submitted by others who clicked on a link and ended up on this page can only end in – well, if not actually tears, at least a nearly overwhelming urge to smack my head into the keyboard. Possibly until I lose consciousness and forget what I read there. What can I say? It’s a car crash at the corner of self-contradiction and bad grammar, and somehow I just can’t look away.
Oscar Pistorius, Olympic runner for South Africa
Blame the folks at NPR. They ran an article about Oscar Pistorius, the South African sprinter competing in the 400-meter sprint who just happens to run on artificial legs. The piece centered on whether having legs made of carbon-fiber might give him an edge over those with less high-tech appendages. The conclusion? An unequivocal no. (Should I have given a spoiler alert? Oh, well.) The Court of Arbitration for Sport (dear Lord, who knew such a thing existed?) had an evaluation done by researchers at the University of Colorado, and they determined that the prosthetics afforded him no advantage. They may make him a tad lighter, but they also rob him of the momentum runners usually gain by pushing the foot against the ground. Testing done on people with only one artificial leg indicated that the biological limb generated 9% more force, both at the start and around the track. Basically, it boils down to this: if you were born with two functional legs and you can’t win gold medals for track, cutting them off and getting new super-engineered carbon-fiber ones is not going to help.
I thought the article made its point effectively. Imagine my surprise, then, to read comment after comment saying, “He shouldn’t be allowed to compete. He has an unfair advantage over the other runners.”
Did people not understand the article? I don’t know. It wouldn’t surprise me. We may need to start testing everyone for reading comprehension before they are allowed to comment on current events. Oh, and I do mean everyone. This week, Lech Walesa said that the world needed Mitt Romney’s success. What the leader of the Polish union movement, Solidarity, has in common with a man who believes corporations are people, I don’t know, and my head hurts just thinking about it. Solidarity, meanwhile, stepped discreetly away from Mr. Walesa and said, “Nope, don’t know him, never met the guy before.”)
You can click the link about Mr. Pistorius and read it for yourself, but I thought it communicated the point effectively. More likely, people made the comments without actually reading the article. Some of the critics tried to make this into a man-vs-technology battle. This man should not be allowed to run because sports are supposed to be a battle of pure physical strength and skill, and equipment shouldn’t enter into it. One person even went so far as to suggest that we return to the original Greek habit of competing in the nude, saying that would take care of everything.
I have trouble considering a prosthetic leg as clothing, myself. Would it be wardrobe, or an accessory? Does it come in any color besides black? Maybe something brighter, for the summertime?
Sorry about that – back on point. Let’s review the facts:
1. There is no advantage. All the studies done said that the artificial leg decreases, not increases, the speed of the runner.
2. There is no point #2.
Why exactly should we be worried about allowing Mr. Pistorius to compete? Because he might bring technology into the world of sports? Surprise! It beat him there by several decades. Take a look at those things the runners have on their feet. The shoes don’t look the same as they did in 1896 when the first modern Olympics took place. They’ve been crafted over the years to help the runner get to the finish line faster, with fewer blisters. The same thing has happened in every other sport created by humans. The International Olympic Committee seems to allow it, right up until it brings a discernible advantage over other competitors.  Sometimes even then, at least for a while.
Remember back in the 2008 Beijing Olympics, when so many swimmers wore those full-body polyurethane swimsuits? They are conspicuously absent from the 2012 London Olympics. No, not because so many women wrote in demanding to see Michael Phelps’ six-pack abs. (Well, at least not just because of that.) As soon as the wonder-suits arrived on the scene, world records got broken like uncooked spaghetti. Finally, in 2010, the governing body for international swimming competition (known to its friends for some reason as FINA) banned the suits from use in competition. (Actually, it banned them in May 2009, and then unbanned them in June of that year, and then banned them again in 2010. Like Neil Sedaka said, breaking up is hard to do.)  They decided the suits created too much of an advantage, and had to go.
When they invent a pair of artificial legs that have roller blades attached and can do things that the flesh-and-blood kind can’t, then we may have to renegotiate. For right now, however, I really don’t think we’re in any danger of having runners with perfectly healthy limbs line up to trade in their legs for carbon-fiber replacements. I say we get out of the way and let Mr. Pistorius keep running – all the way to a medal, if he can.
Kimberly really needs to stop assuming that people are going to make sense. Her life would be much simpler. Less sane, but simpler.
Nothing like reading article comments to make one lose faith in humanity.
And good article! 🙂
Thank you, Jim! Comments under news articles do seem to yell, “Abandon hope, all ye who enter here.”
Great stuff, lady. Brava!
He shouldn’t be allowed to compete. He has an unfair advantage. (Sorry, I couldn’t resist! :))
I have to admit, when I first saw this my first thought (as one who works in the field of diability) was – “don’t allow this, he has an unfair advantage.” However, since I learned to read in first grade and my comprehension scores were high, once I read the article, I understood that all appropriate testing had been done by all the right people to determine that he has no advantage at all and, in fact, is at a slight disadvantage. I applaud the man for taking this up the line to CAS (which, as a sports fan, I was aware existed) and fighting for the right to compete with his athletic peers.
You bring up an excellent point, Deb – as an athlete, Mr. Pistorius may have wanted those tests done as much as any one of the naysayers. A true athlete would take no pride in winning a race where he had an advantage in the first place.