Too disabled—or too abled—for the Olympics?

Some years ago I got into a dispute over the lunch table with a physics colleague. I do not recall how the subject came up, but I do remember wondering why did we need to have a separate Olympics—-the Paralympics and even the Special Olympics—for disabled athletes? What if, with (not “despite”) their disabilities, the disabled athletes could still compete with those who were not disabled? Why have separate games? My colleague looked at me with much puzzlement and talked about the high level of training and “ability” of the non-disabled/regular/athletes: How could anyone with any kind of impairment (physical; intellectual) compete at the same level?

A profile of double amputee sprinter Oscar Pistorius of South Africa in the May 14th New York Times made me recall this conversation. Born without the fibula in both lower legs and with other “defects in his feet,” Pistorius had both of his legs amputed below the knee at the age of 11 months. Pistorius runs using prosthetic devices known as “Cheetahs”—-j-shaped blades made of carbon fiber. He easily won the 100 and 200 meters races at the Paralympics World Cup last Sunday in Manchester, UK. He has run the 100 meters in 10.91 seconds); the 200 meters in 21.58 seconds; the 400 meters in 46.34 seconds—-these times would not qualify him for the Olympics, “but the Beijing Games are still 15 months away.” In March, he ran 46.56 in the 400 and won a second-place finish against non-disabled runners at the South African national championships.

The New York Times article notes that Pistorius’ ability has raised a number of questions about how “disabled” or “overly abled”—due to his prosthetic devices—-a person can be seen to be.

“I don’t see myself as disabled,” said the blond, spiky-haired Pistorius, a former rugby and water polo player who declines to park in spaces reserved for the disabled. “There’s nothing I can’t do that able-bodied athletes can do.”

……….

Still, the question persists: Do prosthetic legs simply level the playing field for Pistorius, compensating for his disability, or do they give him an inequitable edge via what some call techno-doping?

……..

Track and field’s world governing body, based in Monaco and known by the initials I.A.A.F., has recently prohibited the use of technological aids like springs and wheels, disqualifying Pistorius from events that it sanctions. A final ruling is expected in August.

The International Olympic Committee allows governing bodies to make their own eligibility rules, though it can intervene. Since 2004, for example, transgender athletes have been allowed to compete in the Olympics.

“With all due respect, we cannot accept something that provides advantages,” said Elio Locatelli of Italy, the director of development for the I.A.A.F., urging Pistorius to concentrate on the Paralympics that will follow the Olympics in Beijing. “It affects the purity of sport. Next will be another device where people can fly with something on their back.”

I find this logic revealing of attitudes towards the disabled: Is not a disabled athlete already at a disadvantage? Already competing at a disadvantage? If you are a double amputee or a paraplegic, are prosthetic devices or a wheelchair, not so much to be termed “advantages,” as technological creations that make it possible for a disabled person to do (walk, run) what they cannot do? Notes Robert Gailey, an associate professor of physical therapy at the University of Miami Medical School, who has studied amputee runners:

“Are they [the IAAF] looking at not having an unfair advantage? Or are they discriminating because of the purity of the Olympics, because they don’t want to see a disabled man line up against an able-bodied man for fear that if the person who doesn’t have the perfect body wins, what does that say about the image of man?”

According to Gailey, a prosthetic leg returns only about 80 percent of the energy absorbed in each stride, while a natural leg returns up to 240 percent, providing much more spring.

“There is no science that he has an advantage, only that he is competing at a disadvantage,” Gailey, who has served as an official in disabled sports, said of Pistorius.

What kind of abilities, of balance, of strength in the thighs or other parts of the leg that most of us do not think about, might Pistorius have? His example, and his ambition to compete in the Olympics—the “Olympics Olympics”—make me think less of “what might have been” for Charlie than “what could be.” Charlie indeed seems to have some athletic ability and not only for swimming, but also for bike-riding and also for running: He has been moving fast ahead of me, for longer and longer stints, on the hills during our walks. Who knows but Charlie could, like Nick Krishnan, run with the high school track team? Or, like Bae Hyong-Jin from South Korea, run marathons?

Perhaps it would not be so bad to muddle the “purity of sport”?

Citius, Altius, Fortius—”faster, higher, stronger”—-is the motto of the Olympics. Melius means “better”—might including differently abled (and more than capable) athletes better express the real spirit of the Games?