Case study OSCAR PISTORIUS v the IAAF

We are not disabled by our disabilities but abled by our abilities ! Oscar Pistorius
Paralympic *ames). -he .&&/ proved to

South African sprinter Oscar Pistorius is a multiple world record holder and Paralympic gold medallist in the !!m" #!!m and $!!m Paralympic events% Pistorius" a dou&le'amputee" recently captured the attention of the world in his landmar( legal victory over the International Association of Athletics Federations )IAAF*%
Background Oscar Pistorius was born with a congenital disorder, which required the amputation of the lower part of both legs at the age of 11 months. Despite having no lower legs, Oscar went on to establish a successful sports career at school and university, playing rugby, water polo and tennis before discovering track as part of a rehabilitative programme for a rugby m injury. Pistorius went on to dominate the Paralympic podium in the 1 and " and beating, many elite m, ! m events, also competing against, able#bodied $ %outh

be the only hurdle blocking his way.

Image created by SonnyandSandy and reproduced under a Creative Commons licence.

The IAAF v Oscar Pistorius: A Landmark Legal Battle -he .&&/ had banned Pistorius from competing in the ,eijing Olympic ! m sprint event, regardless of whether he achieved the qualifying time for the event. -he rationale for the ban was that Oscar used prosthetic legs which gave him a competitive advantage over 0able#bodied1 athletes. -he ban was not at this point underpinned by scientific research, and Pistorius1 camp thus levelled charges of unfairness and possible discrimination against the .&&/ for their actions. /acing the might of the most powerful athletic organisation in the world, and also facing Pistorius doubt stood from his detractors that included some of his well respected peers, ground and refused to accept the ban. .n retaliation, the .&&/ commissioned a

runners in races such as the ! and the *olden *ala in +ome.

&frican 'hampionships (which he won)

&s Pistorius improved, it became clear that he had a shot at qualification for the ,eijing Olympic *ames (already having secured the right to compete in the

scientific study to prove their claims. -he results of the tests, they claimed, proved their right to ban Pistorius on the grounds

HLST Learning Legacies: Case Study February 20 0

Case study OSCAR PISTORIUS v the IAAF

that his 'heeta1s gave him a competitive advantage over able#bodied athletes. Oscar Pistorius subsequently took his fight to the 2uropean 'ourt of %port &rbitration, who overturned the .&&/1s ban, on the basis that the scientific study did not in fact provide evidence that could support a ban.

A more detailed overvie" o# the IAAF research: & scientific study was carried out on behalf of the .&&/ at in a by the Professor *erman -he long Peter %port study and sprint ,r8ggemann 9niversity constituted physiological

'ologne. analysis of

biomechanical

running by the double transtibial amputee

-hroughout the course of his legal battle, Oscar has raised some interesting fundamental, conceptual and philosophical questions about the nature of disability, and has become a role model to many. .n ! $, the .&&/ passed a regulation technological such aids on the gave unfair -he tests, which took place over a two day period at the .nstitute of ,iomechanics and Orthopaedics, .nternational Pistorius disagreed vehemently. 3e were initiated of by the &ssociation &thletic athlete Oscar Pistorius, who uses :cheetah; prosthetics, and five able#bodied athletes who are capable of similar levels of performance at " m.

prohibiting wheels athletes

competitive field, stating that springs, or other with a devices an disability

advantage over athletes competing with their natural legs. (Photo: Athlete wearing prosthetic)

/ederations (.&&/) with the approval and participation of Oscar Pistorius, in order to see whether his prosthetics provide him with an advantage over other athletes not using them (which would place Oscar Pistorius in direct contravention of .&&/ competition rule 1"".!).< &nalysis was carried out by a team of more than 1 from the scientists, including staff physiology laboratory of

appealed the decision, arguing that his carbon#fiber 'heetahs had disadvantages, too. On a wet track, the blades had less traction, and even not#so#heavy winds could blow them out of sync. Overall, he stated that his 4legs4 allowed him the capability of running just like able#bodied athletes, not worse than, but also not better than them. -he 'ourt of &rbitration for %port agreed. .n 5ay ! 6, the arbitration body made a ruling that overturned the .&&/ regulation, specifically in Pistorius7 case. 3e was given the green light to compete in the Olympic *ames. .f he qualified, that is.

Professor =. 5ester (.nstitute of -raining %cience and %port .nformatics). 1! high speed cameras (!> frames per second) were used to record ?D kinematics, with another " high#speed cameras to observe sagittal plane motion. /orce platforms were used to record ground reaction

HLST Learning Legacies: Case Study February 20 0

Case study OSCAR PISTORIUS v the IAAF

forces and point of force application. &thletes ran the " m test with a @" mask to record maA BO!. BO! testing was also carried out in the laboratory (Cingate and +amp -est) on static bicycles. ,lood lactate records were taken regularly. & ?D scanner was used to record body mass and anthropometric measures of all the control athletes. -he prosthetics were also subjected to material testing.

prosthetics needs less additional energy than running with natural limbs. # Once the physiological potential of Oscar Pistorius and the able#bodied control athletes had been estimated, using three different methods, it is clear that Pistorius1 potential was not higher than that of the controls, even though their performance results were similar. # -he biomechanical analysis demonstrated major differences in the sprint mechanics used by a below#knee amputee using prosthetics when compared to athletes with natural legs. -he maAimum vertical ground reaction forces and the vertical impulses are different in a highly significant way and the amount of energy return of the prosthetic blade have never been reported for a human muscle driven ankle joint in sprint running. # -he positive work, or returned energy, from the prosthetic blade is close to three times higher than with the human ankle joint in maAimum sprinting. # -he energy loss in the prosthetic blade was measured at D.?E during the stance phase while the average energy loss in the ankle joint of the able bodied control athletes was measured at "1."E. This means that the mechanical advantage of the &lade in relation to the healthy an(le .oint of an a&le &odied athlete is higher than /!,.

Image created by ! Hermida " reproduced under a Creative Commons licence.

The results o# the research study "ere re$orted by the IAAF as ob%ective $roo# that: # Pistorius was able to run with his prosthetic blades at the same speed as the able#bodied sprinters with about #+, less energy e-penditure. &s soon as a given speed is reached, running with the

HLST Learning Legacies: Case Study February 20 0

Case study OSCAR PISTORIUS v the IAAF

&onclusion o# the IAAF: -he .&&/ released the statementF

advantage over another athlete not using following such a device.1 A''()'*+ &lthough the

0.t is evident that an athlete using the 'heetah prosthetic is able to run at the same speed as able bodied athletes with lower energy consumption. +unning with prosthetic blades leads to less vertical motion combined with less mechanical work for lifting the body. &dditionally, the energy loss in the blade is significantly lower than in the human ankle joints in sprinting at maAimum speed. &n athlete using this prosthetic blade has a demonstrable mechanical advantage

%outh

&frican

Olympic

'ommittee delayed finalising their Olympic delegation to allow Pistorius a chance to qualify, the sprinter fell short of the ">.D># second Olympic qualifying mark for the " m. 3is personal best time of "G.!>s m +elay team for was still not fast enough to get him on the start list for the " H " %outh &frica. 3ad he made the squad, he would have gone down in history as the first leg amputee to compete in a running event in the Olympic *ames. .t remains to be seen if we will witness such a historic moment at Iondon ! 1!.

(more than ? E) when compared to someone not using the blade. -he .&&/ 'ouncil has ruled that the prosthetic blades known as :cheetahs; should be considered as technical aids in clear contravention of .&&/ +ule 1"".!. &s a result, Oscar Pistorius is not eligible to compete in competitions organised under .&&/ +ules. -his deems him ineligible to compete in the Olympic *ames.1

FI)' O*T +O,( Oscar Pistorius 2iography httpFJJwww.ossur.comJKPage.DL1? Paralympic Sport T3 httpFJJwww.Paralympicsport.tv Paralympic Sport we&site 6

0 IAAF Rule $$%# e-tract Relates to the use of 1technical aids1 during competition -his rule prohibitsF 0(e) 9se of any technical device that incorporates springs, wheels or any other element that provides the user with an

httpFJJwww.paralympic.org U4 Sport Funding 2rea(down )per sport* httpFJJwww.uksport.gov.ukJpagesJsummerM olympicMsportsM#MlondonM! 1!J

HLST Learning Legacies: Case Study February 20 0

Case study OSCAR PISTORIUS v the IAAF

&,('ITN OAford ,rookes 9niversity ! 1 . oAbF G 111F

Gcs

-his resource was produced as part of the ! 1! Iearning Iegacies Project managed by the 32& 3ospitality, Ieisure, %port and -ourism %ubject 'entre at OAford ,rookes 9niversity and was released as an Open 2ducational +esource. -he project was funded by 32/'2 and part of the =.%'J32 &cademy 9@O2+ programme. 2Acept where otherwise noted above and below, this work is released under a 'reative 'ommons &ttribution only licence.

(.ce$tions to the Licence -he name of OAford ,rookes 9niversity and the OAford ,rookes 9niversity logo are the name and registered marks of OAford ,rookes 9niversity. -o the fullest eAtent permitted by law OAford ,rookes 9niversity reserves all its rights in its name and marks, which may not be used eAcept with its written permission. -he =.%' logo is licensed under the terms of the 'reative 'ommons &ttribution#Oon# 'ommercial#Oo Derivative Corks !. 9@F 2ngland P Cales Iicence. &ll reproductions must comply with the terms of that licence. -he 3igher 2ducation &cademy logo and the 32& 3ospitality, Ieisure, %port and -ourism %ubject 'entre logo are owned by the 3igher 2ducation &cademy Iimited and may be freely distributed and copied for educational purposes only, provided that appropriate acknowledgement is given to the 3igher 2ducation &cademy as the copyright holder and original publisher.

,eusing this "ork -o refer to or reuse parts of this work please include the copyright notice above including the serial number. -he only eAception is if you intend to only reuse a part of the work with its own specific copyright notice, in which case cite that. .f you create a new piece of work based on the original (at least in part), it will help other users to find your work if you modify and reuse this serial number. Chen you reuse this work, edit the serial number by choosing ? letters to start (your initials or institutional code are good eAamples), change the date section (between the colons) to your creation date in ddmmyy format and retain the last > digits from the original serial number. 5ake the new serial number your copyright declaration or add it to an eAisting one, e.g. 0abcF1 1 11F Gcs1. .f you create a new piece of work or do not wish to link a new work with any eAisting materials contained within, a new code should be created. 'hoose your own ?#letter code, add the creation date and search as below on *oogle with a plus sign at the start, e.g. 0QtomF ? > "1. .f nothing comes back citing this code then add a new >#letter code of your choice to the end, e.g.R 0F 1leA1, and do a final search for the whole code. .f the search returns a positive result, make up a new >#letter code and try again. &dd the new code your copyright declaration or add it to an eAisting one.

HLST Learning Legacies: Case Study February 20 0