I watched that race too and have mixed feelings. One the one hand, it's inspiring to see someone overcome that big an obstacle like that to compete at that level. But on the other hand, it seems to me like the spring factor to those artificial legs might have given him an unfair advantage (as opposed making a level playing field), which sounds odd given his situation. Tough call about whether he should have been allowed to compete. If he were to medal, there would be doubts about the fairness.ScorchedNX2K wrote:He has a definite advantage in straight-line running...less oxygen requirements, weight, and greater kinetic efficiency.
There was speculation about that and it seems plausible to me, but it actually takes more energy per step for him to run than it does a person with complete legs.alms24sebring wrote:I JUST watched that race. Im surprised he made it in, but he might have a sleight advantage with less weight, easier blood flow, and springy motion. I am now enjoying Misty Mays killer buttcheeks
Because wearing contact lens in a footrace does not make you significantly faster than wearing eyeglasses.bigbadberry3 wrote:Just because something is springy doe not mean it is an advantage for running.
If these are illegal, why are athletes allowed to wear eye contacts?
Not in a foot race but in many athletic events it would. Archery/ shooting, badminton, tennis, volleyball, basketball, fencing, ping pong, anything where you require some visual input to perform well.Bubba1 wrote:Because wearing contact lens in a footrace does not make you significantly faster than wearing eyeglasses.bigbadberry3 wrote:Just because something is springy doe not mean it is an advantage for running.
If these are illegal, why are athletes allowed to wear eye contacts?
How is how well you can see something not a "physical performance"? Your eye sight is being artificially enhanced. Your biology is being improved.alms24sebring wrote:Thats completely different, its not physical performance. So sunglasses at volleyball or track should be illegal too?
That's a good point, but I think I can answer that. In the case of corrective lens' for sports that involve a focused eye, common sense would dictate bringing your eyesight to a normal 20/20 standard(whether by eyeglasses or contact lens) would be fine, but to exceed 20/20 with those same corrective aids might be considered cheating. And that's the heart of the debate with those artificial legs. Do they bring his legs' function to a normal operating standard or do they give him an unfair advantage? I don't know.bigbadberry3 wrote:Not in a foot race but in many athletic events it would. Archery/ shooting, badminton, tennis, volleyball, basketball, fencing, ping pong, anything where you require some visual input to perform well.
Your point is very logical to me and makes sense. My gripe would be though, aren't the Olympics meant to show off how much better I am at you at something, which would be defeated by standardizing play. I don't have 20/20 vision but I wouldn't want my competitor to be forced to wear lenses if their eye sight was better than 20/20.Bubba1 wrote:That's a good point, but I think I can answer that. In the case of corrective lens' for sports that involve a focused eye, common sense would dictate bringing your eyesight to a normal 20/20 standard(whether by eyeglasses or contact lens) would be fine, but to exceed 20/20 with those same corrective aids might be considered cheating. And that's the heart of the debate with those artificial legs. Do they bring his legs' function to a normal operating standard or do they give him an unfair advantage? I don't know.bigbadberry3 wrote:Not in a foot race but in many athletic events it would. Archery/ shooting, badminton, tennis, volleyball, basketball, fencing, ping pong, anything where you require some visual input to perform well.

No question about that Bex, he's a great athlete with an inspiring story, but the big issue is still the question of whether or not his technology gives him an advantage. . Heck, If technology were allowed, I'd enter the 100 meter dash in a jet powered wheel chair and dust everyone.nissangirl74 wrote:I think you guys are getting away from the big picture here. A man with no legs trained hard enough to first learn how to stand again, then to walk, and THEN decided to train for the Olympics AND MADE IT. I don't give a flying F if it did give him an unfair advantage. Dude's a stud.
I think Bubba still could find a tree or two with his jet packScorchedNX2K wrote:I can't wait for Open-Class Olympics. Dope however you want to, use whatever augmentation you feel like.... It'd be like Group-B rallying with less crashes into trees.
Probably. I didn't really think about turning or braking a jet powered wheelchair.bigbadberry3 wrote:I think Bubba still could find a tree or two with his jet packScorchedNX2K wrote:I can't wait for Open-Class Olympics. Dope however you want to, use whatever augmentation you feel like.... It'd be like Group-B rallying with less crashes into trees.
some people are born 20/10 naturally.alms24sebring wrote:Thats a great point Bubba. Enhancing eyesight past 20/20 may be cheating. And who knows if that research about prosthetic vs real legs took place or not. Definantly questionable.

Ha six million couldn't even get you sharks with lasers on their heads now a days. Billions!themadscientist wrote:Now at some point we may have to contest with bionics.

