When is a disabled person no longer disabled?
I’m not a fan of the term “disabled”, but it seems to bring to people’s mind a certain image. Often times it’s a person sitting in a wheel chair and unable to use stairs the same way as their friends and family. But what makes a person disabled? Is it our pre-concieved notions that only people who are of sound mind and complete body are considered normal, and everyone else is not?
South Africa’s Oscar Pistorius has been making headlines around the world as one of the fastest runners on the planet. At 20 years of age, he’s in great physical shape and has walked away with gold medals in several races. However, despite all his abilities, he might not be able to take part in the upcoming 2008 Olympic games in Beijing. Problem is … he’s a double-amputee.
It seems that not everyone is convinced he should run in the Olympics against able-bodied athletes because they feel he is not like every other athlete on the playing field. Some argue that his carbon fibre prosthetics give him an unfair technological advantage.
Born without fibulas, Pistorius underwent a double amputation, below the knee, as a baby. Now he is fast enough to come in second in the 400 metres at hte able-bodied South African nationals. This is a superb athlete, able to finish 100 metres in 10.91 seconds, that compensates for his artifical legs with genuine skill.
It seems almost absurd to think a man with no legs has an advantage over, so called, able-bodied athletes, and ridiculous to assume that he is disabled by this happenstance in the eyes of fate. To think that he might not be able to run in the 2008 Olympics would be a shame.
If only to make the other athletes feel more secure in their chances to win, Pistorius appears disadvantaged. His prosthetics called Cheetahs are not designed for starting blocks. His start is anything but stellar, and he requires about 30 metres to pick up momentum. The Cheetahs don’t grip the ground very well if the track is wet, and they’re not very aerodynamic, either, as wind plays a factor in the man’s chances. Yet despite all of these challenges, the man continues to push himself forward in a sport that he not only excells at, but loves.
In my books, that’s the sign of a true Olympian.
But in defence of the International Association of Athletics Federations that oversees the admittance of contenders, I can see why they might not want to bring a man like Pistorius into the mix. If olympians were permitted to enter with prosthetics, “normal” people might be pushed out of competition. Countries and corporate sponsors could dump untold sums of money into R&D for new technological advancements for their stars. Just imagine if MDR Robotics (the creators of the Canadarm used on the space shuttle and International Space Station) were to fit a javelin athlete with a specially designed apparatus that could toss the spear half a kilometer!
No human could ever compete with what our machines are capable of.
And there are the potential horror stories that might come out of some of the more competitive nations, where athletes that were perfectly abled before are hacked up and fitted with new devices that could send them to greater hights … before they retire at 30 to spend the next half-century contending with devices they may have never wanted.
It’s a slippery slope, for sure. I, for one, am glad that I’m not the one making the call about whether Mr Pistorius should have a shot at the Olympics or not. No matter what the decision is, there will be millions crying foul. But is it fair to ban him for an advantage derived from the prosthetic without calculating the disadvantage of being a double-amputee?
Soon, the IAAF will reveal whether Pistorius, who has not qualified for Beijing yet, is eligible for the Olympics. But in a way it does not matter. The man is already the very ideal of an Olympian. Whatever springiness of a carbon-fibre foot, it pales before the strength of the human spirit.
My biggest issue has always been with the Young Offender’s Act. With this act, people under the age of 18 are granted extra protections, such as not having their names or pictures published in the news, and often come with much lighter sentences if convicted.
I just got back from watching The Simpsons Movie, and I must admit that it was well worth the eight bucks. Over the past 18 years we’ve seen the characters in all kinds of situations, and the last few seasons has been witness to some pretty lame episodes, but this feature certainly makes up for some of the disappointment we’ve faced on Sundays.
But that’s not stopping one of the most inspirational organizations on the planet from purchasing a 
