2 New Messages
Digest #4588
| 1a Re: Olympic Games Blades Sprinter - Comments? by "CoachJ1@aol.com" coachj12002 1b Re: Olympic Games Blades Sprinter - Comments? by "carson Wood" |
Sat Jul 7, 2012 11:58 am (PDT) . Posted by: "CoachJ1@aol.com" coachj12002
Hi Linda!
Good to hear from you!
My kids still refer to you as the "Deadlift Diva" That is a cool nickname!
I think the OP story has divided the research community, at least there are
disagreement among the seven who were originally involved in testing
Pistorius relative to the what the blades were allowing him to do.
Two of the members of that research team (Peter Weyand and Matt Bundle)
have never backed off their position regarding what their data show relative
to Pistorius's swing time--an indication of a clear advantage.
However, the facts behind the CAS ruling really have been misreported to
the point that Bundle/Weyand issued the following in an effort to present
the actual facts.
Misreported Incorrect Item 1 - The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)
ruled that Mr. Pistorius' artificial limbs DO NOT provide an advantage vs.
intact limbs during sprint running.
Fact – The publicly available ruling of the CAS indicates that the issue
the court considered was whether the specific eligibility ban imposed on Mr.
Pistorius by the IAAF was scientifically valid or not.
Fact - The court DID NOT rule "no advantage" for Mr. Pistorius. Rather,
the court overturned the IAAF's eligibility ban due to the inadequate
supporting evidence offered by the IAAF. In the very ruling that overturned the
ban, the CAS specifically pointed out that Mr. Pistorius blades may, in fact,
provide a competitive advantage.
Misreported Incorrect Item 2 – Matthew Bundle and Peter Weyand testified
before the CAS that the artificial limbs of Oscar Pistorius DO NOT PROVIDE a
competitive advantage and at a later time reversed themselves and stated
that Mr. Pistorius' artificial limbs DO PROVIDE an advantage.
Fact – First, neither of us were present at the CAS hearing. Second, since
we first reviewed the data obtained in Dr Weyand's laboratory in the
spring of 2008 we have been completely consistent in our public and scientific
communications in stating:
1) The scientific rationale put forth by the IAAF leading to Pistorius'
ban in 2007, was not valid, and
2) The entirely distinct data that we collected and published with Drs.
Herr, Kram and others, indicate that the carbon fiber prostheses worn by Mr.
Pistorius provide major competitive advantages vs. biological limbs.
Misreported Incorrect Item 3 – The 11.9 second advantage over 400-meters
provided to Mr. Pistorius by his artificial limbs is a "back of the envelope
calculation" that has never been peer-reviewed.
Fact – All of the data used to quantify the advantage that Mr. Pistorius'
blades provide was published after peer-review and with Drs. Herr and Kram
as co-authors. These data first appeared in an original manuscript that
was published in the print version of the Journal of Applied Physiology in
April 2009.
A second peer-reviewed paper presented the analysis that used the
previously published data to quantify Mr. Pistorius' 11.9 second advantage over
400-meter race. This second manuscript was a point/counterpoint contribution
that also appeared in the Journal of Applied Physiology. The peer review of
this second manuscript was conducted in accordance with the Journal's
policy as described on its website:
"Articles in the pro-and-con series are subject to peer-review by the
editor and editorial consultants, and acceptance cannot be guaranteed in
advance."
Our point/counterpoint manuscript was reviewed and accepted by the former
editor-in-chief of the Journal.
The two quantitative relationships used to determine the magnitude of Mr.
Pistorius' advantage first appeared in respective papers published in 2000
and 2003. The supporting data bases in the original and subsequent papers
include hundreds of all-out running trials that validated the accuracy of
these relationships to within 3.5% or less.
Misunderstood Item 4 – Why did Peter Weyand and Matthew Bundle wait until
18 months after the CAS Hearing to make their conclusions public?
Answer 4 – Because doing so was the only responsible, fair and
scientifically credible way to disseminate our research findings that Mr. Pistorius'
artificial limbs do indeed provide a major competitive advantage.
The least responsible course of action would have been to release our
advantage conclusion without: 1) the supporting data and analysis, and 2)
without peer review by other scientists. Early public release of our conclusion
without data, a supporting analysis and peer-review would have brought about
confusion for all, been unfair to Mr. Pistorius, other athletes, policy
makers, and the public. This course also would have violated the well-founded
conventions for the ethical, responsible dissemination of scientific
information and conclusions.
One result of the scientific disagreement among researchers working on the
Pistorius project was that the peer-review publication process necessarily
involved two steps, a first publication authored by all that introduced the
relevant data, and a second in which we were able to publish our advantage
analysis and conclusions alongside an alternative conclusion offered by
Drs. Kram and Herr. Because each round of the peer-review process typically
takes a minimum of one to two months after the lengthy process of manuscript
preparation, we were fortunate to publish the two papers as quickly as we
did."
I hope this helps. I've had an interest/involvment in double BTK amputees
since former paralympic champion Tony Volptentest compteted on my school
track here in Lisle back in '97--years before Pistorius and his carbon fiber
blades became an issue.
Respectfully,
Ken Jakalski
Lisle Senior High School
Lisle, IL USA
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Good to hear from you!
My kids still refer to you as the "Deadlift Diva" That is a cool nickname!
I think the OP story has divided the research community, at least there are
disagreement among the seven who were originally involved in testing
Pistorius relative to the what the blades were allowing him to do.
Two of the members of that research team (Peter Weyand and Matt Bundle)
have never backed off their position regarding what their data show relative
to Pistorius's swing time--an indication of a clear advantage.
However, the facts behind the CAS ruling really have been misreported to
the point that Bundle/Weyand issued the following in an effort to present
the actual facts.
Misreported Incorrect Item 1 - The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)
ruled that Mr. Pistorius' artificial limbs DO NOT provide an advantage vs.
intact limbs during sprint running.
Fact – The publicly available ruling of the CAS indicates that the issue
the court considered was whether the specific eligibility ban imposed on Mr.
Pistorius by the IAAF was scientifically valid or not.
Fact - The court DID NOT rule "no advantage" for Mr. Pistorius. Rather,
the court overturned the IAAF's eligibility ban due to the inadequate
supporting evidence offered by the IAAF. In the very ruling that overturned the
ban, the CAS specifically pointed out that Mr. Pistorius blades may, in fact,
provide a competitive advantage.
Misreported Incorrect Item 2 – Matthew Bundle and Peter Weyand testified
before the CAS that the artificial limbs of Oscar Pistorius DO NOT PROVIDE a
competitive advantage and at a later time reversed themselves and stated
that Mr. Pistorius' artificial limbs DO PROVIDE an advantage.
Fact – First, neither of us were present at the CAS hearing. Second, since
we first reviewed the data obtained in Dr Weyand's laboratory in the
spring of 2008 we have been completely consistent in our public and scientific
communications in stating:
1) The scientific rationale put forth by the IAAF leading to Pistorius'
ban in 2007, was not valid, and
2) The entirely distinct data that we collected and published with Drs.
Herr, Kram and others, indicate that the carbon fiber prostheses worn by Mr.
Pistorius provide major competitive advantages vs. biological limbs.
Misreported Incorrect Item 3 – The 11.9 second advantage over 400-meters
provided to Mr. Pistorius by his artificial limbs is a "back of the envelope
calculation" that has never been peer-reviewed.
Fact – All of the data used to quantify the advantage that Mr. Pistorius'
blades provide was published after peer-review and with Drs. Herr and Kram
as co-authors. These data first appeared in an original manuscript that
was published in the print version of the Journal of Applied Physiology in
April 2009.
A second peer-reviewed paper presented the analysis that used the
previously published data to quantify Mr. Pistorius' 11.9 second advantage over
400-meter race. This second manuscript was a point/counterpoint contribution
that also appeared in the Journal of Applied Physiology. The peer review of
this second manuscript was conducted in accordance with the Journal's
policy as described on its website:
"Articles in the pro-and-con series are subject to peer-review by the
editor and editorial consultants, and acceptance cannot be guaranteed in
advance."
Our point/counterpoint manuscript was reviewed and accepted by the former
editor-in-chief of the Journal.
The two quantitative relationships used to determine the magnitude of Mr.
Pistorius' advantage first appeared in respective papers published in 2000
and 2003. The supporting data bases in the original and subsequent papers
include hundreds of all-out running trials that validated the accuracy of
these relationships to within 3.5% or less.
Misunderstood Item 4 – Why did Peter Weyand and Matthew Bundle wait until
18 months after the CAS Hearing to make their conclusions public?
Answer 4 – Because doing so was the only responsible, fair and
scientifically credible way to disseminate our research findings that Mr. Pistorius'
artificial limbs do indeed provide a major competitive advantage.
The least responsible course of action would have been to release our
advantage conclusion without: 1) the supporting data and analysis, and 2)
without peer review by other scientists. Early public release of our conclusion
without data, a supporting analysis and peer-review would have brought about
confusion for all, been unfair to Mr. Pistorius, other athletes, policy
makers, and the public. This course also would have violated the well-founded
conventions for the ethical, responsible dissemination of scientific
information and conclusions.
One result of the scientific disagreement among researchers working on the
Pistorius project was that the peer-review publication process necessarily
involved two steps, a first publication authored by all that introduced the
relevant data, and a second in which we were able to publish our advantage
analysis and conclusions alongside an alternative conclusion offered by
Drs. Kram and Herr. Because each round of the peer-review process typically
takes a minimum of one to two months after the lengthy process of manuscript
preparation, we were fortunate to publish the two papers as quickly as we
did."
I hope this helps. I've had an interest/involvment in double BTK amputees
since former paralympic champion Tony Volptentest compteted on my school
track here in Lisle back in '97--years before Pistorius and his carbon fiber
blades became an issue.
Respectfully,
Ken Jakalski
Lisle Senior High School
Lisle, IL USA
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sat Jul 7, 2012 11:58 am (PDT) . Posted by: "carson Wood"
Hi Linda.
Being blind I've found in powerlifting an activity I can do that I need no assistance in performing other than being guided to the monolift, bench, and platform and , if I'm good enough to receive an award. I'd sent my picture deadlifting out to many people, including you pulling my last best lift in my first meet this year. A friend sent the picture to the United States Blind Athletics Association. Although I appreciated their call asking me to come to Florida to compete and, they are a great organization, I turned them down. I really didn't want to make something I love into something more tied to blindness when I'd rather forget about it as often as I can. I'm now 51 years old. My weight lifting
Life over the past 37 years, the last 15 being very visually impaired provide for me something akin to what the religious feel they gain from going to church. I don't have to be blind in the gym. Granted, I must navigate and do things slowly in moving things around etc but my strength can't be minimized by my needing to use that white cane.
What I'm trying to say is, all I've ever wanted out of life is to be happy and do what I want just like everyone else does except, I'm driven to go beyond even that.
I believe Oscar loves running just like I love lifting. I also absolutely know that Oscar wants to escape the confines society builds in stigma around being handicapped. With all the controversy, how can Oscar be mormal? Will society allow him to do what once was thought impossible for an amputee?
Are those of us who have some sort of physical challenge always have to be relegated to "special" games to perform our activities?
Our fight against stigma, real or perceived is drawn from fear. The"able bodied" cannot imagine how they themselves could function given hurdles like blindness, amputation, etc.
I absolutely don't have the answer to the questions surrounding the issues Oscar faces but, I do know he's a human being with a yearning to do what he loves trying to make sense of the cards he's been dealt.
Carson Wood.
Westbrook, ME USA.
----- Original Message -----
From: deadliftdiva@comcast.net
To: supertraining egroup
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 3:29 PM
Subject: [Supertraining] Olympic Games Blades Sprinter - Comments?
A man much previously discussed on our board is now entered in two running events at the Summer Games.
For discussion, I'd like to ask our group a couple of questions:
1. Will inclusion of Oscar and his blades end up impairing the Special Olympics and the other special Games for those with physical and mental challenges by encouraging such entrants to pass up them up for the mainstream?
2. Are the blades themselves "fair" against the meat feet and legs of the other competitors? There has been some discussion about the energy savings and other concerns - that the blades are more "springy" and possibly "better" than meat feet/legs?
3. If you believe the blades are "fair" for running events, would you also believe they retain that "fairness" if you were to see them entered in the high jump or other more "springy" events? Would they be an "unfair" advantage in say, high hurtles as well?
4. If Oscar ends up defeating the non-challenged entrants (the non bladed entrants), what do you believe will be the result of this and do you think it will result in a ban? Court challenges as to the "fairness" of the entry?
My personal opinion is that although shoes have been changing and improving over time, they do not account for the springy nature of the blades, nor do they account for the lack of energy expenditure or oxygen debt that limbs do. We penalize many means of changing one's energy profile - like blood doping, etc. While the entrant is fast enough and will bring a great deal of attention to the events, I'm not sure it will be a continued feature of the games, that the inclusion may encourage some attempts to mimic the effect of the blades by way of devices not currently allowed or other means yet to be determined. That athletes without blades may find themselves behind someone with what was previously considered a disadvantage in sport and become desperate to keep up...any way they can. Gold medals mean money and livelihood, sometimes for the family of the winner for life in many countries. There's too much at stake...
I look forward to reading the discussion and see what really happens with this amazing athlete and the Games themselves.
the Phantom
aka Linda Schaefer, CMT/RMT, competing powerlifter
Denver, Colorado, USA
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Being blind I've found in powerlifting an activity I can do that I need no assistance in performing other than being guided to the monolift, bench, and platform and , if I'm good enough to receive an award. I'd sent my picture deadlifting out to many people, including you pulling my last best lift in my first meet this year. A friend sent the picture to the United States Blind Athletics Association. Although I appreciated their call asking me to come to Florida to compete and, they are a great organization, I turned them down. I really didn't want to make something I love into something more tied to blindness when I'd rather forget about it as often as I can. I'm now 51 years old. My weight lifting
Life over the past 37 years, the last 15 being very visually impaired provide for me something akin to what the religious feel they gain from going to church. I don't have to be blind in the gym. Granted, I must navigate and do things slowly in moving things around etc but my strength can't be minimized by my needing to use that white cane.
What I'm trying to say is, all I've ever wanted out of life is to be happy and do what I want just like everyone else does except, I'm driven to go beyond even that.
I believe Oscar loves running just like I love lifting. I also absolutely know that Oscar wants to escape the confines society builds in stigma around being handicapped. With all the controversy, how can Oscar be mormal? Will society allow him to do what once was thought impossible for an amputee?
Are those of us who have some sort of physical challenge always have to be relegated to "special" games to perform our activities?
Our fight against stigma, real or perceived is drawn from fear. The"able bodied" cannot imagine how they themselves could function given hurdles like blindness, amputation, etc.
I absolutely don't have the answer to the questions surrounding the issues Oscar faces but, I do know he's a human being with a yearning to do what he loves trying to make sense of the cards he's been dealt.
Carson Wood.
Westbrook, ME USA.
----- Original Message -----
From: deadliftdiva@
To: supertraining egroup
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 3:29 PM
Subject: [Supertraining] Olympic Games Blades Sprinter - Comments?
A man much previously discussed on our board is now entered in two running events at the Summer Games.
For discussion, I'd like to ask our group a couple of questions:
1. Will inclusion of Oscar and his blades end up impairing the Special Olympics and the other special Games for those with physical and mental challenges by encouraging such entrants to pass up them up for the mainstream?
2. Are the blades themselves "fair" against the meat feet and legs of the other competitors? There has been some discussion about the energy savings and other concerns - that the blades are more "springy" and possibly "better" than meat feet/legs?
3. If you believe the blades are "fair" for running events, would you also believe they retain that "fairness" if you were to see them entered in the high jump or other more "springy" events? Would they be an "unfair" advantage in say, high hurtles as well?
4. If Oscar ends up defeating the non-challenged entrants (the non bladed entrants), what do you believe will be the result of this and do you think it will result in a ban? Court challenges as to the "fairness" of the entry?
My personal opinion is that although shoes have been changing and improving over time, they do not account for the springy nature of the blades, nor do they account for the lack of energy expenditure or oxygen debt that limbs do. We penalize many means of changing one's energy profile - like blood doping, etc. While the entrant is fast enough and will bring a great deal of attention to the events, I'm not sure it will be a continued feature of the games, that the inclusion may encourage some attempts to mimic the effect of the blades by way of devices not currently allowed or other means yet to be determined. That athletes without blades may find themselves behind someone with what was previously considered a disadvantage in sport and become desperate to keep up...any way they can. Gold medals mean money and livelihood, sometimes for the family of the winner for life in many countries. There's too much at stake...
I look forward to reading the discussion and see what really happens with this amazing athlete and the Games themselves.
the Phantom
aka Linda Schaefer, CMT/RMT, competing powerlifter
Denver, Colorado, USA
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
GROUP FOOTER MESSAGE
Modify/cancel your subscription at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups
Sign all letters with full name & city of residence if you
wish them to be published!
http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups
Sign all letters with full name & city of residence if you
wish them to be published!
No comments:
Post a Comment
Finish Reading ? Make Your Comment Now..!