| |
|
|
Reputation:94
Level:All-Star
Since:Jun 28, 2007
|
Apparently it was before YOUR time FloydZeppelin, because it was the Bionic Woman. There was also the Six-Million Dollar Man.
Is your view, then, that nobody with any sort of prosthesis may compete in the olympics? What about a guy with a toupee? I guess he's out. Would you exclude people with artificial hands from running the 100M dash? Apparently so. Then, it gets even harder: what to do about people with removable artificial arms, as I already mentioned.
Frankly, I'm conflicted about this ruling -- I could still go either way. But to say it's ridiculous is, well, ridiculous. There has to be a line drawn somewhere, but it's not as clear where that line should be as you all want to make it out to be.
|
|
|
Reputation:94
Level:All-Star
Since:Jun 28, 2007
|
Sigh, that's Casey Martin, duker. In fact he was successful in his lawsuit against the PGA and they were required to let him play. Most of his career was spent on the Nike tour because, frankly, he wasn't that great.
That was an easy case, there's no doubt that this is a harder one. But, as I've mentioned, there clearly are cases where prostheses would be allowed for olympians. The question is only where to draw the line. It seems to me it should be a matter of fairness. Does the prosthesis give the athlete an unfair advantage? That's obviously a pretty flexible standard, but administered fairly it would be, well, fair. So, your straw man slippery slope argument that you now have to allow players with fins to enter the swimming events is flawed and specious, to be generous.
I would add: did anybody see the guy with one prosthesis on American Gladiators? Trust me, it's no unfair advantage.
|
|
|
Reputation:95
Level:Superstar
Since:Apr 30, 2007
|
|
Is your view, then, that nobody with any sort of prosthesis may compete in the olympics? Oh no, I woud never want you to speak for me..that's for sure. The deal is this, if you have a prostheses, there is a divison for you and you compete with others that have prostheses....Simple, but effective. Otherwise, pandora's box is opened and there is no end...again...motors, whatever....Got's to think it all the way thru...
|
|
|
Reputation:95
Level:Superstar
Since:Apr 30, 2007
|
|
Sigh, that's Casey Martin
A single tear drop rolls down my face....
NOT
|
|
|
Reputation:94
Level:All-Star
Since:Oct 23, 2006
|
|
This message has been removed by the administrator.
|
|
|
Reputation:94
Level:All-Star
Since:Jun 28, 2007
|
so you would seriously exclude a person with a prosthetic hand from running in the 100M dash? that's just totally irrational. it is also actionable under U.S. law, including the ADA. If a person with a prosthetic hand were excluded from running a race in the US on that grounds, they would have a very easily winnable lawsuit.
Once again, your "pandora's box" argument is absurd, because it doesn't allow for the possibility of decision-makers exercising discretion. It's clear that, for example, you could allow somebody with a prosthetic hand to compete in the 100M dash, while excluding somebody with a rocket powered wheelchair. To argue otherwise is specious at best.
Frankly, the idea you espouse is that every policy decision inevitably leads to a slipper-slope. Under your theory, allowing the use of guns for hunting necessarily allows the use of guns for murder. Invading Iraq necessarily requires that we invade every other country in the world. Allowing people 16 or older to drive necessarily allows that we allow babies to drive. Like your argument, these views make no sense at all.
If you want to argue that the line should be drawn somewhere different from where it was drawn, that is a sensible argument. I might even agree with you. (As I've posted, I'm not sure if I agree with this particular decision or not.) But if somebody challenged the right of a person with a prosthetic hand (or a toupee) to run the 100M dash, they'd be laughed out of the room. Just as, if somebody challenged for the right to "run" the 100M dash in a jet-propelled wheel chair (or swim a race with prosthetic flippers) would be laughed out of the room.
For your education:
1. Nuance - a subtle distinction or variation
2. discretion - ability to make responsible decisions
(mw.com)
Also, there is no olympic "division" for people with prostheses. If you mean the special olympics, it is decidedly not a division of the olympics
|
|
|
Reputation:95
Level:Superstar
Since:Apr 30, 2007
|
|
Dear Walt,
What is obvious is that you do not know of which you speak. There is not limit to technology and it is very obvious that any two people that compete should have the same "components", whatever that is...I am done on this issue...
|
|
|
Reputation:94
Level:All-Star
Since:Jun 28, 2007
|
Just to make sure this is clear:
the federal court ruled that Casey Martin WAS allowed to use a golf cart and that, under the ADA, the PGA was required to accommodate people with mobility impairments by allowing them to use golf carts when needed.
|
|
|
Reputation:95
Level:Superstar
Since:Apr 30, 2007
|
|
Also, there is no olympic "division" for people with prostheses. If you mean the special olympics, it is decidedly not a division of the olympics
I say make one....you guys are obviosuly biased and cannot handle the fact that people should compete with people of the same "components".....
Let me guess...bother/mother/father/uncle/cousin/a
nybody close to you...has a postheses...trust me, I understand. Important ?, have you ever competed in anything?
PS Bowling does not count.....
|
|
|
Reputation:94
Level:All-Star
Since:Oct 23, 2006
|
|
