Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Re: Oscar Pistorius

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Oscar Pistorius

    As sort of a side note to everyone else's excellent comments, I had a more
    specific question:

    Was there an exact criteria established by this scientific group for how to
    evaluate "advantage?" Specifically, If I heard correctly sprint advantages
    were lowly weighted or ignored and the metabolic efficiency was thought to
    predominate, and it was determined he did not have an advantage for a 400 m
    distance.

    1) Assuming there was a numerical calculation, was this calculated
    specifically for Mr. Pistorius's anthropometry? Wouldn't such a calculation
    need to be customized for each petitioner and their proposed prosthetic?

    2) I know the argument was prepared for his specific prosthetic, but was the
    criteria defined clearly enough that the prosthetic manufacturer could know
    how much he could redesign (masses, spring rates) without slipping over into
    "advantage?" Could there be an "advantage" standard applied the way some
    jockey/ horses are required to add weight in certain types of races to
    "normalize" the race?

    3) Would the criteria be easy to re-weight for runner/ prosthetic advantage
    over different distances, especially as sprinting becomes more of a factor?

    Regards,
    Terry O'Bannon
    Principal Engineer, Occupant Biomechanics
    Lear Corporation, Seating Systems Division
    21557 Telegraph Road
    Southfield, MI 48033
    E: tobannon@lear.com
    T: 248.447.4123


    -----Original Message-----
    From: * Biomechanics and Movement Science listserver
    [mailto:BIOMCH-L@NIC.SURFNET.NL] On Behalf Of Alena Grabowski
    Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 8:47 PM
    To: BIOMCH-L@NIC.SURFNET.NL
    Subject: [BIOMCH-L] Oscar Pistorius

    We, the scientific group that has refuted the claims of the IAAF, believe
    that it is relevant to make the following points based on recent commentary
    from the Biomch-L list regarding the CAS's ruling to overturn the IAAF's
    decision that banned Oscar Pistorius from international able-bodied
    competition:

    1. The work conducted by our group was done pro bono. None of us received
    compensation for our research or participation in the hearing. The legal
    team selected our group from many other willing scientists. All of us were
    screened and cleared for any potential conflicts of interest by the lawyers.
    In addition, Rodger Kram and Hugh Herr were judged to not have any conflict
    of interest by the CAS court.
    2. Our group of scientists was asked to evaluate the scientific claims made
    by the IAAF that resulted in the banning of Oscar Pistorius.
    3. We evaluated the claims by using data from the literature, as well as our
    own data collected at Rice University.
    4. As Ton has stated, this ruling applies only to Oscar and to the Cheetah
    prosthetics, thus any new prosthetic running technology will have to be
    re-evaluated before being allowed in IAAF competition.
    5. We plan to publish the data that we have collected in a peer- reviewed
    journal as soon as possible.
    6. We hope that the interest in the Oscar Pistorius case will result in a
    number of further studies into questions regarding the biomechanical and
    energetic effects of prosthetics on human walking and running.

    Our group includes Drs. Hugh Herr, Peter Weyand, Rodger Kram, Matthew
    Bundle, Craig McGowan, and Alena Grabowski.

    Alena Grabowski, PhD
    Postdoctoral Associate
    Biomechatronics Laboratory
    MIT Media Lab
    http://web.media.mit.edu/~alenag

Working...
X