Re: Re: Olympic Games Blades Sprinter - Comments?

[Guest guest]

Hi Amby!

Good to hear from you!

>His legal team obviously won his case on the question of " advantage " .

from the Weyand/Bundle corrections and clarification paper:

" 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

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. "

Ken Jakalski

Lisle HS

Lisle, IL USA

[Guest guest]

Wow, the way this is laid out - coupled with the Rice researchers, there is

little doubt that at least by rule and by science, the gentleman has an

" advantage " .

If we are to take the rules and the researchers as correct, that the inclusion

of the blades is indeed not usual to the athlete and against the rule of the

sport, then we have another question:

Is the fact the athlete has not run a superior time then the fault solely of the

athlete - and the equipment has made an athlete who did not have the superior

talent into one who is now at an elite event?

Laying aside the fact that being an amputee is not a choice, and that it is a

severe disability - would a blade equipped athlete with demonstrable talent

prior to their incorporation shatter the world records?

Would a meat athlete using blades be allowed under both the cited rules -

despite the inclusion of the athlete in question under both rules?

Would a shoe manufacturer use this inclusion to petition for a spring shoe? a

shoe using blade technology? (and a second question - the one of changing the

dimension of something - a heeled shoe would " change the dimension " of the

runner - were the use of a heel an advantage, this would be a rule infraction?)

And as long as we are laying out all the " advantages " - both above and below the

table - what is the incidence of WADA failures in the parapalegic elite events?

Would the athlete in question be able to use " all " the substances and other

tricks his competitors may well avail themselves of, whether they are detected

in competition or not? Would not a parapalegic be too delicate in their

constitution to use some of the things others clearly use or test positive for?

Would then a bladed athlete of parapalegic type be on a nearly equal footing

with an elite athlete using substances and other training means not available to

him?

The discussion is a productive one and I don't think we have conclusive answers

both on the true impact of blades and their inclusion against the rules, or the

real impact of the blades on the amputees and their future in sport.

The Phantom

aka Schaefer, CMT/RMT, competing powerlifter

Denver, Colorado, USA

Re: Olympic Games Blades Sprinter - Comments?

RE Pistorius and his blades, the following appears to be the relevant IAAF

regulation. His legal team obviously won his case on the question of

" advantage " .

For the purpose of this Rule the following shall be considered

assistance, and are therefore not allowed:

(f) use of any technical device that incorporates springs, wheels or

any other element that provides the user with an advantage over

another athlete not using such a device.

(g) use of any appliance that has the effect of increasing the

dimension of a piece of equipment beyond the permitted maximum

in the Rules or that provides the user with an advantage which he

would not have obtained using the equipment specified in the

Rules.

Amby Burfoot

Runner's World Magazine

Emmaus PA

[Guest guest]

With regard to the running style - well, we still have the highly upright

with his unique style and possibly an athlete with this tendency

might do well with the upright blades?

I believe we may have at least one example of drug usage and then competition

post usage (essentially getting extra tests and with WADA breathing down their

necks..). n was arguably a great sprinter during her BALCO years -

but her performance has been less than stellar post usage return to sport.

One other irony though - another sprinter of USA was busted for her steroid

usage and bluntly said she'd do it again.

I wonder how much money we are spending even pretending folks don't use at the

high levels of the Games and the Tour de France, etc... Is it time to just throw

in the towel on " level field " and truly level it in the Tour de France by

declaring it professional and stopping the testing once and for all?

The Phantom

aka Schaefer, CMT/RMT, competing powerlifter

Denver, Colorado, USA

Re: Olympic Games Blades Sprinter - Comments?

Hi Ken

This is an endlessly fascinating and layered topic! The science is very

complicated, and while I don't dispute (or pretend to understand) the data, data

still has to be interpreted. If I have understood your post, the interpretation

is that the carbon fibre legs give an 11.9 second advantage over 400m. Is

that an advantage over all other able-bodied athletes (clearly not) or a

(hypothetical) able-bodied version of himself? The truth is we have no way of

knowing how good would have been if he had been born with " normal " legs.

Even if we had a 45-46 second 400m athlete who lost their legs and subsequently

learned to run on the same carbon fibre legs, we would not be comparing like

with like. has never known any other way of walking/running, so his upper

legs are optimized in terms of compensating for the lack of lower limbs and

co-operating with his prosthetics. Perhaps that is why he is the only paralympic

athlete who is right up there with the best of the able-bodied athletes, who

knows? Fortunately/unfortunately there is not much peer data to contextualise

how exceptional he is (I don't want to wish there were more disabled athletes to

compare him to. Slippery slope.)

As a South African and huge fan of 's, something inside me finds it hard to

accept that the research indicates that he would have been a 57 second runner if

he had biological legs. Emotions aside, you will know that sprinting is a highly

complex activity that recruits so many elements of the physiology, that it must

be very hard to isolate the specific contribution of individual links in that

chain. For example, I'm sure you've had athletes on your teams over the years

who look like a million dollars: perfect physiques, height, power to weight

ratio etc, who for some reason just don't have the co-ordination to turn their

physical gifts into speed ;-)

I think the point about is that he is a unique person, in a unique

situation at a specific time in history, and that his inclusion adds interest to

the games and the chance to re-focus on the (real)Olympic spirit and to inspire

many people who might otherwise have become jaded on the topic of super-gifted

professional athletes, many of whom have abused their gifts, and the trust of

the viewing public. As a matter of interest, how conclusive is the science on

the long term advantages to drug cheats who were caught and banned and given the

chance to compete again? Can we ever truly know how much of a foundation the

drug-fuelled training laid down for them?

I would like to think that this ('s inspirational value) is what the

decision was actually based on, regardless of the scientific data. And I dare

say if he were running 40 secs flat they would have decided the other way!

All of that said, I do kind of agree with Jimson Lee, that he should choose

between the Olympics and the Paraolympics. After all, he fought so hard for the

right to mix it with the able-bodied boys. But I suppose he has a loyalty and a

duty to that community too.

By the way Ken, I'm a big fan of your articles. It's great to be able to learn

from someone with so much experience, who is constantly pushing the envelope.

Keep up the great work!

Best regards

Bense

Masters Athlete (100m 200m 400m)

London

United Kingdom

>

> Hi !

>

> 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 ( 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 †" Bundle and Weyand testified

> before the CAS that the artificial limbs of 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 Weyand and 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

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Ken!

In a message dated 7/22/2012 12:56:48 P.M. Central Daylight Time,

facilitation@... writes:

I feel I should mention that I recently saw Pistorius run in the

Prefontaine Classic. While the 'blades' may have mechanical advantage they

definitely have limitation, especially in initial acceleration

Yes. You are indeed accurate. This is what I observed when former World

Paralympic Sprint Champion Tony Volpentest came to Lisle to run on my high

school track back in 1997.

Regardless of how technically advanced his carbon fiber blades are (and

Pistorius's Cheetahs are for more advanced than Volpentest's keel bars), they

don't offer any advantage during the start and acceleration phase.

Volpentest experienced similar problems with the start. Of course,

missing his lower arms,and having to place his remaining upper arms on padded

paint cans just to start didn't help, but as Buckley once noted:

" All a (passive) prosthesis can do is return (in an elastic manner) the

energy it is able to store following foot contact. But of course, for an

amputee to benefit from this energy return, the deformation and recoil of the

prosthesis needs to occur at an optimal frequency (related to contact time).

It is difficult to imagine that this could occur for all phases of the 100m

sprint, i.e. both the acceleration and maximum speed phases. "

Volpentest ran both the 100 and 200 in Lisle. He was actually beaten in

the 100 (I had assembled an impressive field of Masters athletes to race

against him).. But the 200 was a completely different story. Once he was up

to speed, he simply blew away the same field who raced against him in the

100.

Ken Jakalski

Lisle High School

Lisle, IL USA

[Guest guest]

Hi !

Thanks for your note, and the kind comments. I retired from teaching and

coaching this June after thirty-seven years in education. The district could

not find any takers for either my cross country or track position, so it

looks like I'll be back coaching.

My interest in paralympic sprinters goes back to 1997 As I noted in

another post, former World Paralympic Sprint Champion Tony Volpentest came to

race on my high school track here in Lisle.

I once shared my observations with Mel, who was equally interested because

he believed that the way disabled athletes translate the skills of their

respective sports had the potential to tell us a great deal about the

mechanics used by able bodied athletes.

In the case of Volpentest, his remarkable achievements, considering he had

no lower arms or legs, led me to the locomotion research lab at Harvard in

an effort to explain how such an athlete could achieve some pretty amazing

times with minimal arm contribution and no feet for an active push-off in

the latter third of the stance period.

So, on to , who was eleven years old when Volpentest was racing in

his prime:

Regarding observations about his projected times, either in terms of his

advantage--or his " disadvantage had he not been racing in carbon fiber

blades--you're indeed accurate about the confusion that the calculations have

generated.

Some members of the Rice research team took exception to the point about

Pistorius having an 11.9 second advantage over 400 meters, and noted that

the number was a “back of the envelope calculation†that had never been

peer-reviewed.

The Weyand/Bundle response: " 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’s 11.9 second advantage

over a

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.â€

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. "

Hope this helps, even if just little....

Ken Jakalski

Lisle Senior High School

Lisle, IL USA

[Guest guest]

I'm not sure who is reporting what in this debate, but if the statement

attributed to Buckley is correct, it seems that he doesn't understand

how storage of elastic energy works:

" the deformation and recoil of the prosthesis needs to occur at an optimal

frequency " .

The answer is that that the deformation and recoil take place at exactly

the same pace at which one is running.

Giovanni Ciriani - West Hartford, CT - USA

On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 9:25 PM, <CoachJ1@...> wrote:

> **

>

>

> Hi Ken!

>

> In a message dated 7/22/2012 12:56:48 P.M. Central Daylight Time,

> facilitation@... writes:

>

> I feel I should mention that I recently saw Pistorius run in the

> Prefontaine Classic. While the 'blades' may have mechanical advantage they

> definitely have limitation, especially in initial acceleration

>

> Yes. You are indeed accurate. This is what I observed when former World

> Paralympic Sprint Champion Tony Volpentest came to Lisle to run on my high

> school track back in 1997.

>

> Regardless of how technically advanced his carbon fiber blades are (and

> Pistorius's Cheetahs are for more advanced than Volpentest's keel bars),

> they

> don't offer any advantage during the start and acceleration phase.

>

> Volpentest experienced similar problems with the start. Of course,

> missing his lower arms,and having to place his remaining upper arms on

> padded

> paint cans just to start didn't help, but as Buckley once noted:

>

> " All a (passive) prosthesis can do is return (in an elastic manner) the

> energy it is able to store following foot contact. But of course, for an

> amputee to benefit from this energy return, the deformation and recoil of

> the

> prosthesis needs to occur at an optimal frequency (related to contact

> time).

> It is difficult to imagine that this could occur for all phases of the

> 100m

> sprint, i.e. both the acceleration and maximum speed phases. "

>

> Volpentest ran both the 100 and 200 in Lisle. He was actually beaten in

> the 100 (I had assembled an impressive field of Masters athletes to race

> against him).. But the 200 was a completely different story. Once he was

> up

> to speed, he simply blew away the same field who raced against him in the

> 100.

>

> Ken Jakalski

> Lisle High School

>

> Lisle, IL USA

>

>

[Guest guest]

>I'm not sure who is reporting what in this debate, but if the statement

attributed to Buckley is correct, it seems that he doesn't understand

how storage of elastic energy works:

Buckley is a clinical biomechanist at the University of Bradford

Division of Medical Bradford.

Buckley wrote the following as part of his comment on the JAP

Point/Counterpoint relative to the Pistorius research:

" A runner and prosthesis comprise a mass-spring system with nearly constant

natural frequency. If the prosthesis has high stiffness, the system has a

high frequency and a short period. If it has low stiffness, the system has

a low frequency and a long period. In the first quarter period, kinetic

energy is stored as

elastic energy in the carbon fiber keel. In the second quarter period,

this elastic energy is returned as kinetic energy. Optimal contact time is

therefore one-half the natural period of the system. Ground contact time is

determined by a runner’s speed and leg compliance, with the actual contact

time matching the optimal time at only one speed. "

Cavagna also wrote a response, which supported the Weyand/Bundle position:

" At high running speeds, a large fraction of the power developed each step

during the push appears to be

sustained by elastic energy stored within muscle-tendon units during the

brake . Elastic storage and recovery is improved at high speeds by

privileging the role of tendon relative to muscle at the expense of a high

muscle

activation Replacing muscle-tendon units with a passive, inexpensive,

elastic structure may result in more efficient elastic rebound by increasing

the

power developed at low cost during the push.

At low running speeds, the step frequency f is advantageously tuned to the

resonant frequency of the bouncing system fs With increasing running

speed, f increases less than fs to contain the power spent to reset the limbs at

each step If the half period of the bouncing system is measured in Fig. 1

of

Weyand and Bundle , as the time where the vertical force exceeds body

weight, the resonant frequency fs of the bouncing system results 60% greater

than the step frequency f in the intact-limb subject and 30% greater in the

amputee.If this is confirmed by measuring f and fs at different running

speeds, the advantage of a reduced mass of the lower limb may be considered.

These two observations favor the hypothesis that artificial limbs may make

artificially fast running speeds possible, even if, as stated by Kram et

al, this hypothesis cannot be statistically proven.

Ken Jakalski

Lisle HS

Lisle, Illinois USA

[Guest guest]

Ken, thank you for the follow up (I had missed it, and found it only

now). I understand the problem better now.

I find the following explanation in principle intuitive, but more complex

than it would appear: " Optimal contact time is therefore one-half the

natural period of the system. " I will try to read the study to get a better

grasp of the problem.

In found the following presentation by Ross Tucker extremely interesting.

http://prezi.com/y0zzjdnmgson/science-of-olympics-oscar-pistorius/

Giovanni Ciriani - West Hartford, CT - USA

On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 2:16 PM, <CoachJ1@...> wrote:

> **

>

>

> >I'm not sure who is reporting what in this debate, but if the statement

> attributed to Buckley is correct, it seems that he doesn't understand

> how storage of elastic energy works:

>

> Buckley is a clinical biomechanist at the University of Bradford

> Division of Medical Bradford.

>

> Buckley wrote the following as part of his comment on the JAP

> Point/Counterpoint relative to the Pistorius research:

>

> " A runner and prosthesis comprise a mass-spring system with nearly

> constant

> natural frequency. If the prosthesis has high stiffness, the system has a

> high frequency and a short period. If it has low stiffness, the system has

> a low frequency and a long period. In the first quarter period, kinetic

> energy is stored as

> elastic energy in the carbon fiber keel. In the second quarter period,

> this elastic energy is returned as kinetic energy. Optimal contact time is

> therefore one-half the natural period of the system. Ground contact time

> is

> determined by a runner’s speed and leg compliance, with the actual contact

> time matching the optimal time at only one speed. "

>

> Cavagna also wrote a response, which supported the Weyand/Bundle position:

>

> " At high running speeds, a large fraction of the power developed each step

> during the push appears to be

> sustained by elastic energy stored within muscle-tendon units during the

> brake . Elastic storage and recovery is improved at high speeds by

> privileging the role of tendon relative to muscle at the expense of a high

> muscle

> activation Replacing muscle-tendon units with a passive, inexpensive,

> elastic structure may result in more efficient elastic rebound by

> increasing the

> power developed at low cost during the push.

>

> At low running speeds, the step frequency f is advantageously tuned to the

> resonant frequency of the bouncing system fs With increasing running

> speed, f increases less than fs to contain the power spent to reset the

> limbs at

> each step If the half period of the bouncing system is measured in Fig. 1

> of

> Weyand and Bundle , as the time where the vertical force exceeds body

> weight, the resonant frequency fs of the bouncing system results 60%

> greater

> than the step frequency f in the intact-limb subject and 30% greater in

> the

> amputee.If this is confirmed by measuring f and fs at different running

> speeds, the advantage of a reduced mass of the lower limb may be

> considered.

>

> These two observations favor the hypothesis that artificial limbs may make

> artificially fast running speeds possible, even if, as stated by Kram et

> al, this hypothesis cannot be statistically proven.

>

> Ken Jakalski

> Lisle HS

> Lisle, Illinois USA

>

>

>