OOAK Table Tennis Forum

Sorry, but I think that zeio is still trying to turn apples into oranges.

Where zeio says I say, "Only one of those issues is relevant to this discussion."

If this is an argument about "Embracing-the-Values-of-Inclusion-and-Equality", it is only as it applies to the use of equipment in a non-equipment sport. As far as I can see, this has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not Pistorius is disabled, and the quote zeio provides from the Olympic Charter demonstrates that.
Where the Charter says "without discrimination of any kind" that must apply to both able-bodied and disabled athletes equally. The rules of the sport must be applied to all participants, regardless of whether or not they are disabled.

Pistorius is a 400m runner*. This race is run exclusively in lanes and the winner of the race is judged purely upon their time for the event. The 400m is purely designed to determine who has the greatest athletic ability to run that distance on that particular day. It is expected that this will be done without any material advantage other than the runner's spikes (leaving aside questions about Cathy Freeman's body suit in Sydney 2000) - that is, no performance enhancing drugs, no men in the women's event, no artificial breathing apparatus, no rocket boots.

All of the athletes in the 400m will be expected to perform on the same basis. There will be no "discrimination of any kind". Oscar Pistorius will be subject to exactly the same requirements as all the other runners. That is what is meant by "fair play".

zeio's quotes about "London 2012 highlighting the right to sport for all" and "Breaking down stereotypes and bringing equality" - as significant as they may be on the subject of inclusion - are not relevant to this discussion. Focussing exclusively on the fact that Pistorius is a double amputee goes against the very things that zeio is trying to support. Focussing on Pistorius's disabilities is failing "to see individuals with disabilities from the perspective of inclusion and equality". Focussing on the inclusion issue means coming at it "from the perspective of pity and charity" which is the very thing we don't want to do.


* Please note, I did not say he is a "disabled 400m runner".

_________________
"So long, and thanks for all the fish
So sad that it should come to this" Sung by the dolphins in The hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy

Sorry, Tassie52. I will have to ask you to get your facts right first. Who was the perpetrator here? Who introduced the apples and the oranges? Who was first to compare the world record of wheelchair runners to that of able-bodied runners? And just because of that it is supposed that everyone would agree it changes the sport when those wearing prostheses compete against the able-bodied?

I see this in table tennis as well. At the club I play there is a handful of members who simply can't shake off the idea that long-pips are strictly for those who are inferior in skills. To them double-inverted is the "only" way the game is meant to be played. Anything else changes the game. Anytime they lose, the first excuse you hear is nothing but cheating. They show no intention of understanding the way long-pips work, let alone how to play them. From time to time, some netizens of the Chinese forum Ping Pong Homeland post videos of a renowned or notorious long-pips player against double-inverted players or single-sided penholders. Shallow comments and even racial slurs will inevitably crop up within minutes that center around bashing and demonizing the long-pips.

See the connection here?

_________________
BTY Viscaria - 91g
+ Neo H3 2.15 Blk - 44.5g(55.3g uncut bare)
+ Hexer HD 2.1 Red - 49.3g(68.5g 〃 〃)
= 184.8g

Guilty as charged, I now formally sign out of this discussion.

_________________
My blog of failures, etc., also containing ...
equipment list at "resurrection" (referred to in a few of my early posts), and ...
my current lineup

First, let's clear up the apples and oranges issue. Back on 9 July, I wrote:

There it is, spelt out in simple, black and white terms: "apples" = "the nature of sport"; oranges = "social inclusion".

These are not the same thing. Arguing one is not the same as arguing the other.

When shaolinTT asked "Should a double amputee be allowed to run in the Olympics?", we had a choice to make: were we going to argue about prejudice, disadvantage, stereotyping, marginalising of disabled athletes, or were we going to discuss whether or not Pistorius's inclusion was fair? If you look back over the entire thread, you will find a small number of responses that want to talk about "oranges", e.g. the very first comment: This says nothing about the "fairness" or otherwise of Pistorius competing, but is purely negative because Pistorius is "different."

But (and it is a massive but) nearly every other comment focusses upon the "apples" issue: do the blades give an advantage or not, because that is about the fairness or otherwise of including Pistorius. Once it's been determined that it is "fair" then everyone seems perfectly happy to see him run alongside the other able-bodied athletes.

When comparing " the world record of wheelchair runners to that of able-bodied runners" was introduced into the thread it was all about "apples" - the comment was focussing upon the question of mechanical advantage and using wheelchair runners as an explicit example of equipment making a competition between disabled and able-bodied athletes unfair. That was (and still is) a valid point to raise. Since that comment was made, the general consensus seems to be that Pistorius has no mechanical advantage and therefore, as I put it in my last post, 'All of the athletes in the 400m will be expected to perform on the same basis. There will be no "discrimination of any kind". Oscar Pistorius will be subject to exactly the same requirements as all the other runners. That is what is meant by "fair play".'

That is all part of what I call an "apples" discussion.

Then zeio introduces this:This is a return to the "oranges" discussion and it is irrelevant to what we are talking about. zeio is discussing the use of equipment in an equipment oriented sport, and the prejudice that some morons have against long pips. The fact that there are morons who hate pips has nothing to do with our general agreement that it is okay for Pistorius to run in the Olympics.

Quite frankly, if someone wants to start a separate thread all about the efforts of international sporting bodies to overcome discrimination, then please do so. I'm very happy to talk about "oranges" in an "oranges" thread.

_________________
"So long, and thanks for all the fish
So sad that it should come to this" Sung by the dolphins in The hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy

How you can so readily sever the relationship between the two is beyond me.







Given the IAAF has admitted that track and field is in one way equipment-oriented, please tell me how Pistorius's treatment is any different from that of long pips by the general public?

_________________
BTY Viscaria - 91g
+ Neo H3 2.15 Blk - 44.5g(55.3g uncut bare)
+ Hexer HD 2.1 Red - 49.3g(68.5g 〃 〃)
= 184.8g

Okay, some absolutely fascinating reading in the Booher article - lots of interesting thoughts on how we define who is able-bodied, who is disabled, and even “super-abled”, and it is this last one in particular which is relevant to the discussion in this thread. The larger point which Booher is driving at is to do with who defines. The “how” and the “who” tap into the two strands of our conversation: the “how” directly impacts on the whole question of fair play. For example, if Pistorius is defined as “super-abled” because his flex-legs give him a definable and clear advantage then fair play is compromised, but if his prosthetics give him “normal” capabilities then competing shouldn’t be an issue.

Of course, “who” defines Pistorius is a major issue. Given our level of paranoia about allowing institutions such as the IAAF (or, in our situation, the ITTF) to define what is “normal” then clear and rational processes are ultra-important. While zeio’s concern is that the “how” is very much linked to the “who”, there is a case to be made (and Booher touches on this) that the “how” is still critical in the Pistorius case and, indeed, whenever athletes come to compete against one another. Given the “development and use of performance enhancing drugs [and] assistive technologies such as prosthetics... Certainly, it is reasonable for the IAAF to set rules and boundaries for fair competition”. At every level, decisions will have to be made on what is “fair” and that fairness will always be determined by some definition of what is “normal”. *

But there is a bottom line to Booher’s article and I find it entirely supportive of my approach to the question asked in this thread. For me, the crucial bit comes in her final paragraph. Here she says:
So “malleable, contextual, kairotic” have to be applied to the definition of Pistorius when it comes to the fairness of him competing. If we can demonstrate that his case has been successfully “localized” then we can be confident that the anxieties around prejudice and discrimination have been addressed. In this instance, we can see that the appeal process has wrestled with the definition of Pistorius: changing understandings of his abilities demonstrate malleability, and the examination of his case in both Olympic and Paralympic settings reveal the contextual nature of the ruling.

Finally, and for me most importantly, the kairotic nature of the success of Pistorius’s appeal reinforces the points I’ve made earlier: when equipment becomes the focus of a non-equipment sport, then constant assessment of that equipment has to be undertaken with a high level of rigour. Sentiment is fine, but all athletes - abled, disabled, super-abled - have to participate without any discrimination. Ultimately, as much as we may dislike it, governing bodies have the responsibility for determining what constitutes the standards for participation, and that judgment must also necessarily include examination of an individual athlete’s fitness to participate.



* While I like much of Booher’s analysis of the Court for Arbitration in Sport’s appeal, it’s interesting to note the degree to which she too is partial in her critique - there is some very sloppy language in phrases such as “runners are awash in technologies” - and this somewhat compromises her ability to present an impartial picture of what is going on. (And, revealing my own biases, I guess that is to be expected from a writer whose starting point is Foucault.)

_________________
"So long, and thanks for all the fish
So sad that it should come to this" Sung by the dolphins in The hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy

When I started this thread, I did not expect that much interest and response. We have had some very interesting (and lengthy) discussions. It is OK to have different opinions. It is OK to have disagreements (just like I always think penhold is the superior grip ).
Anyway, lets turn our attention to the upcoming Olympics games. It will be exciting !

_________________
YEO CPen / 729-2 Sensor / Focus III snipe

I suppose you mean "exciting to watch Pistorius run".

_________________
"So long, and thanks for all the fish
So sad that it should come to this" Sung by the dolphins in The hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy

And Oscar Pisotrius is through to the semi-finals! How far can he go?

_________________
"So long, and thanks for all the fish
So sad that it should come to this" Sung by the dolphins in The hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy

Pistorius will run now... and he finishes in last, at 46.54, over a second slower than his first round time, but still it is awesome too see him run

_________________
OOAK Equipment Review Index
Blade: Donic Waldner Senso Ultra Carbon
FH: Rakza 7 Soft
FH: Curl P-1R