When you look at Oscar’s time compared to other people competing he is winning by a good few seconds. If you compare his time to those in the Olympic Games he would not have even placed. Some might say that how much he is ahead in the Paralympics could be down to being a natural athlete and that he could be better if he was not on the blades. But when you look at it from a different perspective maybe he needs the competition to push him to be faster which he is not getting in the Paralympics. It is a very hard decision to be made because it is hard to monitor whether he is good due to an advantage the blades give him or if he is just good down to his natural ability while the blades just give him the opportunity to use his talent.
Why should Oscar be allowed to compete in able-bodied competitions when able-bodied athletes cannot compete in the Paralympics? If Pistorius is said to have an advantage over other athletics that do not use blades then why can they not compete in the same competitions as him. It is like saying should women and men compete against each other. If a man wants to compete in a woman’s race but is running slower than the top 7 finalists should he be allowed to compete even though men are said to be faster than women. Does this mean he would have an advantage even though his time says otherwise? This is similar to Oscar’s case. His time says he would not place in the top 7 but yet he is said to somehow have an advantage. If Oscar can compete in the Olympics and the Paralympics this is giving him more opportunity to compete but the same does not apply to someone that does not have a disability. They can only compete in the Olympics so how would that be fair. There is competition out there for everybody to compete in so Pistorius does not miss out if he does not get to compete in the Olympics.
Another way to look at it is some events exist in the Paralympics that do not exist in the Olympics. This means that people competing in those events cannot get extra competition like those whose events cross over in both games. Is it fair that they miss out just because able-bodied athletes do not compete in these events? The competitions could just be made into one so that there are not two different sporting events. If this was the case then people could compete in their own category but still be competing in the same games. This way there would be no Paralympics or Olympics it would all just be the one thing. That could be the solution to anyone like Oscar wanting to compete in the Olympics. It would be the Olympics but he would be competing against people who are also using blades.
Let’s take a look at what might be the pros and cons with keeping them separate or putting them together. Firstly, the pros of keeping them separate are as follows. The length of the games will not be too long, so the broadcasting will not be on for ages which will keep peoples interest. There will be fewer events over shadowed by other events because of them running at the same time. There will be more people able to come and see the events. If the events run at different times then more people can go to the events because there is double to time to go. Some of the cons of keeping them separate are as follows. The Olympics are hosted first so by the time it comes around to the Paralympics people who are not sport fans tend to not watch. They have to spend more money on two opening and closing ceremonies. Some events in the Paralympics do not get as much spectators as the Olympics. If they were together there would be more people there.
The pros of putting them together are as follows. There will be less cost on running two separate events running. There is not a difference put on people. Everyone will be seen as the same by competing in the same event as others. Athletes will not feel like they need to compete in able-bodied sporting events because they will all be the one sporting event. They may find it easier to get volunteers because they do not need it for two separate events. Cons of making them together are as follows. The length of the games may be too long. More money may need to be spent on housing for the athletes because there would be more there at one time. Some events may become over shadowed by other events. Some athletes may like the events being separate.
Even with these pros and cons many people may have many more for either argument. The best way that this decision can be made is by talking to the athletes and everyone involved in the events. This way it will be easier to decide which would work best or keep those competing happier. As of the London 2012 Olympics Oscar was the first amputee to compete in the Olympic Games. Maybe other athletes do not care that the games are separate or some people may just not want to go through the hassle of fighting to be allowed to compete in the Olympics. In the end everyone should be given the same opportunities so does it matter that there are different games. The only way to really find that out is to ask people and ask the athletes. Then once they have done that they could decide what to do from there. This would be the stepping stone to allow athletes like Oscar compete in the Olympic Games without having to go through 5 years to get to compete in one competition. In the end it should be the athletes that vote and get to put their opinions in on what should happen because it will be them competing at the end of the day.
Author - Hannah Mahon
4th Year Recreation and Sport Management Student - WIT